My faith in the laws of economics has been reaffirmed.

[coloradoatheist]

They'd bloody better, since the Al Capones grab everything, elect themselves an aristocracy and kill anyone who objects. Do grow up!

Huh? You are the one making the wild claim that property is theft when only a very insignificant portion of the population believes it. Property has existed since humans started living in groups of any significant size.

 

[iolo]

They'd bloody better, since the Al Capones grab everything, elect themselves an aristocracy and kill anyone who objects. Do grow up!

Huh? You are the one making the wild claim that property is theft when only a very insignificant portion of the population believes it. Property has existed since humans started living in groups of any significant size.

The majority of the people have, as you demonstrate, been brainwashed by thieves, because they are shitting themselves out of their lily-livered guts for fear of being murdered, starved or locked away by those who stole everything from their ancestors. You'd know that if you weren't so busy yourself with your all-day eliminations.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Huh? You are the one making the wild claim that property is theft when only a very insignificant portion of the population believes it. Property has existed since humans started living in groups of any significant size.

The majority of the people have, as you demonstrate, been brainwashed by thieves, because they are shitting themselves out of their lily-livered guts for fear of being murdered, starved or locked away by those who stole everything from their ancestors. You'd know that if you weren't so busy yourself with your all-day eliminations.

So if someone disagrees with you you just say they are brainwashed? Even if they understand the nuances of the issues involved?

 

[ronburgundy]

Genetics has no effect on behavior?

Then what is Down's Syndrome???

Down's Syndrome is not a behavior.

Having no frontal lobes and no limbs is also "not a behavior". But since they massively impact and constrain behavior in nearly every context that is distinction without a meaningful difference in terms of explaining behavior. Behavior isn't magic. It is determined by the physical characteristics of the nervous system (including the brain). The environment only impacts behavior by impacting physiological systems whose response to the environment is greatly limited to sliver of possibilities by what the genetic code allows for. In very extreme and very rare environments (like kittens whose eyes are covered), the environment can sometime have profound impact on these physiological systems. But within the typical range of varying environments that most people exist within, the environment only creates modest variations within boundaries set by what is genetically possible.

In addition, much of, if not the vast majority of, environmental influences are not culture or anything systematic or controllable. Rather it is mostly random, idiosyncratic, and highly situational contingencies interacting in complex ways to create highly localized, momentary "environments". So, environment has a genetically limited impact on the physiology that ultimately causes all behavior, and culture has a highly limited impact and account for a small % of variance in "environment".

 

[dismal]

They'd bloody better, since the Al Capones grab everything, elect themselves an aristocracy and kill anyone who objects. Do grow up!

Huh? You are the one making the wild claim that property is theft when only a very insignificant portion of the population believes it. Property has existed since humans started living in groups of any significant size.

The silliest part of the statement "property is theft" is that it implies someone rightfully owns something, or else how could it have been "stolen" from them?

Inherently self contradictory in only 3 words.

 

[untermensche]

Down's Syndrome is not a behavior.

Having no frontal lobes and no limbs is also "not a behavior". But since they massively impact and constrain behavior in nearly every context that is distinction without a meaningful difference in terms of explaining behavior.

Utter nonsense. Your logic does not follow in any way.

The brain is what allows behavior. It does not create behavior.

Behavior is something learned and adjusted over time in response to the environment, not a directive by the brain.

Humans do not build the same nest or sing the same song or dance the same dance.

They are not birds.

There are no known behaviors seen in the adult human dictated by any gene or genes. Suckling in infants is about as far as it goes. But even that is a response to stimulation.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Having no frontal lobes and no limbs is also "not a behavior". But since they massively impact and constrain behavior in nearly every context that is distinction without a meaningful difference in terms of explaining behavior.

Utter nonsense. Your logic does not follow in any way.

The brain is what allows behavior. It does not create behavior.

Behavior is something learned and adjusted over time in response to the environment, not a directive by the brain.

Humans do not build the same nest or sing the same song or dance the same dance.

They are not birds.

There are no known behaviors seen in the adult human dictated by any gene or genes. Suckling in infants is about as far as it goes. But even that is a response to stimulation.

Except if we find out that more and more is the opposite of that. As I said earlier we want to think our parenting style or teaching has more affect than it does, but it showing not to be the case.

 

[untermensche]

Utter nonsense. Your logic does not follow in any way.

The brain is what allows behavior. It does not create behavior.

Behavior is something learned and adjusted over time in response to the environment, not a directive by the brain.

Humans do not build the same nest or sing the same song or dance the same dance.

They are not birds.

There are no known behaviors seen in the adult human dictated by any gene or genes. Suckling in infants is about as far as it goes. But even that is a response to stimulation.

Except if we find out that more and more is the opposite of that. As I said earlier we want to think our parenting style or teaching has more affect than it does, but it showing not to be the case.

What we are learning is that experience plays a far bigger role than we ever thought.

Genes alone do very little, and it is impossible to have genetic expression free from environmental influences.

Humans have genetic abilities, like the ability to acquire a language or the ability to walk.

But no two humans have the same language and of course humans do not all walk in the same direction.

 

[ronburgundy]

Having no frontal lobes and no limbs is also "not a behavior". But since they massively impact and constrain behavior in nearly every context that is distinction without a meaningful difference in terms of explaining behavior.

Utter nonsense. Your logic does not follow in any way.

The brain is what allows behavior. It does not create behavior.

Behavior is something learned and adjusted over time in response to the environment, not a directive by the brain.

Humans do not build the same nest or sing the same song or dance the same dance.

They are not birds.

There are no known behaviors seen in the adult human dictated by any gene or genes. Suckling in infants is about as far as it goes. But even that is a response to stimulation.

The brain does not merely allow for behavior. That would make the brain akin to nothing but an empty channel through which the outside world merely passes unchanged to dictate behavior. Your completely anti-scientific view of the brain and behavior is akin to that of medieval dualists for whom the body was a mere vessel that "allowed" the soul to manifest its actions upon the world.

The brain does as or more to create behavior than experiences and stimuli.

Humans have far more in common with birds than your faith will let you admit. The vast majority of our cognition and the behavior it drives is the result of non-conscious, non-controlled processes that produce un-chosen outputs and actions whose causes the actor is largely unaware of. Plus, nearly 100% of the differences in behavior between birds and humans is due to our different genetic codes that create different brains that create different behaviors. Birds don't exist in some alternate universe. Birds and humans occupy the same world and largely similar environments. The difference lies almost entirely in our genetically shaped brains that determine what type of impact if any that various aspects of that environment has on the organism. The very fact that humans have "cultures" unlike birds is due entirely to our gene created brain differences that in turn create the capacity for culture and determine what culture get created within a given set of environmental conditions.

No one is claiming most behaviors are solely dictated by genes. We are merely countering your extremist position that allows no significant role for genes in causing some of the variance in human behavior.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except if we find out that more and more is the opposite of that. As I said earlier we want to think our parenting style or teaching has more affect than it does, but it showing not to be the case.

What we are learning is that experience plays a far bigger role than we ever thought.

Genes alone do very little, and it is impossible to have genetic expression free from environmental influences.

Humans have genetic abilities, like the ability to acquire a language or the ability to walk.

But no two humans have the same language and of course humans do not all walk in the same direction.

I am curious, do you have kids?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Genetics has no effect on behavior?

Then what is Down's Syndrome???

Down's Syndrome is not a behavior.

There are behavior and IQ changes with Down's Syndrome. It's not just looks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Having no frontal lobes and no limbs is also "not a behavior". But since they massively impact and constrain behavior in nearly every context that is distinction without a meaningful difference in terms of explaining behavior.

Utter nonsense. Your logic does not follow in any way.

The brain is what allows behavior. It does not create behavior.

Behavior is something learned and adjusted over time in response to the environment, not a directive by the brain.

Humans do not build the same nest or sing the same song or dance the same dance.

They are not birds.

There are no known behaviors seen in the adult human dictated by any gene or genes. Suckling in infants is about as far as it goes. But even that is a response to stimulation.

In other words, you do not think you are a conscious being. Why then do you make what by your own standards are completely worthless posts?

 

[iolo]

The majority of the people have, as you demonstrate, been brainwashed by thieves, because they are shitting themselves out of their lily-livered guts for fear of being murdered, starved or locked away by those who stole everything from their ancestors. You'd know that if you weren't so busy yourself with your all-day eliminations.

So if someone disagrees with you you just say they are brainwashed? Even if they understand the nuances of the issues involved?

Child, I have argued with all sorts of people, and I can assure you that you are totally brainwashed. Our distant ancestors slowly settled down to grow crops in particular places, and were thus tied down when those you love and admire came round to demand protection-money, which, over a few generations, became 'rent', because the Capones said they 'owned' everything and were appointed as superhuman thieves by their thieving gods. You know this, as everybody does, but you shit yourselves at the thought of displeasing your masters, so you do not let serious thought enter your head, as you also know.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So if someone disagrees with you you just say they are brainwashed? Even if they understand the nuances of the issues involved?

Child, I have argued with all sorts of people, and I can assure you that you are totally brainwashed. Our distant ancestors slowly settled down to grow crops in particular places, and were thus tied down when those you love and admire came round to demand protection-money, which, over a few generations, became 'rent', because the Capones said they 'owned' everything and were appointed as superhuman thieves by their thieving gods. You know this, as everybody does, but you shit yourselves at the thought of displeasing your masters, so you do not let serious thought enter your head, as you also know.

Again. If someone doesn't agree with you all you say is people are brainwashed.

It's interesting, if we want to talk about other genetic makeup of humans that seem contrary to what humans would want, we can talk about war as being genetic.

 

[iolo]

Child, I have argued with all sorts of people, and I can assure you that you are totally brainwashed. Our distant ancestors slowly settled down to grow crops in particular places, and were thus tied down when those you love and admire came round to demand protection-money, which, over a few generations, became 'rent', because the Capones said they 'owned' everything and were appointed as superhuman thieves by their thieving gods. You know this, as everybody does, but you shit yourselves at the thought of displeasing your masters, so you do not let serious thought enter your head, as you also know.

Again. If someone doesn't agree with you all you say is people are brainwashed.

It's interesting, if we want to talk about other genetic makeup of humans that seem contrary to what humans would want, we can talk about war as being genetic.

As most people know, whatever our genetic heritage, we have no 'instincts' in the animal sense (we can over-ride our feelings quite easily), so I don't know what the second sentence means, and was not discussing genetics anyway. As to your brainwashing, once again you are not interested in known (pre)-historical facts which must have occurred to produce a class society, namely bullying, threats and - yes - theft. You never try to disprove the obvious - you just pretend you can't see it, and quack, quack, quack.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Again. If someone doesn't agree with you all you say is people are brainwashed.

It's interesting, if we want to talk about other genetic makeup of humans that seem contrary to what humans would want, we can talk about war as being genetic.

As most people know, whatever our genetic heritage, we have no 'instincts' in the animal sense (we can over-ride our feelings quite easily), so I don't know what the second sentence means, and was not discussing genetics anyway. As to your brainwashing, once again you are not interested in known (pre)-historical facts which must have occurred to produce a class society, namely bullying, threats and - yes - theft. You never try to disprove the obvious - you just pretend you can't see it, and quack, quack, quack.

You described it with your paragraph. We bully, threaten and wage war against other groups and even internally. I believe we do have a genetic disposition to all those traits.

Animals themselves create a class society when they are in groups, of which humans follow too.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And I'm not sure what your argument is about property. Property would be established early on, prior to the raiding. In small groups property is there, but defined orally instead of a set of formal rules.

 

[iolo]

As most people know, whatever our genetic heritage, we have no 'instincts' in the animal sense (we can over-ride our feelings quite easily), so I don't know what the second sentence means, and was not discussing genetics anyway. As to your brainwashing, once again you are not interested in known (pre)-historical facts which must have occurred to produce a class society, namely bullying, threats and - yes - theft. You never try to disprove the obvious - you just pretend you can't see it, and quack, quack, quack.

You described it with your paragraph. We bully, threaten and wage war against other groups and even internally. I believe we do have a genetic disposition to all those traits.

Animals themselves create a class society when they are in groups, of which humans follow too.

QUOTE]

Property is far more important than these alleged traits. Some animals have a status 'society', others don't, but it is to avoid long-term fighting that they develop this. 'Property' is an insane fantasy, which exists only to serve a class of useless parasites, and has been so from its earliest development. Working a piece of land (limited by possible labour) is not having property.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You described it with your paragraph. We bully, threaten and wage war against other groups and even internally. I believe we do have a genetic disposition to all those traits.

Animals themselves create a class society when they are in groups, of which humans follow too.

QUOTE]

Property is far more important than these alleged traits. Some animals have a status 'society', others don't, but it is to avoid long-term fighting that they develop this. 'Property' is an insane fantasy, which exists only to serve a class of useless parasites, and has been so from its earliest development. Working a piece of land (limited by possible labour) is not having property.

No, property doesn't just suit the parasites, it would suit everyone. When people started working the land they would not only have that area that they are working, they have the structures needed to live and work. People would have their own houses and they would take ownership of those.

 

[iolo]

QUOTE]

Property is far more important than these alleged traits. Some animals have a status 'society', others don't, but it is to avoid long-term fighting that they develop this. 'Property' is an insane fantasy, which exists only to serve a class of useless parasites, and has been so from its earliest development. Working a piece of land (limited by possible labour) is not having property.

No, property doesn't just suit the parasites, it would suit everyone. When people started working the land they would not only have that area that they are working, they have the structures needed to live and work. People would have their own houses and they would take ownership of those.

No - it would be accepted that they lived in them. Only once the Capones wanted to live off everyone else would the 'property' bullshit ever come up.