Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

"Is Man Just Another Animal?" Professor Steve Jones says...

littlebabyjesus said:
This is nonsense. Your first response to dlr on the other thread is to call him denny le twat. You have history of being obnoxious and getting in there first.
Click to expand...

But in Gorski's book disagreeing with him is abuse so he's allowed. Or as we're all a social Darwinist group think who hate Gorski because of our anti-intellectual tendencies, so if one ogf us is rude then he's allowed to have a go back at any of us.

Fuck knows how his mind works really. To be absolutely ruined in a debate like he has been here and yet to still pop his head up and declare that he is really the winner and the only one who understands the question. I think he's sincere. If trolling can only be defined by intent then he doesn't qualify. But if trolling is defined by effect he's one of the most successful trolls we've ever had.
 
Johnny Canuck3 said:
I've been here a long time. I think it's fair to say that at various points in the past, Butchers and co. and I have not merely mutually 'poked'; we've gone at each other with nail-studded cudgels.
Click to expand...

:D :D :D Now, that made me smile - widely!!! :D :D :D

Johnny Canuck3 said:
I'm not interested anymore in war with them or you. I asked you the question because I thought that as an intellectual, you might find it interesting; challenging even - and because you would probably try to answer it, as opposed to responding with 'fuck you twat', or somesuch.
Click to expand...

I never start with that! Period! I never did and I never will! For as long as the interlocutor is decent - so am I. At least I try. Genuinely! Maybe I make an occasional mistake but when I realise it - I do apologise! But I never start that on purpose, not unless I am attacked!

bubblesmcgrath said:
Gorski...but ... you say that Scandinavians are non confrontational ..?
Scandinavian ancestry was extremely aggressive, warlike and confrontational...The mark of the Vikings was made on most of Britain and Ireland. So much so that people still talk about it in whispered tones.....:D
I think the Scottish mainland was the only neighbour left relatively unaffected....
Click to expand...

I lived in Sweden for 3 years. Once I encountered a fellah wearing a t-shirt like "Black Sabath World tour", with places and dates they were there, only this time it said "Vikings, World Tour"

61uZZGhkb8L._SL1000_.jpg


Their past, however, is one thing. Their present is radically different. Within 70 or so years of their pre-Keynesian project they went from a semi-feudal, backwards little country to a richest place on Earth, advanced in just about every way imaginable...

bubblesmcgrath said:
People argue...and even you do. It's human nature or maybe it's animal nature. You come across as wanting to win an argument.....whether you mean to or not.... Isn't that on the same page or perhaps in the same chapter as "confrontation"?
Click to expand...


No, it is not "animal nature", the way we do it. But if you take what you know and use those goggles to "observe" nature - you will find your country's current relations there, too... (See Marx's criticism of Darwin, for instance.)

bubblesmcgrath said:
As for Terry Pratchett, I think you would really enjoy his books. ;)
Click to expand...

Perhaps I would enjoy his books but I am pressed with time, these days. I am trying to understand various points of view on autism spectrum disorder ("Thinking in pictures" by Temple Grandin, for instance).

Knotted said:
Gorski you're doing it again with "social Darwinism". An utterly absurd accusation around here. You've got to stop assuming you know what people are thinking/saying while ignoring what they actually say.
Click to expand...

Easy now. I do not assume, I know what I see. Not like I just appeared here - been in the UK for a long time now, thanx very much for your benevolent, if somewhat patronising trolling... :rolleyes: :D

Knotted said:
He's not trolling. He's genuine and honest.
Click to expand...

I thank you, Sir. :)

Finally something straight forward from you, not some kind of convoluted attempt at mildly humorous and entertaining trolling... :p

littlebabyjesus said:
I also don't think he's trolling. But he does very badly misunderstand the positions many others are taking, mine for instance
Click to expand...

Thanx for the former. As for the latter: maybe. There is always this possibility, in all things Human. We can and we do miss, frequently. However, there is also this possibility that I understand you better than you ever will...

littlebabyjesus said:
As danny says, the idea that a single one of us on this thread or the last one is a social Darwinist is so far wide of the mark that I have to doubt whether gorski knows what a social Darwinist is. If anything, he's the one who's been treading a fine line in that regard with his talk of human potential and some not reaching it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Now you demonstrate, as per usual, that you just can not understand my (philosophical) position that differs fundamentally from yours. ;)
 
Spymaster said:
Why are you lot bothering with this fella?

He's selectively answering the posts that suit his agenda and studiously avoiding the tricky ones from DLR and one or two others. It's so obviously a troll and you're taking it hook line and sinker! :facepalm:

Stick him on ignore and have the debate between each other!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be some debate. More like you and your ild would be wanking each other off. Well, you are deffo up for it, you moron!

littlebabyjesus said:
This is nonsense. Your first response to dlr on the other thread is to call him denny le twat. You have history of being obnoxious and getting in there first.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! A bloody lie!!! Truxta starts it, I respond! Look at JimW and similar "contributions". Appalling!! And so on and on and on.

What you ignore is the fact that this shit didn't start in this thread, either. And even if you didn't see any other threads, by some eejuts' "contributions" you could have concluded that if they come in vomiting hatred and whatever else before I said anything to them - it must have started elsewhere, before this thread.

I just went through the whole thread again and I can't find the reference to Danny. Either way, if I mistook some of his contributions - I apologise! But I bet I reacted to something he said. I may have made a mistake, that is always a possibility and IF I did - sorry! However, one must take into consideration our previous encounters. But oh no, LBJ has it all figured out...

maomao said:
But in Gorski's book disagreeing with him is abuse so he's allowed. Or as we're all a social Darwinist group think who hate Gorski because of our anti-intellectual tendencies, so if one ogf us is rude then he's allowed to have a go back at any of us.

Fuck knows how his mind works really. To be absolutely ruined in a debate like he has been here and yet to still pop his head up and declare that he is really the winner and the only one who understands the question.
Click to expand...

:eek:Fuck, what a moron! No one, you included, actually answered a single thing I posted here, a single thing of any real philosophical relevance. So, fuck off, because you came in with abuse and BS! You simply do not qualify to say anything on the subject or person!

You - with that kind of attitude - certainly will never know "how my mind works". Too dumb and too wrapped up in your important little self, so why would you ever consider a different approach to anything...:hmm:

maomao said:
I think he's sincere. If trolling can only be defined by intent then he doesn't qualify. But if trolling is defined by effect he's one of the most successful trolls we've ever had.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I think... for the first part, that is. For the other - yayks! :facepalm:
 
gorski said:
Thank you, I think... for the first part, that is. For the other - yayks! :facepalm:
Click to expand...
Yayks indeed. You've lost the argument so badly people have stopped discussing whether your ideas (what ideas?) have any merit and have started discussing whether you're foolish enough to really believe the shit you're spouting or are just trying to wind people up. Really, that's what's happened.
 
For you. Learn to speak in your own name, twat! I think every single thinking person has had enough of populists trying to speak in everybody else's name!!!

Now, go away, there's a good lad, taking his shit with him to somebody else's thread and "contributing" in such a wonderful spirit elsewhere...

Ciao!
 
gorski said:
For you. Learn to speak in your own name, twat! I think every single thinking person has had enough of populists trying to speak in everybody else's name!!!

Now, go away, there's a good lad, taking his shit with him to somebody else's thread and "contributing" in such a wonderful spirit elsewhere...

Ciao!
Click to expand...
Okay. Who agrees with you on this thread or the last thread or is even close to your position? I'm just calling it as it happened. Your behaviour is so unreasonable people are unsure whether you really are that rude and stupid or just pretending to be so for a laugh. That is really happening.
 
gorski said:
You have no clue about a clue, MM! So, please, go away!
Click to expand...
define social Darwinism for me. Just one sentence will do. (let us say for sake of argument that I'm familiar with the theory of evolution and know what 'darwinism' is taken to mean, but have never before come across the notion of 'social darwinism')
 
gorski said:
One of us certainly doesn't. And I know which one.
Click to expand...
Before this all gets tangled up in you-said-I-said, can we clarify one thing please? Are you saying there are people posting from a Social Darwinist position on this thread?
 
gorski said:
You have no clue about a clue, MM! So, please, go away!
Click to expand...
When are you going to answer my question about the benefit of viewing ourselves as distinct from other animals?
Also, if we're not animals, what are we?
Plants, protozoa, fungi, chromista, archezoa, rhizarea, chromalveolata, excavata or proteoarchaeota?
 
Last edited:
maomao said:
No. I shan't. It's a public forum and at the moment there is nothing more amusing than you happening on it.
Click to expand...

Oi, moron, we are stupid enough to not know it's a public forum, eh?

GO AWAY! You and your ilk are not wanted in this thread, thanx a bunch!

LBJ, here is a good tool: DuckDuckGo - try with "critique of" as you may get more interesting results...

Yes, Danny, I already demonstrated to a few posters that they have no clue what they are saying and yes, they are not aware of the ideology behind their "beliefs"...
 
gorski said:
LBJ, here is a good tool: DuckDuckGo - try with "critique of" as you may get more interesting results...
.
Click to expand...
No, I very specifically want you to give me a definition in your own words. I'm happy that I understand the concept. I don't think you do. Since you brought it up, it is incumbent upon you to be clear how you're defining your terms.
 
maomao said:
I'm pretty sure when he says Social Darwinism he means Evolutionary Psychology.
Click to expand...
Given how much crap passes for science under the title 'evo psych', I wouldn't be too happy with that either. :D But to be called a social darwinist is something else entirely. I'm pretty sure gorski does not realise this.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Given how much crap passes for science under the title 'evo psych', I wouldn't be too happy with that either. :D But to be called a social darwinist is something else entirely. I'm pretty sure gorski does not realise this.
Click to expand...
But at least Ev Psych is an actual scientific position rather than Social Darwinism which is just a label for people we disagree with.
 
While we wait for gorski's return, Hilary and Steven Rose's book Alas poor Darwin is a very good place to start when looking for criticisms of evolutionary psychology. It's a few years old now, but still contains valuable insights from a range of povs, including great points from sociologists.
 
"Within 70 or so years of their pre-Keynesian project they went from a semi-feudal, backwards little country to a richest place on Earth, advanced in just about every way imaginable..."

gorski... you write this ^^^^

However, if you really look at what made Scandinavia great, in recent times.you'll find it was technology. IT.. Mobile phone tech...and oil and gas....
They are not traditionally farmers...
....and it wasn't fishing that make them rich...not this past 50 years anyway.
They did have and still have a great culture of sharing produce with each other...and the harsh weather has been a huge factor in their sharing culture and society.

Spent some time in Finland and Sweden between 1996 and 2000....I didn't live there but I was there often enough to be impressed with their culture and society..... but I was very freaked out about other things in their recent past. Namely, the
enforced sterilisation of thousands of people. Up to relatively recently too...
60,000 women sterilised in Sweden alone. This practice was all across Scandinavia.
Eugenics in other words...and it only ceased in 1975.
That's not something they are proud of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

steveo87
Is it possible to change an atom by physically adding or taking away electrons?
Replies
23
Views
636
steveo87
steveo87
StoneRoad
URGENT [Another] petition to protect Bees from neonictiniods / pesticides
Replies
3
Views
279
bcuster
bcuster
Sasaferrato
Is there a physicist or possibly chemist in the house.
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
kabbes
kabbes
Nylock
Well, this isn't good: The north Atlantic current may shut down as soon as 2025...
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Nylock
Nylock
H
Two-dimensional polymer helps create a new lightweight material that is stronger than steel
Replies
1
Views
330
weltweit
weltweit
Back
Top Bottom