This is a reply to Kapkao thread "Why Socialism fails"

Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
This is a reply to Kapkao thread "Why Socialism fails"

  Why Socialism ? by Albert Einstein at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm , I'm going to try to post the piece here - forget it,it don't work.


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Chomsky rightly addressed this

    It's funny,today I just received "Profit Over People:neoliberalism and global order" by Noam Chomsky, from amazon books.I just briefed through it,it's mainly about the new form of liberalism,its pro corporate system of economic and political policies, that is waging a form of class war worldwide. 

Signature ? How ?


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
im surprised so many

im surprised so many atheists are liberals really

for people who exalt reason it strikes me as odd

govt is force, not reason


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:darth_josh

Kapkao wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

I'm not the individual that said it wasn't about class warfare. Replies must be running together for you.

Except that you said...

Quote:
Just remember, any time you throw the words 'money', 'currency', 'rich', or 'poor' into your argument then you fail to address anything other than your own projections onto the concept.

So, either you're projecting on the "argument", or you're projecting on to the argument.

To me, frankly, it distinctly appears that every time you click on "new reply" in this thread, you shift the goalposts of this discussion around just enough to satisfy your own sentiments in political debate. How droll...

Ummm. Yes. I think that's how we have discussions. i.e. by expressing our own sentiments.

 

Kapkao wrote:
(Of course, it's also droll that I keep coming back to this thread even though I said I was done with it about 15 posts ago... )

Ditto. Me too. lol.

kapkao wrote:

Quote:
Simply declaring that 'you' don't view that as a valid reason isn't enough of an argument to dissuade proponents from using it.

Thanks. This statement now officially goes both ways since, of course, consistency doesn't appear to be one of your innate talents.

And now this thread has further devolved into partisan politics with the above post. Cute...

Of course, just not two-partisan politics, but multi-partisan politics. I always thought that was a good thing.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I think the biggest fail

I think the biggest fail about capitalism is the fact that huge companies can influence our politics, in more ways than one. They can directly effect politics and the economy and they can effect the politicians themselves which can have other effects on ..everything. Lots of special effects.

Capitalism with regulation, but who is doing the regulating?

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I think the

robj101 wrote:

I think the biggest fail about capitalism is the fact that huge companies can influence our politics, in more ways than one. They can directly effect politics and the economy and they can effect the politicians themselves which can have other effects on ..everything. Lots of special effects.

Capitalism with regulation, but who is doing the regulating?

 

 

you're talking about corporatism, not capitalism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3995
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Capitalism

robj101 wrote:

Capitalism with regulation, but who is doing the regulating?

 

The same people the socialists and communists want to run everything.

Essentially this their argument, the goverment runs an education system that produces a large percentage of people without a marketable job skill. It fails to stop polluters, corporate crooks, stop illegal immigration, control population growth, etc... So let's put government in charge of everything. I believe they fit the definition of insane.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:robj101

EXC wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Capitalism with regulation, but who is doing the regulating?

 

The same people the socialists and communists want to run everything.

Essentially this their argument, the goverment runs an education system that produces a large percentage of people without a marketable job skill. It fails to stop polluters, corporate crooks, stop illegal immigration, control population growth, etc... So let's put government in charge of everything. I believe they fit the definition of insane.

 

 

they deliver the mail well....

 

oh wait, they dont do that either


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:robj101

atomicdogg34 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I think the biggest fail about capitalism is the fact that huge companies can influence our politics, in more ways than one. They can directly effect politics and the economy and they can effect the politicians themselves which can have other effects on ..everything. Lots of special effects.

Capitalism with regulation, but who is doing the regulating?

 

 

you're talking about corporatism, not capitalism

I just mentioned it because I think that's what capitalism will lead too..as it already is leading up too here. As a manager of a small business I see how big companies are pushing out the small ones and I think the biggest of those are pushing out the ones in the middle. A company that can afford to buy truckloads of tires can get them cheaper than I can therefore they can sell them cheaper. The only reason the store I am managing is still afloat is because of customer service and some customer loyalty.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:atomicdogg34

robj101 wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I think the biggest fail about capitalism is the fact that huge companies can influence our politics, in more ways than one. They can directly effect politics and the economy and they can effect the politicians themselves which can have other effects on ..everything. Lots of special effects.

Capitalism with regulation, but who is doing the regulating?

 

 

you're talking about corporatism, not capitalism

I just mentioned it because I think that's what capitalism will lead too..as it already is leading up too here. As a manager of a small business I see how big companies are pushing out the small ones and I think the biggest of those are pushing out the ones in the middle. A company that can afford to buy truckloads of tires can get them cheaper than I can therefore they can sell them cheaper. The only reason the store I am managing is still afloat is because of customer service and some customer loyalty.

 

 

well corporatism is ultimately because of govt, not business, the govt doesnt follow the rules, interferes in the market and gives into big business, want to end corporatism than vote in people who actually give a fuck and know what they are doing

 

your tire example isnt an example of corporatism, though your company may not benefit from such a scenario, the consumer does

you got good customer service and loyalty, you just need to find areas where you can make economies of scale, lower your costs and become more efficient, as long as your making a good profit than your in good shape

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
One guy died and went

One guy died and went directly to torturous depths of Hell.
When he arrived to infernal gate, he was asked by a devil:
"Hey you sinner, do you wanna go to socialistic or capitalistic hell?"
"I don't know, what's happening in socialistic hell?" the sinner replied.
"They take big nails and hammer, they nail you down on the road and then they drive a huge asphalt-rolling bulldozer over you, back and forth, all day long."
"Whoa, that's terrible, what about the capitalistic hell?" the guy asked.
"They take big nails and hammer, they nail you down on the road and then they drive a huge asphalt-rolling bulldozer over you, back and forth, all day long."
"But that's the same thing, what's the difference?" the guy asked.
"Well, none," the devil replied. "But I'd still recommend you the socialistic hell."
"Why's that?"
"You know, because in socialistic hell one day nails are missing, the other day hammer is lost, another day they're out of petrol for the bulldozer... As long as I work there I really don't remember they'd ever roll someone."

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:im

atomicdogg34 wrote:

im surprised so many atheists are liberals really

for people who exalt reason it strikes me as odd

govt is force, not reason

I'm quite depressed that atheism is almost synonymous with leftism.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:atomicdogg34

Kapkao wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

im surprised so many atheists are liberals really

for people who exalt reason it strikes me as odd

govt is force, not reason

I'm quite depressed that atheism is almost synonymous with leftism.

QFT

People do not realize rationale is not a thing written in stone, it changes as needs beget.

edit: I like this one http://www.facebook.com/acharyasanning someone who seems to be fairly balanced and intelligent.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:atomicdogg34

Kapkao wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

im surprised so many atheists are liberals really

for people who exalt reason it strikes me as odd

govt is force, not reason

I'm quite depressed that atheism is almost synonymous with leftism.

lol. OK.

Some of us can keep our ideologies separate without relating the two. Let's try it.

Example: "I don't believe in god, which has nothing to do with my beliefs regarding (make your own list)."

I'll even start...

I don't believe in god, which has nothing to do with my beliefs regarding fucking, farting, fraternizing with fools, foolery, fidgeting, fragging noobs, fishing, freedom. finances, socialism, or capitalism.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Kapkao

darth_josh wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

im surprised so many atheists are liberals really

for people who exalt reason it strikes me as odd

govt is force, not reason

I'm quite depressed that atheism is almost synonymous with leftism.

lol. OK.

Some of us can keep our ideologies separate without relating the two. Let's try it.

Example: "I don't believe in god, which has nothing to do with my beliefs regarding (make your own list)."

I'll even start...

I don't believe in god, which has nothing to do with my beliefs regarding fucking, farting, fraternizing with fools, foolery, fidgeting, fragging noobs, fishing, freedom. finances, socialism, or capitalism.

 

Are you implying that belief in a supernatural being with a special book of rules and wacky dogma does not make a difference?

I would also note how plain as day liberal minded thinking leads to atheism in the first place. Perhaps if you were raised in a non-religious environment this would not matter but most people are. Liberal thinking is what opens the door not close minded conservatism, the latter are more likely to stay right where they are.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:robj101

atomicdogg34 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I think the biggest fail about capitalism is the fact that huge companies can influence our politics, in more ways than one. They can directly effect politics and the economy and they can effect the politicians themselves which can have other effects on ..everything. Lots of special effects.

Capitalism with regulation, but who is doing the regulating?

 

 

you're talking about corporatism, not capitalism

I just mentioned it because I think that's what capitalism will lead too..as it already is leading up too here. As a manager of a small business I see how big companies are pushing out the small ones and I think the biggest of those are pushing out the ones in the middle. A company that can afford to buy truckloads of tires can get them cheaper than I can therefore they can sell them cheaper. The only reason the store I am managing is still afloat is because of customer service and some customer loyalty.

 

 

well corporatism is ultimately because of govt, not business, the govt doesnt follow the rules, interferes in the market and gives into big business, want to end corporatism than vote in people who actually give a fuck and know what they are doing

 

But governments corporatise precisely in the name of pandering to a prevailing capitalist idolatry in their electorate. The eventual demise of this sentiment is exactly what would reverse this problem, however, a propagandistic "socialism is evil, capitalism is apple pie" campaign is a historical reality for some modern societies, and corporatism does accurately represent the irrational fear of a socialist agenda that this has inhered in the people of those societies. 

Corporatism is ultimately because of wide-spread inhered sanctified reverence of the principles of capitalism, your government is doing exactly what it was created to do by representing that. The problem lies, I suggest, with the irrationality of this insistence that capitalism is an infallible demi-god of political right, it's nigh religious in some people.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Are you

robj101 wrote:

Are you implying that belief in a supernatural being with a special book of rules and wacky dogma does not make a difference?

I would also note how plain as day liberal minded thinking leads to atheism in the first place. Perhaps if you were raised in a non-religious environment this would not matter but most people are. Liberal thinking is what opens the door not close minded conservatism

He isn't seeing it, Rob, and granted that he just made a half-baked attempt at 'turning a blind eye', I don't believe that there's any point in attempting to convince him otherwise.

 

Quote:
the latter are more likely to stay right where they are.

The latter are not inclined to give a shit about religion, except when kissing other people's asses for votes. My nation has seen multiple times that the "nanny state" can come from the left as well as the right.

I, personally, am of the strictest "don't give a fuck" (apatheism) what someone else believes, unless they need to be committed because of it.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:robj101

Kapkao wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Are you implying that belief in a supernatural being with a special book of rules and wacky dogma does not make a difference?

I would also note how plain as day liberal minded thinking leads to atheism in the first place. Perhaps if you were raised in a non-religious environment this would not matter but most people are. Liberal thinking is what opens the door not close minded conservatism

He isn't seeing it, Rob, and granted that he just made a half-baked attempt at 'turning a blind eye', I don't believe that there's any point in attempting to convince him otherwise.

 

Quote:
the latter are more likely to stay right where they are.

The latter are not inclined to give a shit about religion, except when kissing other people's asses for votes. My nation has seen multiple times that the "nanny state" can come from the left as well as the right.

I, personally, am of the strictest "don't give a fuck" (apatheism) what someone else believes, unless they need to be committed because of it.

The highly conservative do tend to be religious, thats all I was saying. I'm somewhere in the middle, possibly a bit leftish but I maintain a good distance from the "lunatic fringe". I don't generally care about what someone thinks as long as it's not in or going to be in my living room in the near future. But I would not lie and say there is not a bit more sympathy for a like minded individual maybe even a certain amount of strange mutual understanding that is enjoyable. I imagine most people feel this way even yourself.

After reading an article on a few atheists and possibly homosexuals being executed and suiciding in the middle east my first thought was "I wish there was something I could do to help those people." If they had been religious nuts or w/e I wouldn't give one of my rats asses.

 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:The highly

robj101 wrote:

The highly conservative do tend to be religious

Which is generally true, but some of them are starting to see the farce of politicians pandering to them on the basis of 'faith'.

 

Quote:
I'm somewhere in the middle, possibly a bit leftish

I dispute this...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
I would like to come at this

I would like to come at this subject from a slightly different direction.  Instead of capitalism, socialism, communism - try thinking about it as competition, cooperation and symbiosis(?)  Since my background is ecology & evolutionary biology, I will tend to use examples from there. 

Every organism above the level of the simplest bacteria depends on symbiosis since many of the organelles (mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) were at one time free living organisms that have been incorporated into other organisms to the point that neither can survive without the other.  All multi-cellular organisms are dependent on close cooperation.  Not symbiosis exactly but very nearly.  At the level of free living organisms the dominant system is cooperation. You cannot survive without millions of other organisms in your gut, on your skin, in the environment around you.  As you move up in scale, cooperation continues to dominate.  Where competition is present, it is based on and requires an extensive web of cooperative organisms in order to be able to compete.  Competition in the natural environment is pretty sharply limited.  Predation is even more so.  If I recall correctly, if coyotes are surviving on mice, it takes 100 pounds of mice (in the environment) to support 1 pound of coyote.  This ratio (or one very much like it) carries across all predator/prey relationships.

If I carry the analogy into human society, I see much the same thing.  While I could probably provide for my food, shelter, clothing, transport, etc. by myself.  I would be so busy doing just that, I would not have time to do anything else.  In fact, I would probably not even have the time of energy to rise above the barest subsistence level on any of them.

To keep the post short.  Our entire system depends on cooperation.  Competition is a minor component and sharply controlled.  Both of them are supported by symbiosis where appropriate.  We live in and depend upon a socialist/communist economic system because that is what works.  Capitalism depends on that to thrive.  If we forget that, we are setting ourselves up to crash the system that supports us.  

I could go on, but I think I will stop, kick the ball out and see what others think.

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote:I would

Skyzersdad wrote:

I would like to come at this subject from a slightly different direction.  Instead of capitalism, socialism, communism - try thinking about it as competition, cooperation and symbiosis(?)  Since my background is ecology & evolutionary biology, I will tend to use examples from there. 

Every organism above the level of the simplest bacteria depends on symbiosis since many of the organelles (mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) were at one time free living organisms that have been incorporated into other organisms to the point that neither can survive without the other.  All multi-cellular organisms are dependent on close cooperation.  Not symbiosis exactly but very nearly.  At the level of free living organisms the dominant system is cooperation. You cannot survive without millions of other organisms in your gut, on your skin, in the environment around you.  As you move up in scale, cooperation continues to dominate.  Where competition is present, it is based on and requires an extensive web of cooperative organisms in order to be able to compete.  Competition in the natural environment is pretty sharply limited.  Predation is even more so.  If I recall correctly, if coyotes are surviving on mice, it takes 100 pounds of mice (in the environment) to support 1 pound of coyote.  This ratio (or one very much like it) carries across all predator/prey relationships.

If I carry the analogy into human society, I see much the same thing.  While I could probably provide for my food, shelter, clothing, transport, etc. by myself.  I would be so busy doing just that, I would not have time to do anything else.  In fact, I would probably not even have the time of energy to rise above the barest subsistence level on any of them.

To keep the post short.  Our entire system depends on cooperation.  Competition is a minor component and sharply controlled.  Both of them are supported by symbiosis where appropriate.  We live in and depend upon a socialist/communist economic system because that is what works.  Capitalism depends on that to thrive.  If we forget that, we are setting ourselves up to crash the system that supports us.  

I could go on, but I think I will stop, kick the ball out and see what others think.

Natural World=Survival of the Fittest, Might Makes Right, strongest individual becomes group leader, etc...

I like it already.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
 Kapkao wrote:Natural

 

Kapkao wrote:

Natural World=Survival of the Fittest, Might Makes Right, strongest individual becomes group leader, etc...

I like it already.

Fittest = the one with the most well adjusted (provided for, healthiest, etc.) grandchildren. 

Might makes for damned expensive to maintain. 

Best individual at soliciting cooperative activity from colleagues makes for strongest group leader and greatest fitness for entire group.


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote: Fittest

      I was wondering,is that your dog (as your Avatar) ? If so what breed is it. ?

Signature ? How ?


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:       I

Ken G. wrote:

      I was wondering,is that your dog (as your Avatar) ? If so what breed is it. ?

Yes, that hansom boy is my top guy.  His name is Skye, he is about 12 1/2 years old and is a red tri color Australian Shepherd.  And, no, they are not from Australia, that is just the name.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote:Fittest =

Skyzersdad wrote:
Fittest = the one with the most well adjusted (provided for, healthiest, etc.) grandchildren. 

Might makes for damned expensive to maintain. 

Best individual at soliciting cooperative activity from colleagues makes for strongest group leader and greatest fitness for entire group.

Your understanding of these three qualities is questionable... (and narrowly interpreted, at that)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: Skyzersdad

Kapkao wrote:

Skyzersdad wrote:
Fittest = the one with the most well adjusted (provided for, healthiest, etc.) grandchildren. 

Might makes for damned expensive to maintain. 

Best individual at soliciting cooperative activity from colleagues makes for strongest group leader and greatest fitness for entire group.

Your understanding of these three qualities is questionable... (and narrowly interpreted, at that)

Fitness is defined as being able to get the greatest amount of your genome into following generations.  Babies, grand children, great grand children.  Straight from Darwin.  It has nothing with who has the biggest biceps.

The bull elk with the biggest harem is usually so worn out he dies the next season.  Just one example

The leader who does not waste lives and treasure usually has the fittest group.

You are right.  Questionable and narrowly interpreted - your point?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote:Kapkao

Skyzersdad wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Skyzersdad wrote:
Fittest = the one with the most well adjusted (provided for, healthiest, etc.) grandchildren. 

Might makes for damned expensive to maintain. 

Best individual at soliciting cooperative activity from colleagues makes for strongest group leader and greatest fitness for entire group.

Your understanding of these three qualities is questionable... (and narrowly interpreted, at that)

Fitness is defined as being able to get the greatest amount of your genome into following generations.  Babies, grand children, great grand children.  Straight from Darwin.

[...]

You are right.  Questionable and narrowly interpreted - your point?

Well, not really narrowly interpreted so much as "borrowed direct from crackpot educators at Ivy League campuses" (at any number of potential places)

Darwin's views on biology became obsolete mere decades after he published them. Off the top of my head- the 100 millenia estimate of Earth's age, for starters.

 

As for "greatest amount of genome", well think again - every cheetah born is an exact clone of mom, plus or minus a sex-determining chromosome. That automatically means that they have won the game of survival using your fucked up metrics (-same is true of the all-female species of Whiptail lizards.) Yet, they can not even adapt to new, potentially species-threatening environmental changes. They can't even evolve.

Then again, no one knew of genetics during Darwin's time, so where ever you're getting your info from, now strikes me as highly suspect.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:atomicdogg34

Eloise wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I think the biggest fail about capitalism is the fact that huge companies can influence our politics, in more ways than one. They can directly effect politics and the economy and they can effect the politicians themselves which can have other effects on ..everything. Lots of special effects.

Capitalism with regulation, but who is doing the regulating?

 

 

you're talking about corporatism, not capitalism

I just mentioned it because I think that's what capitalism will lead too..as it already is leading up too here. As a manager of a small business I see how big companies are pushing out the small ones and I think the biggest of those are pushing out the ones in the middle. A company that can afford to buy truckloads of tires can get them cheaper than I can therefore they can sell them cheaper. The only reason the store I am managing is still afloat is because of customer service and some customer loyalty.

 

 

well corporatism is ultimately because of govt, not business, the govt doesnt follow the rules, interferes in the market and gives into big business, want to end corporatism than vote in people who actually give a fuck and know what they are doing

 

But governments corporatise precisely in the name of pandering to a prevailing capitalist idolatry in their electorate. The eventual demise of this sentiment is exactly what would reverse this problem, however, a propagandistic "socialism is evil, capitalism is apple pie" campaign is a historical reality for some modern societies, and corporatism does accurately represent the irrational fear of a socialist agenda that this has inhered in the people of those societies. 

Corporatism is ultimately because of wide-spread inhered sanctified reverence of the principles of capitalism, your government is doing exactly what it was created to do by representing that. The problem lies, I suggest, with the irrationality of this insistence that capitalism is an infallible demi-god of political right, it's nigh religious in some people.

 

govt corporatists arent pandering to capitalists or capitalism, they are pandering to potential voting blocks and donors, its all about getting votes and keeping power, which they then use to supply an endless flow of govt goodies to their buddies

this isnt capitalism, so lets not pretend that it is

you seem to have been drinking the kool-aid when it comes to how most pro-govt people decide to couch their arguments

our govt was created to protect liberty, plain and simple

no one with any sense or who knows what they are talking about explains capitalism in the terms you've been using, if you want to learn what real free markets and capitalism is about you need to listen to guys like peter schiff, henry hazlitt, von mises or other austrian school economists


kchrist499
kchrist499's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
 I find it amusing that the

 I find it amusing that the term "socialism" can be interpreted in so many ways:

"National Socialist Party" - Adolph Hitler

"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" - Stalin

"Socialism=tax the rich" - the rich

"Socialism=take away our freedoms" - the Tea Party. 

"Socialism=it works" - Scandanavia.

 

Full disclosure: I am the son of a Danish immigrant who paid his way to come here illegally by selling stolen horses to the German army in WW I and paying someone in Iowa to claim he was a relative. His reason for leaving Denmark: he had been sold as an "indentured servant" at the age of 8 so his widowed mother could  remain in their sharecropper home to raise her other six children.  

Ken Christiansen


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Skyzersdad

Kapkao wrote:

Skyzersdad wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Skyzersdad wrote:
Fittest = the one with the most well adjusted (provided for, healthiest, etc.) grandchildren. 

Might makes for damned expensive to maintain. 

Best individual at soliciting cooperative activity from colleagues makes for strongest group leader and greatest fitness for entire group.

Your understanding of these three qualities is questionable... (and narrowly interpreted, at that)

Fitness is defined as being able to get the greatest amount of your genome into following generations.  Babies, grand children, great grand children.  Straight from Darwin.

[...]

You are right.  Questionable and narrowly interpreted - your point?

Well, not really narrowly interpreted so much as "borrowed direct from crackpot educators at Ivy League campuses" (at any number of potential places)

Darwin's views on biology became obsolete mere decades after he published them. Off the top of my head- the 100 millenia estimate of Earth's age, for starters.

 

As for "greatest amount of genome", well think again - every cheetah born is an exact clone of mom, plus or minus a sex-determining chromosome. That automatically means that they have won the game of survival using your fucked up metrics (-same is true of the all-female species of Whiptail lizards.) Yet, they can not even adapt to new, potentially species-threatening environmental changes. They can't even evolve.

Then again, no one knew of genetics during Darwin's time, so where ever you're getting your info from, now strikes me as highly suspect.

There are cases, like the Cheetah, that are exceptions.  Cheetahs went through a population "choke point" several millenia back that reduced their population and genetic variability so yes, there is less difference between two cheetah than we would expect.  The same is true for animals like aphids, Whiptail lizards and the like.  However, in normal genetics involving sexual reproduction, the first child carries 50% of your genome, the second gets another 25% out there, third adds another 12 1/2% and so on.  So lots of kids means you approach 100%.

The Whiptail uses parthenogenic replication and gets 100% out there with the first offspring.  And, it doesn't need to waste time and resources looking for a mate.  Pretty efficient process if the environment remains stable.  And we don't know, they may do gender change in response to certain environmental cues (fish and aphids are two examples of animals that do this) and go to "normal" sexual replication at need.  Remember too that even clones show variability.  I remember everyone's surprise when the first cloned cat looked nothing at all like it's genetically identical mother.  If I recall the mother was a calico and her kitten was a gray tabby.

And no, Darwin did not know about genetics, but he certainly did understand how inheritance works.  He did get details wrong, but that was a result of the time.  His estimate of the age of the earth came at a time when everyone else assumed goddunit 5.000 years ago.  Just imagine what the reaction would have been if he had said 4.8 billion years.


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: Skyzersdad

dp again - sorry


 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Lobbyists and special

Lobbyists and special interest groups are not part of our current form of capitalism? They seem to fit hand in hand all too well.

If you really do some scraping and poking around you will find that early in the history of the US politicians worked for peanuts for the prestige of serving their country. Washington had to pay his own way around.

 Now we have lifetime politicians who are in for the $ and they enjoy working with major companies. This is not really a problem with capitalism it's just what we as the people have allowed to happen in our government, but it coincides directly with our economic system.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:darth_josh

robj101 wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

im surprised so many atheists are liberals really

for people who exalt reason it strikes me as odd

govt is force, not reason

I'm quite depressed that atheism is almost synonymous with leftism.

lol. OK.

Some of us can keep our ideologies separate without relating the two. Let's try it.

Example: "I don't believe in god, which has nothing to do with my beliefs regarding (make your own list)."

I'll even start...

I don't believe in god, which has nothing to do with my beliefs regarding fucking, farting, fraternizing with fools, foolery, fidgeting, fragging noobs, fishing, freedom. finances, socialism, or capitalism.

 

Are you implying that belief in a supernatural being with a special book of rules and wacky dogma does not make a difference?

I would also note how plain as day liberal minded thinking leads to atheism in the first place. Perhaps if you were raised in a non-religious environment this would not matter but most people are. Liberal thinking is what opens the door not close minded conservatism, the latter are more likely to stay right where they are.

Yes. I cite the example of religious socialists and non-religious capitalists.

Atheism and liberalism are wholly separate ideologies. Certainly not 'synonymous'.

One could argue preponderance, but never similarity.

I would argue that neither conservative nor liberal minded people reach atheism due solely to their political 'leaning'.

If past examples of pseudo-socialism are the benchmark for liberal-minded godlessness then why would there still be so many gargantuan churches/cathedrals/mosques still standing in the respective geographical areas?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
There is nothing similair

There is nothing similair about atheism and liberalism directly. Just as there is no direct link to light and dark but the sun has a say in it.

 There is a link and I think it's got something to do with an open mind. You can't deny a link, look up some statistics on atheists who are liberal as opposed to conservative, I believe you will find an overwhelming amount of atheists are liberal and the majority of the religious will be conservative. There is a reason for this and it key's them together like peas and carrots.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
My definition of genetic

My definition of genetic viability: parents capable of generating children able to flourish in direct, aggressive (usually violent) competition with other, genetically weaker members of the same species.

(Afterall, the only way to eradicate weaker genes is to... well... eradicate them)

The one thing you have left out about your unusual hang up with intraspecies interaction, is that the single most important event in evolution towards the human brain is inherent predation of other animal species, including other humans (i.e. war), and that aggressive (violent) competition seems to determine which genome is the most efficient and productive within it's natural environment.

You also neglected to mention another thing about "social" species -they usually have some sort of innate stratification within their animal societies. Y'know, just like human society has in most of it's amusing caricatures of "culture".

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
kchrist499 wrote: I find it

kchrist499 wrote:

 I find it amusing that the term "socialism" can be interpreted in so many ways:

"National Socialist Party" - Adolph Hitler

"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" - Stalin

"Socialism=tax the rich" - the rich

"Socialism=take away our freedoms" - the Tea Party. 

"Socialism=it works" - Scandanavia.

 Full disclosure: I am the son of a Danish immigrant who paid his way to come here illegally by selling stolen horses to the German army in WW I and paying someone in Iowa to claim he was a relative. His reason for leaving Denmark: he had been sold as an "indentured servant" at the age of 8 so his widowed mother could  remain in their sharecropper home to raise her other six children.  

Cool. You registered 3  and a 1/2 years ago, and finally decided to post... that.

I should point out that Denmark is a part of Scandinavia, and secondly... "When in doubt, go for the dictionary!"

dictionary.com wrote:


so·cial·ism

 /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

[/qupte]

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:dictionary.com

Kapkao wrote:

dictionary.com wrote:


so·cial·ism

 /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

 

Kap - this is the def of socialism as I always understood it.  First, the social organization owns and controls the means of production and distribution, then, the proceeds are distributed to the entire community.  This is rather like an employee owned company.  All the employees own and therefore control the company.  Then profits are distributed to the employees to either reinvest or pay out as everyone agrees.  How the profits are distributed and what the proportions are for each employee are explicitly stated in the company charter and therefore vary a good deal from company to company.  A number of companies in the US are employee owned like this.

It has nothing to do with social welfare.  It is strictly about how production and distribution is controlled within a community and how the proceeds are distributed to the community.  It seems to me you are always belly aching about social welfare, but you have yet to address the formal definition of socialism.

FYI, I don't think this system can work for all the means of production and distribution for any given society today.  Even the most socialist of the socialist nations have a big dollop of privately owned free markets.  (I'm not counting North Korea as socialist - they are still learning that communism really doesn't work.)

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Kap - this is

cj wrote:

Kap - this is it. 

Cool! So are you still up for a threesome with me and Nigelthebold?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote:Kap -

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

Kap - this is it. 

Cool! So are you still up for a threesome with me and Nigelthebold?

 

I'll have to check my calendar.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:My definition

Kapkao wrote:

My definition of genetic viability: parents capable of generating children able to flourish in direct, aggressive (usually violent) competition with other, genetically weaker members of the same species.

(Afterall, the only way to eradicate weaker genes is to... well... eradicate them)

The one thing you have left out about your unusual hang up with intraspecies interaction, is that the single most important event in evolution towards the human brain is inherent predation of other animal species, including other humans (i.e. war), and that aggressive (violent) competition seems to determine which genome is the most efficient and productive within it's natural environment.

You also neglected to mention another thing about "social" species -they usually have some sort of innate stratification within their animal societies. Y'know, just like human society has in most of it's amusing caricatures of "culture".

Fascinating. 

Genetic = of, relating to, caused by or controlled by genes

Viability = capable of living; especially:having obtained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb.  Also; capable of growing and developing...also; having a reasonable chance of succeeding.

I suppose your definition might be correct if your society was in say, a maximum security wing of a particularly bad prison.  But since they don't allow the sexes to mingle in such institutions, the viability part just went down the crapper.

And what is the definition of weaker genes?  In a culture where people are rewarded for great musical talent, a person who had weak genes might be someone who couldn't carry a tune.  Should the musically inclined be free to eradicate those who can't play along?  Sometimes what appears to be a weakness is actually a strength.  Allergies to fava beans, or sickle cell anemia may appear to reduce fitness.  But both of those "weak" genes confer resistance or immunity to Malaria.  So how do you decide who to eradicate?

I would like to see something to support your contention that inherent predation on other animals or other humans is the watershed event you seem to think it is.  Domestication of animals?  Interspecies cooperation.  Development of agriculture?  Cooperative labor within groups and communities.  Industrial development?  Some competition and even exploitation, but try to run a factory without a willing labor force.  The more so as the technology becomes complex. 

I have seen cars build in factories where the workers were unhappy.  They are often sabatoged and always junk.  And do you want to own a computer that was made in a factory where the workers were inherently aggressive or violent?

Yes, many cultures are hierarchal (I think that is what you meant by stratified).  People are, dogs and wolves are but, ravens don't appear to be so I am not sure I understand your point.  If it is that the bad guys get the goodies, remember that if a wolf is too aggressive and violent, he or she gets thrown out of the pack.  The life expectancy of a lone wolf is usually less than a year.  He cannot survive without the cooperation and support of the pack.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote: Kapkao

Skyzersdad wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

My definition of genetic viability: parents capable of generating children able to flourish in direct, aggressive (usually violent) competition with other, genetically weaker members of the same species.

(Afterall, the only way to eradicate weaker genes is to... well... eradicate them)

The one thing you have left out about your unusual hang up with intraspecies interaction, is that the single most important event in evolution towards the human brain is inherent predation of other animal species, including other humans (i.e. war), and that aggressive (violent) competition seems to determine which genome is the most efficient and productive within it's natural environment.

You also neglected to mention another thing about "social" species -they usually have some sort of innate stratification within their animal societies. Y'know, just like human society has in most of it's amusing caricatures of "culture".

Fascinating. 

Genetic = of, relating to, caused by or controlled by genes

Viability = capable of living; especially:having obtained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb.  Also; capable of growing and developing...also; having a reasonable chance of succeeding.

I suppose your definition might be correct if your society was in say, a maximum security wing of a particularly bad prison.  But since they don't allow the sexes to mingle in such institutions, the viability part just went down the crapper.

And what is the definition of weaker genes?  In a culture where people are rewarded for great musical talent, a person who had weak genes might be someone who couldn't carry a tune.  Should the musically inclined be free to eradicate those who can't play along?  Sometimes what appears to be a weakness is actually a strength.  Allergies to fava beans, or sickle cell anemia may appear to reduce fitness.  But both of those "weak" genes confer resistance or immunity to Malaria.  So how do you decide who to eradicate?

I would like to see something to support your contention that inherent predation on other animals or other humans is the watershed event you seem to think it is.  Domestication of animals?  Interspecies cooperation.  Development of agriculture?  Cooperative labor within groups and communities.  Industrial development?  Some competition and even exploitation, but try to run a factory without a willing labor force.  The more so as the technology becomes complex. 

I have seen cars build in factories where the workers were unhappy.  They are often sabatoged and always junk.  And do you want to own a computer that was made in a factory where the workers were inherently aggressive or violent?

Yes, many cultures are hierarchal (I think that is what you meant by stratified).  People are, dogs and wolves are but, ravens don't appear to be so I am not sure I understand your point.  If it is that the bad guys get the goodies, remember that if a wolf is too aggressive and violent, he or she gets thrown out of the pack.  The life expectancy of a lone wolf is usually less than a year.  He cannot survive without the cooperation and support of the pack.

The potential for omnivorous Great Apes (rather than just simple-minded frugivores swinging from trees and shouting at each other about nothing in particular) led to the most drastic change in hominids; that is... the existence of the Homo genus.

There is also evidence Australopithecus ate animal flesh. It is, unfortunately, inconclusive.

Then there is our most recent cousin species. Neanderthalensis (creationist slurs aside) is estimated to have had up to 1900 cm³ of grey matter, compared to our measly 1250.

Neanderthals were (according to what we know about their skeletons) the most physically solid and carnivorous Homo species known to paleontology, yet they also had the most brains of any species we have the fossils of.

As to what they used their brains for (what lobes managed what, how much of it was in use at once, etc), we probably won't know until we rebuild their entire genome and (perhaps) resurrect the species VIA cloning. (somewhat difficult without a Neanderthal egg, but I wouldn't rule it out just yet.)

That extra 650 cm³ may have just been for high grade senses processing and predatory, calculated maneuvering -perhaps with even some enhanced motor skills.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
However, most of that is

However, most of that is irrelevant. You're deflecting, and honestly, you aren't doing a great job of it.

But hey... last one to the Bronze Age is a rotten egg, and it isn't because of using bronze tools in agriculture.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Skyzersdad

Kapkao wrote:

Skyzersdad wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

My definition of genetic viability: parents capable of generating children able to flourish in direct, aggressive (usually violent) competition with other, genetically weaker members of the same species.

(Afterall, the only way to eradicate weaker genes is to... well... eradicate them)

The one thing you have left out about your unusual hang up with intraspecies interaction, is that the single most important event in evolution towards the human brain is inherent predation of other animal species, including other humans (i.e. war), and that aggressive (violent) competition seems to determine which genome is the most efficient and productive within it's natural environment.

You also neglected to mention another thing about "social" species -they usually have some sort of innate stratification within their animal societies. Y'know, just like human society has in most of it's amusing caricatures of "culture".

Fascinating. 

Genetic = of, relating to, caused by or controlled by genes

Viability = capable of living; especially:having obtained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb.  Also; capable of growing and developing...also; having a reasonable chance of succeeding.

I suppose your definition might be correct if your society was in say, a maximum security wing of a particularly bad prison.  But since they don't allow the sexes to mingle in such institutions, the viability part just went down the crapper.

And what is the definition of weaker genes?  In a culture where people are rewarded for great musical talent, a person who had weak genes might be someone who couldn't carry a tune.  Should the musically inclined be free to eradicate those who can't play along?  Sometimes what appears to be a weakness is actually a strength.  Allergies to fava beans, or sickle cell anemia may appear to reduce fitness.  But both of those "weak" genes confer resistance or immunity to Malaria.  So how do you decide who to eradicate?

I would like to see something to support your contention that inherent predation on other animals or other humans is the watershed event you seem to think it is.  Domestication of animals?  Interspecies cooperation.  Development of agriculture?  Cooperative labor within groups and communities.  Industrial development?  Some competition and even exploitation, but try to run a factory without a willing labor force.  The more so as the technology becomes complex. 

I have seen cars build in factories where the workers were unhappy.  They are often sabatoged and always junk.  And do you want to own a computer that was made in a factory where the workers were inherently aggressive or violent?

Yes, many cultures are hierarchal (I think that is what you meant by stratified).  People are, dogs and wolves are but, ravens don't appear to be so I am not sure I understand your point.  If it is that the bad guys get the goodies, remember that if a wolf is too aggressive and violent, he or she gets thrown out of the pack.  The life expectancy of a lone wolf is usually less than a year.  He cannot survive without the cooperation and support of the pack.

The potential for omnivorous Great Apes (rather than just simple-minded frugivores swinging from trees and shouting at each other about nothing in particular) led to the most drastic change in hominids; that is... the existence of the Homo genus.

There is also evidence Australopithecus ate animal flesh. It is, unfortunately, inconclusive.

Woopie doo - so do chimps.  Flesh eating - Signifies nothing, or at most damn little. 

Kapkao wrote:

Then there is our most recent cousin species. Neanderthalensis (creationist slurs aside) is estimated to have had up to 1900 cm³ of grey matter, compared to our measly 1250.

Neanderthals were (according to what we know about their skeletons) the most physically solid and carnivorous Homo species known to paleontology, yet they also had the most brains of any species we have the fossils of.

As to what they used their brains for (what lobes managed what, how much of it was in use at once, etc), we probably won't know until we rebuild their entire genome and (perhaps) resurrect the species VIA cloning. (somewhat difficult without a Neanderthal egg, but I wouldn't rule it out just yet.)

That extra 650 cm³ may have just been for high grade senses processing and predatory, calculated maneuvering -perhaps with even some enhanced motor skills.

Now who is deflecting and doing a poor job of it.?  You seem to be in love with the idea that you are still some hairy knuckled carnivore surviving by tooth and claw while your very act of communicating via computer gives away the truth that you in fact live mostly through cooperation and depend on the massive cooperation of others.

Competition is necessary in our society for some kinds of improvement, but cooperation is the trait that allows the "advances" that competition comes up with to be used.  More often, competition merely provides the focus for the cooperative behavior.  Look at the "space race" as an example.  Beating the Soviets to the moon may have been a driver, yet without the intensely cooperative activities of millions of people we could not have gotten any higher than a thrown rock.

Your misanthopic dance act is just that.  The set is just paint on paper and the costumes are threadbare.  Worst of all, I have seen the show before done by better actors. 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote:Your

Skyzersdad wrote:
Your misanthopic dance act is just that.  The set is just paint on paper and the costumes are threadbare.  Worst of all, I have seen the show before done by better actors. 

Whatever dance you are doing, I can assure you I've done it with another RRS'er here (back during March, when the original namesake of this thread appeared). In your favor, you are far more articulate, informed, educated, and (mind the pun) connected than he was.

Cooperation is interesting and fun to watch. Predatory/exploitative behavior usually comes out on top (civilization-wise and evolution-wise.)

Quote:
You seem to be in love with the idea that you are still some hairy knuckled carnivore surviving by tooth and claw

Nope; Mischaracterization. About as much a mischaracterization as my statement "atheism is almost synonymous with leftism", but then, I can see now 'synonymous' was nought but a shit choice of words. I admit I'm a fan of hyperbole as anyone else is.

Replacing 'atheism' with 'humanism' and 'synonymous' with 'correlates' might have done the trick (despite DJ's inevitable disagreement, either way.)

Quote:
while your very act of communicating via computer

A social animal? Mimicing other social animal-vermin? Blasphemy! Moving on...

Quote:
gives away the truth that you in fact live mostly through cooperation and depend on the massive cooperation of others.

Like your predecessor, "B199ER", you confuse 'modern creature comforts' for life essentials. There are two requirements for this conversation, and I assure you technology isn't one of them. (Instant communication helps, but isn't required)

Quote:
Competition is necessary in our society for some kinds of improvement, but cooperation is the trait that allows the "advances" that competition comes up with to be used.  More often, competition merely provides the focus for the cooperative behavior.

Again, your quaint sociological analysis is considered and duly dismissed. Sociology has it's uses, and political/economic arguments aren't one of them. (at least imo)

Do you want me to list the things that have been gained through aggressive exploitation/predation? (aka, Imperialism, as Ken G. astutely worded)

You and I are citizens of one such achievement. Manifest Destiny and slave labor have built much of the industrialized superpower we are citizens of. Impressive, no? My (our?) nation actually postponed abolishing slavery after much of Europe had, simply because it was so damned profitable.

The phrase "to do a little wrong but to do so much right" comes to mind. Well, "right" and "wrong" are relative, after all.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Predatory/exploitative behavior usually comes out on top (civilization-wise and evolution-wise.)

In the short term only.

Kapkao wrote:

Like your predecessor, "B199ER", you confuse 'modern creature comforts' for life essentials.

Let's look at the 'modern creature comforts/life essentials' and see how much of them you aquire by your own hands (non cooperative efforts) or aggressive exploitation/predation.

Food - grow your own, hunt and kill it yourself, preserve the excess for later consumption (drying, salting) Canning and freezing are out unless you also make glass, steel and refrigeration equipment yourself.  And of course, you use only weapons you can make yourself from locally available materials.

Clothing - of course you grow, spin and weave your own fiber, skin and tan your own hides and fabricate the result into serviceable clothing.

Housing - Construct your own housing entirely from locally available materials with hand tool of your own manufacture.

Transport - shanks mare or boat.  Again you only use locally available materials and hand tools of your own manufacture.

Reproduction - not much at this point.  There might be a few women who would accept the above lifestyle, but I'm guessing they are pretty few on the ground.

If you do all of these things, I will concede the point.  Having done all of these things myself at one point or another, if you are living like this alone, you are an extremely busy person.

If you are not alone or you buy these things, you are dependent on the cooperative activities of others.  Even if you steal (predate) to gain these things, then you are still dependent on the cooperative activities of others, you just aren't paying for them.

Kapkao wrote:
Again, your quaint sociological analysis is considered and duly dismissed. Sociology has it's uses, and political/economic arguments aren't one of them. (at least imo)

Its just numbers.  It takes a lot of people working together to provide one king with his chariot.

Kapkao wrote:
Do you want me to list the things that have been gained through aggressive exploitation/predation? (aka, Imperialism, as Ken G. astutely worded)

No need.  But without a lot of shipwrights (farmers, sailors, tailors, iron workers, guns smiths, etc.) working together, your imperialists never would have left the dock.  Just count - how many people did it take to send off one boat full of adventurers?

Kapkao wrote:
You and I are citizens of one such achievement. Manifest Destiny and slave labor have built much of the industrialized superpower we are citizens of. Impressive, no? My (our?) nation actually postponed abolishing slavery after much of Europe had, simply because it was so damned profitable
.

Yup.  It was profitable as long as the only thing required of the slave labor was the lowest level of farm work on plantations big enough that the economy of scale outweighed the poor efficiency of a coerced work force.   Europe gave it up sooner because they could not raise their own food with as inefficient a work force as the planters could accept.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote:No need. 

Skyzersdad wrote:

No need.  But without a lot of shipwrights (farmers, sailors, tailors, iron workers, guns smiths, etc.) working together, your imperialists never would have left the dock.  Just count - how many people did it take to send off one boat full of adventurers?

Okay. Empires and/or kingdoms existed before navies did. Nice dodge, though. I'm going to personally dodge your asinine question about... living alone and (entirely?) self-sufficiently... as if it had any relevance to begin with.

It doesn't, because I have Type I Diabetes.

So... I guess your point (whatever the hell it is) is sound and undefeated because I need rDNA insulin in order to live? No, not really. I never contested the general assumption that humans are inherently social as a species.

You want to broadbrush Homo Sapiens Sapiens as a "cooperative" species solely on the basis of most of their endeavors having been achieved under social circumstances. I've already ceded that Human-animal-vermin are also social-animal-vermin. Your "cooperation" focus, is almost so pedantic and obsessive as to become purely academic.

A more productive focus of this already inane discussion would be why you are so fixed on the word "cooperation". Why are you, and how does it relate to socialism?

History books mention quite a bit about human endeavors achieved with cooperation. Unfortunately, for whatever tortured reasoning you seem to be employing here, the cooperative endeavors are out-weighed by the combative, predatory endeavors on a scale of... oh, I'd say 1:20. Even economics is filled with predatory/exploitative behavior; how do you suppose most of us ended up in our current recession to begin with? Because of "cooperation"?

Skyzersdad wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Predatory/exploitative behavior usually comes out on top (civilization-wise and evolution-wise.)

In the short term only.

No, in long term gains as well. Much of the current diplomatic and political status quo rests on things... not made of cooperation, but competition. An overwhelming abundance of it, in fact.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Skyzersdad , I know I am

 

Skyzersdad , I know I am late coming into this conversation and I haven't read the whole thing yet but how does people cooperating lead to socialism?

All economic systems are a way to create and distribute goods and require cooperation at some level. Are you claiming that capitalism is the opposite of cooperation? Because that is extremely misguided. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism leaves each individual in control of their decisions of where to produce, when and for what compensation (including working in corporations). Socialism puts the government in control of who produces what and their compensation. The fundamental question is not "Should we work together?" It is "Who owns what you produce?" I reject the idea that the government can distribute goods better than individuals acting on their own free will. It is VERY easy to corrupt government.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
1. Hello to Ken

1. Hello to Ken Christiansen.  That's a really interesting story- have you gone into it in more detail elsewhere?

 

2. This was actually quite funny:

Luminon wrote:

One guy died and went directly to torturous depths of Hell.

 

3. cj is right, of course, most of you are fighting over straw men and not addressing the real issues.

 

 

I find it funny that the little "political" tests usually place me at democrat, because they're one dimensional.

 

In reality I'm more of a Totalitarian Libertarian Capitalistic/Communist- treating the proper administration of different elements of society *ghasp* differently based on what is most likely to work in those cases.

 

And I tend to defer to the scientific method and the notion of a republic, as many massive state (or city)-sized test-tubes to determine what exactly those most functional methodologies are.  None of you really know what works until it's tried- neither do I. 

So, lets apply slightly different systems to each state, evaluate the efficacy relative to the populations (by proper blind statistical analysis rather than guesswork), and when/if the systems work, force them upon all of the states (therein I'm totalitarian), and iterate again with minor adjustments, and if we don't know what works or we aren't testing something, then let people do what they want (therein I'm libertarian).  As far as I'm concerned, the whole process of federal government could and should be done by an open source machine based on the feedback from surveys, which should be done in a double blind fashion and audited for transparency.

Some things work better cooperatively, some things work (at all) competitively and fail cooperatively.  Lets not pretend to have the ability to imaginatively simulate all of the nuances of a massive population's response to any particular socioeconomic system with any accuracy.

 

 

We're rational enough to recognize the reality of science over superstition in the field of philosophy- why not be rational enough to recognize science over assumption in the field of sociology.  It would be a trivial process to actually figure out what really works in an orderly fashion and agree to use that (whatever it happens to be)- why people can't agree to simply follow this practice is some combination of dogmatic certainty and simple idiocy; after all, why test it if they're already convinced their respective systems will work?


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: (aka,Imperialism as Ken G.astutely worded)

    Are you trying to suggest that Imperialism is a good way to get land (Manifest Destiny),resources etc . That is not Capitalism,it's being a big bully at the playground,it sound's more like the way a Dictator rules.War is the way a dictator get what he wants.Sacrificing young life's in wars for the "Fat Cat's" on Wall st. "War is a Racket"by Smedley Butler.      PS. I'm all to well were of the things gained through "aggressive exploitation/predation".

Signature ? How ?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:3. cj is right,

Blake wrote:


3. cj is right, of course, most of you are fighting over straw men and not addressing the real issues.

 

If she made that point, I would have opened my eyes in wonder, agreement, and (Ghasp? You mean gasp, right?!) excruciating joy of finding common ground.

This entire thread reads like the strawman army from Hell based on some whacky Voodoo Doll slash-fic gone horrifically wrong. I thank you, Blake, for pointing that out.

Quote:
We're rational enough to recognize the reality of science over superstition in the field of philosophy- why not be rational enough to recognize science over assumption in the field of sociology.  It would be a trivial process to actually figure out what really works in an orderly fashion and agree to use that (whatever it happens to be)- why people can't agree to simply follow this practice is some combination of dogmatic certainty and simple idiocy; after all, why test it if they're already convinced their respective systems will work?

Science isn't dogmatic; perhaps the primary reason it falls on so many deaf ears nowadays (and always has, on basis of % of population).

Political science... is questionably scientific. Philosophy is irrelevant, for precisely the same reasons Bob Spence has illustrated already now -it's still just someone's opinion.

Whathedeuce made a good solid point in my trainwreck of a thread in Politics; that national politics are inexorably linked to national culture. I happen to enjoy my national culture, for some odd reason. As Jeffrick pointed out- so does many other hundreds of millions of animal-vermin lurking about throughout the globe.

Quote:
based on what is most likely to work in those cases.

Same here. Most efficient means to an end from point A to point Z. This appears to be a hard concept for European and Commonwealth territories to grasp; too much bugthought\\inefficiency in their culture.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:    Are you

Ken G. wrote:

    Are you trying to suggest that Imperialism is a good way to get land (Manifest Destiny),resources etc . That is not Capitalism,it's being a big bully at the playground,it sound's more like the way a Dictator rules.War is the way a dictator get what he wants.Sacrificing young life's in wars for the "Fat Cat's" on Wall st. "War is a Racket"by Smedley Butler.     

Big Bully At Playground- kid with biggest toys and most stolen lunch money wins. I've play the 'game' myself a few times growing up (despite living in the meal ticket era of public education)

Sometimes I ended up on the ground with a bloody lower lip... it happens.

Quote:
PS. I'm all to well were of the things gained through "aggressive exploitation/predation".

Then you should consider this- war rape; or "Why the conquered tend to look like the conquerors after about 3 or 4 generations."

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)