the neoliberal vision of the future

[WorkersUnite]

The ones I asked you for 3 days ago.

Care to refresh my memory? You should come with references since you want to conduct violence and decide over everyone's life. You need to come up with more than swear words and feelings.

What the fuck are you on about? Are you drunk?

Njet. But maybe you are Since you say "fuck" all the time.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fuck me, you're a cunt, WU.

 

[Blagsta]

Care to refresh my memory? You should come with references since you want to conduct violence and decide over everyone's life. You need to come up with more than swear words and feelings.



Njet. But maybe you are Since you say "fuck" all the time.

That's a no then.

 

[sihhi]

A vast and growing number of people think as he does. It must be in the Zeitgeist.

Pro-free market, pro-open borders libertarians who want no regulations on companies are vast and growing?

Hmm...

 

[phildwyer]

Pro-free market, pro-open borders libertarians who want no regulations on companies are vast and growing?

Depends where you are. I'm (mostly) in the USA.

 

[audiotech]

To bring this back to the original topic under discussion. The bottom line (scuse the pun) is that an ethical, non-exploitative and socially just capitalism that is for the benefit of all is impossible. It contradicts the very nature of what capital is about.

 

[TruXta]

So phyllis, do demonstrate how it is true that ideas determine the physical structure of the brain.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So phyllis, do demonstrate how it is true that ideas determine the physical structure of the brain.

It's the age-old problem of the dualist. How does the immaterial affect the material? Not only has no mechanism for this ever been found, but no need for it has ever been found either when explaining material phenomena.

 

[onarchy]

Can you give sources for the other things you have asserted? You'll note everyone else does it, so you could return the courtesy.

Thanks

Fair enough. My main source is the socalled London School of Differential Psychology, which includes people like Galton, Spearman, Lynn, Jensen, Brand and Rushton. I've also read a lot of criticism of their work to see if anything stacks up, but most of it is rather simplistic.

 

[WorkersUnite]

That's a no then.

Wow I am well scared now I guess it's a no from you then. You don't need to come with any data simply because you represent the majority, and that your "arguments" just ends in a gunpoint.

The references here to objective facts about economic freedom and benefits for poor people because of that are overwhelming. Just bother to use some calories on other's work and read the thread and you'll see.

But since you are too lazy / can't bring up any references, then I will:
http://wiki.fredsbevegelsen.no/Økonomisk_frihet This has been posted before as well. You can show me HARD FACTS that proves the opposite. Go on! Play with it! References are cited there, and they are also cited on Heritage.

And try to control your feelings this time.

 

[WorkersUnite]

Fuck me, you're a cunt, WU.

LOL and so are you, especially since you want to take ownership in my life without saying "please".

 

[onarchy]

Yes he is! Onarchy has shown repeatedly that he doesn't understand how evolution works.

Then again, so have you.

In what sense have I "shown" this?

 

[TruXta]

Fair enough. My main source is the socalled London School of Differential Psychology, which includes people like Galton, Spearman, Lynn, Jensen, Brand and Rushton. I've also read a lot of criticism of their work to see if anything stacks up, but most of it is rather simplistic.

Except the bits that disprove g I take it.

 

[Blagsta]

Fair enough. My main source is the socalled London School of Differential Psychology, which includes people like Galton, Spearman, Lynn, Jensen, Brand and Rushton. I've also read a lot of criticism of their work to see if anything stacks up, but most of it is rather simplistic.

"Scientific" racists then.

What a surprise.

 

[phildwyer]

So phyllis, do demonstrate how it is true that ideas determine the physical structure of the brain.

Do you deny that the physical structure of the brain changes when you have an idea?

 

[TruXta]

Do you deny that the physical structure of the brain changes when you have an idea?

One doesn't have ideas in this sense.

 

[nino_savatte]

<rubs eyes in disbelief> Did onarchy just mention [Francis] Galton?

 

[Blagsta]

<rubs eyes in disbelief> Did onarchy just mention [Francis] Galton?

indeed

 

[onarchy]

So does this support what Onar was saying above? Sadly, no. Onar wanted to breath some life into discredited polygenist theories of human origins, and he wanted to do this in order to bolster the idea that the human species can be categorised into distinct 'races' each of which has lesser or greater cognitive endowments.

Waaait a minute. Talk about reading things into what people say! Jeez. 1) the pure polygonist theory of human origins cannot explain the genetic hierarchical patterning tracing back to Africa. The only thing I suggested is that IF Neanderthals could interbreed with homo sapiens, then there is no reason other races couldn't have interbreeded as well. 2) Where on EARTH did you get the idea that this was something that I am "pushing" to "bolster" the idea that we can divide humans into distinct races with different cognitive endowments? In what sense does interbreeding with neanderthals and possibly homo erectus support this idea?

By throwing the neanderthals and homo erectus into the debate he's implying that the 'European' and 'Asian' races possess a greater cognitive endowment (i.e. more intelligence) than the 'African' race because of some infusion of traits taken into the populations of those continents after their ancestors diffused out from Africa and intermarried with local populations.

Where on earth did you get that fantasy from? All we know about Homo Erectus suggests it had smaller brains than modern humans, and Neanderthals, well, they were exterminated by homo sapiens. One should think that if they were superior in intelligence that they would be able to keep themselves alive.

 

[phildwyer]

One doesn't have ideas in this sense.

Yes one does. But in any case you must accept that non-material experiences alter the physical structure of the brain. When you fall in love, for example, your brain chemistry alters.

Oh wait, don't tell me: one doesn't "fall in love" in that sense...

 

[Dillinger4]

Kantsaywhere

 

[Blagsta]

Waaait a minute. Talk about reading things into what people say! Jeez. 1) the pure polygonist theory of human origins cannot explain the genetic hierarchical patterning tracing back to Africa. The only thing I suggested is that IF Neanderthals could interbreed with homo sapiens, then there is no reason other races couldn't have interbreeded as well. 2) Where on EARTH did you get the idea that this was something that I am "pushing" to "bolster" the idea that we can divide humans into distinct races with different cognitive endowments? In what sense does interbreeding with neanderthals and possibly homo erectus support this idea?



Where on earth did you get that fantasy from? All we know about Homo Erectus suggests it had smaller brains than modern humans, and Neanderthals, well, they were exterminated by homo sapiens. One should think that if they were superior in intelligence that they would be able to keep themselves alive.

Do you have any sources that aren't from discredited racist "schools"?

 

[TruXta]

Yes one does. But in any case you must accept that non-material experiences alter the physical structure of the brain. When you fall in love, for example, your brain chemistry alters.

Oh wait, don't tell me: one doesn't "fall in love" in that sense...

I don't admit anything strictly speaking non-material in causal explanations. Love is not non-material, quite the contrary.

 

[frogwoman]

ugh.

 

[onarchy]

"Scientific" racists then.

What a surprise.

You define a racist as someone who thinks that intelligence is a trait of the brain. Now, could you please tell me how YOU would react if you were presented with incontrovertible evidence that indeed IQ is biologically based and heritable and that there exists group variations? Would you instantly become a nazi? It is really interesting to hear what you think about this. Clearly you think *I* am a racist because I judge the evidence to strongly support the notion of a biologically founded intelligence, despite the fact that I draw no racist conclusions from this and do not racially discriminate. I.e. you're branding me as a racist for my evaluation of scientific data. So I am asking you: would YOU become a racist if you were to see incontrovertible evidence for the biological basis of intelligence?

 

[nino_savatte]

IQ is a red herring but a convenient red herring for Social Darwinists, scientific racists and cultural relativists.

 

[phildwyer]

I don't admit anything strictly speaking non-material in causal explanations. Love is not non-material, quite the contrary.

Your way of thinking leads directly to Onarchy.

 

[frogwoman]

You define a racist as someone who thinks that intelligence is a trait of the brain. Now, could you please tell me how YOU would react if you were presented with incontrovertible evidence that indeed IQ is biologically based and heritable and that there exists group variations? Would you instantly become a nazi? It is really interesting to hear what you think about this. Clearly you think *I* am a racist because I judge the evidence to strongly support the notion of a biologically founded intelligence, despite the fact that I draw no racist conclusions from this and do not racially discriminate. I.e. you're branding me as a racist for my evaluation of scientific data. So I am asking you: would YOU become a racist if you were to see incontrovertible evidence for the biological basis of intelligence?

I wouldn't care. Maybe this evidence already exists. It does not change anything.

 

[nino_savatte]

I keep thinking of Rachamim 18's "cranial dimensions" argument.

 

[frogwoman]

Yep. There are advantages to not thinking of human beings as just collections of chemicals. It makes views like onan's a lot less easier to stomach for a start.