Bush Hits New Low

Irish,

I’m merely stating how contemporary social scientists are changing their perceptions of the world. The old days, the reaction against absolutes, the idea that there is no right or wrong, are going bye-bye. The reason is that, aided by computers, historians, economists, political scientists, are beginning to recognize that reality is NOT a random walk. There is much more determinism than our old paradigms suggest.

Human beings have a definitive nature. Communists, for example, thought that you could treat humans as if they were ants. Pack 'em all on collective farms and have at it. These ideas don’t work because collectivism is not a natural system for humans.

Why do you think these ideas are crazy? The world is changing – keep up.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Irish,

I’m merely stating how contemporary social scientists are changing their perceptions of the world. The old days, the reaction against absolutes, the idea that there is no right or wrong, are going bye-bye. The reason is that, aided by computers, historians, economists, political scientists, are beginning to recognize that reality is NOT a random walk. There is much more determinism than our old paradigms suggest.

Human beings have a definitive nature. Communists, for example, thought that you could treat humans as if they were ants. Pack 'em all on collective farms and have at it. These ideas don’t work because collectivism is not a natural system for humans.

Why do you think these ideas are crazy? The world is changing – keep up.[/quote]

Proof? Link? Any evidence WHATSOEVER for this latest line of glossolalian idiocy?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Irish,

I’m merely stating how contemporary social scientists are changing their perceptions of the world. The old days, the reaction against absolutes, the idea that there is no right or wrong, are going bye-bye. The reason is that, aided by computers, historians, economists, political scientists, are beginning to recognize that reality is NOT a random walk. There is much more determinism than our old paradigms suggest.
[/quote]

I don’t believe this at all. Show me definitive support from some reputable source, because it sounds ridiculous and nonesensical.

How do you know the definitive natural state of man? Somehow you mastered the things that Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, Nietzsche, and all the other greats couldn’t?

I doubt it. You have an idea about what you think is true. Stop giving yourself so much credit.

Being as you’re the same guy who thinks caring for the environment is “communist”, well, you don’t have much with me in the first place.

Because 1) You are presenting them, and you aren’t the most rational being 2) You’ve given me no support for your argument except for using vague philosophical terms that mean nothing.

[quote]
The world is changing – keep up.[/quote]

Keep up? From the guy who draws all his philosophical ideas from “The Fountainhead”? I think not.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
How do you know the definitive natural state of man? Somehow you mastered the things that Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, Nietzsche, and all the other greats couldn’t?
[/quote]

not saying that I know definitively what the natural state of man is (people will argue that point from now until the sun expands far enough to engulf the earth), but I would put my money on hunter-gatherer type small social systems…

as far as your list of philosophers go…all of them though that they DID define the natural state of man…

and speaking of philosophy in general…while I believe critical thinking, logic, and other philosophy subjects that encourages independant thought are very useful…in my opinion, many of the ‘great’ philosophers are full of shit blowhards…sure there are super tid-bits of ideas here and there, but there’s also big huge piles of horse shit…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
One liners, Vroom? You’re stealing Harris’ thunder.

Another little dog trying to hump my leg…
[/quote]

I won’t say I was complimenting you, but I was giving you some credit (a la Ren and Stimpy)… YOU IDIOT!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Human beings have a definitive nature. Communists, for example, thought that you could treat humans as if they were ants. Pack 'em all on collective farms and have at it. These ideas don’t work because collectivism is not a natural system for humans.[/quote]

Actually, you are right on this part – we have been learning more and more about human nature, and we do indeed have a nature; furthermore, you are also right in saying we cannot rearrange society like furniture, since there are proven rules of what you can get away with.

What you ARE forgetting is that what we have indeed discovered is that our nature is brutal, cruel and destructive. We are discovering is that our nature is of essentially ultra-aggressive wild monkeys who developed an unusually sophisticated ability to communicate and use tools – and, when left unchecked, we have used those abilities to, essentially, attack, kill and destroy.

We are full of contradictions – we are, generally, extremely selfish, but that selfishness doesn’t really come to our advantage because we rarely use only reason to make decisions – we mix reason, instinct and cognitive bias and end up constantly shooting ourselves in the foot through botched choices that end up being very much against our own interest.

Humanity has been saved again and again by an extremely small number of people – people who somehow overcome this nature while still believing in humanity and its need to be saved from destruction. People who provided humanity with a structured society, and tweak it. People who are intelligent enough to understand that our nature is of wild predators, and as wild predators we need to be allowed free choice (or we will implode anyway), but we also need to have a structure around us to guide us and regulate our destructive behavior.

You are also a parent, so you actually know what I?m talking about; if you had left your children to do what they please, and provided them with no structure, what would have happened? Think about it.

The tragedy, and what you don’t realize is that, even with great parents, we never really grow out of that need for structure – we might learn how to not kill ourselves or others instantly, but we will, over the course of our life, continue to need structure, especially to deal with other people – because being rational – making the best choices for us and society as a whole ? is something most of us never truly learn. We might learn to not stab somebody (because our parents taught is it’s wrong), but we will induce harm in many other ways ? by exploiting their weaknesses, and then telling ourselves they deserve what they get for being weak or stupid. It’s just our predatory nature… The problem is, we are preying upon other humans, who are capable of and will eventually respond with escalating violence (another “great” feature of our nature) – leading to self-destruction.

Communism failed not because we do not need or accept a structured society, but because it indeed ignored our wild animal nature. Laissez-faire capitalism, on the other hand, also fails because it ignores our predatory, destructive nature. It assumes we are rational beings who know what’s best for us. We don’t.

Both are equally and completely wrong. Much like with children ? as any child psychologist will tell you, controlling every aspect of the life of your child is a terrible idea, but so is letting him/her do whatever they please without any structure.

The balance is in the middle – giving us enough freedom to allow everyone to make their own choices, but also guiding society in order to prevent them from making catastrophic ones – or, better yet, reducing the consequences of the inevitably constant bad choices everybody makes.

[quote]hspder wrote:
our nature is of essentially ultra-aggressive wild monkeys who developed an unusually sophisticated ability to communicate and use tools – and, when left unchecked, we have used those abilities to, essentially, attack, kill and destroy.
[/quote]

you are SO wrong…

we’re ultra-aggressive wild APES (humans are part of the hominidae ‘great ape’ family), not monkeys…jeehz…

[quote]DPH wrote:
you are SO wrong…

we’re ultra-aggressive wild APES (humans are part of the hominidae ‘great ape’ family), not monkeys…jeehz…[/quote]

LOL! :slight_smile: OK, I stand corrected! :slight_smile:

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
One liners, Vroom? You’re stealing Harris’ thunder.

Another little dog trying to hump my leg…

I won’t say I was complimenting you, but I was giving you some credit (a la Ren and Stimpy)… YOU IDIOT!

[/quote]

Who the fuck are Ren and Stimpy? Make sense, clown!

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Irish,

I’m merely stating how contemporary social scientists are changing their perceptions of the world. The old days, the reaction against absolutes, the idea that there is no right or wrong, are going bye-bye. The reason is that, aided by computers, historians, economists, political scientists, are beginning to recognize that reality is NOT a random walk. There is much more determinism than our old paradigms suggest.

I don’t believe this at all. Show me definitive support from some reputable source, because it sounds ridiculous and nonesensical.

Human beings have a definitive nature. Communists, for example, thought that you could treat humans as if they were ants. Pack 'em all on collective farms and have at it. These ideas don’t work because collectivism is not a natural system for humans.

How do you know the definitive natural state of man? Somehow you mastered the things that Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, Nietzsche, and all the other greats couldn’t?

I doubt it. You have an idea about what you think is true. Stop giving yourself so much credit.

Being as you’re the same guy who thinks caring for the environment is “communist”, well, you don’t have much with me in the first place.

Why do you think these ideas are crazy?

Because 1) You are presenting them, and you aren’t the most rational being 2) You’ve given me no support for your argument except for using vague philosophical terms that mean nothing.

The world is changing – keep up.

Keep up? From the guy who draws all his philosophical ideas from “The Fountainhead”? I think not.[/quote]

I didn’t know that philosophical concepts had time limits. Do you believe this because of the ideas I articulated above?

I am at work now, but will post some sources later today.

All the best, Irish!

HH

[quote]hspder wrote:

Communism failed not because we do not need or accept a structured society, but because it indeed ignored our wild animal nature. Laissez-faire capitalism, on the other hand, also fails because it ignores our predatory, destructive nature. It assumes we are rational beings who know what’s best for us. We don’t.

Both are equally and completely wrong. Much like with children ? as any child psychologist will tell you, controlling every aspect of the life of your child is a terrible idea, but so is letting him/her do whatever they please without any structure.

The balance is in the middle – giving us enough freedom to allow everyone to make their own choices, but also guiding society in order to prevent them from making catastrophic ones – or, better yet, reducing the consequences of the inevitably constant bad choices everybody makes.
[/quote]

Doc,

You are equating laissez-faire with anarchism, which it is not. LF capitalism simply removes government from the economic life of a society. Such a society maintain order and justice by retaining police, judiciary, and military forces. The understood basic principle of this society is: ALL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS MUST BE VOLUNTARY ON ALL SIDES. Otherwise, one is slave, the other is master. Anyone violating this principle is considered a criminal and is dealt with accordingly.

Its all there in Ms. Rand’s work.

I must say that I am very leery of any proposals to ‘guide society’ and ‘provide structure’. The ones who propose this rarely want to be the ones who are ‘guided’ or must fit into the ‘structure’.

“There is always right and always wrong, but the middle is always evil.”

      --- Ayn Rand

(from memory)

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You are equating laissez-faire with anarchism, which it is not. [/quote]

Well, let’s not discuss the large tent that is anarchism these days. We’ll just get into a semantic war that is pointless…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LF capitalism simply removes government from the economic life of a society. Such a society maintain order and justice by retaining police, judiciary, and military forces. The understood basic principle of this society is: ALL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS MUST BE VOLUNTARY ON ALL SIDES. Otherwise, one is slave, the other is master. Anyone violating this principle is considered a criminal and is dealt with accordingly.[/quote]

I do understand that. Even if I hadn’t read Ayn Rand’s work, you made those points abundantly clear in the past. :slight_smile:

However, my point is that our wild predatorial nature goes far beyond physical violence; police, judiciary, and military forces – even if they were perfect – are just not enough to reduce the consequences of our innate destructive behavior… even on the economy.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The ones who propose this rarely want to be the ones who are ‘guided’ or must fit into the ‘structure’.[/quote]

Not at all. I have no problem paying taxes or social security, and I crave for more government regulation, not less. Even having no intentions of running for political office.

For example, yesterday, when I heard that the dividends and capital gains tax break was extended, I was actually pissed off – even though it’s personally going to save me hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax just in the next couple of years. Why did it piss me off? Because that means that our deficit will continue to increase, and that hurts everybody.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“There is always right and always wrong, but the middle is always evil.”
— Ayn Rand
(from memory)[/quote]

… and that’s where we fundamentally disagree.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Who the fuck are Ren and Stimpy? Make sense, clown!
[/quote]

I can’t believe you don’t even know who Ren and Stimpy are.

Have you at least heard of Beavis and Butthead?

No wonder your mental capacity is so minimal, you’ve been severely deprived of pop-culture.

Anyway, YOU IDIOT, is a trademark phrase between those two characters. Don’t worry, I’ll refrain from giving you kudos (you do understand the concept of kudos don’t you) in the future.

Irish,

Differential Equations, Stability and Chaos in Dynamic Economics, by Brock and Malliaris.

W.A. Brock is pretty good at explaining pseudo-randomness.

[quote]hspder wrote:

For example, yesterday, when I heard that the dividends and capital gains tax break was extended, I was actually pissed off – even though it’s personally going to save me hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax just in the next couple of years. Why did it piss me off? Because that means that our deficit will continue to increase, and that hurts everybody.

[/quote]

I’m sure you realize that you pay way more in taxes than about 99% of us earn, per year. That’s remarkable!

Yawn…

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Yawn…[/quote]

What’s the matter? Did we use to many big words?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Yawn…

What’s the matter? Did we use to many big words?[/quote]

No, you are just boring me…

…wait, you never use any big words come to think of it.

Therefore, I will be magnanimous and will speak very plainly to you.