Ass Hat

Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

End Ass Hat

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by Murph at 2008-08-30 20:38:12

Conservationist said

Minds are mostly deterministic; see THE BLANK SLATE by STEVEN PINKER. You are your abilities, and those determine most of your outlook.

Further, I'm aware that for most situations, there is one good approach with some variations; anything else is pretense.

For this reason, I see that people are inherently divided by their degree of realism and that for the most part, it is inherent.

I am not speaking of states superceding Federal law, as one might have to do in order to secede from the nation.

I am speaking of states' rights applying in scope, so that certain laws (abortion, gun control, drugs, etc) could be seen as within the realm of the state and not the federation.

This was how America was originally designed, 1776-1789, and it works best when there is no consensus and there's unlikely to be one.

(Not to split hairs, but this is actually a separate issue from ethnonationalism. The reasons for ethnonationalism are many; I'm talking here about the divisions within the electorate as a whole, and I believe it would also apply to an all-white or all-black electorate in America, and so on. The word PARASITE is not used to refer to a specific genetic group, just people who behave like parasites. I think we all know them and realize they are not limited to any one ethnic group, although some will argue they occur in different percentages in different ethnic groups; my argument is that PARASITISM occurs as a psychology and that nations are healthier without much of it.)

I will look into the book by Pinker, but to say 'You are your abilities' is not fact, but thesis, as ranging someone's abilities is a matter of outside perspective, not introspection. My point was not against the realm of causation, but rather that the combination of more possible outlooks serves to allow the construction of ideas, and the synthesis of those ideas (such as the formulas we are using to create this argument, and the materials used to create opinions).

Determinism is a doctrine, not some infallible principle. I think it is safe to say anomalies exist, as you open up to by stating that one's abilities determine MOST of a person's outlook. Another part of a person's outlook is their rearing, another instance in life where a certain type of childhood does not always produce the expected product. Perhaps here I could inject a bit of breadth and social responsibility into your point of there being usually 'one good approach' with some variations' when confronting an issue. Even if your point is true, those making the decisions, along with their consideration of those the decisions affect are the basic tenets of human interaction and responsibility. Here is where the theory of determinism holds ground, as the causes to all human issues does in some way affect all humans, no matter how miniscule it might be.

I agree people are divided by their different sense of what is real, however, Zilboorg points out 'The sense of reality is not the static result of a certain psychological developmental process but is fluid and changeable.' If it was not, people would not have a sense of idealism, which affects one's choices (in my case, one might say a sense of 'nostalgic escapism.') Differing senses of realism in society push forward new ideas, new modes, and drive forms of expression. Even if our sense of reality is inherent, isn't it possible the admiration or condemnation of someone else's might affect our own?

To put it flatly, our sense of the 'state' is not the same as it was when the country was formed. These states were instrumental in serving one goal (albeit somewhat sub-conciously) which was to bring forth differing ideals, and through the interaction of this multinational congregation, we formed a federation to serve each person equally. The state is a conduit of the federation, not an undermining body. The United States is an experiment in breaking the barriers that you for some reason feel so akin to, which are band/tribal in theme.

America lived from 1776-1787 under the Articles of Confederation. Let's be realistic, they were too weak. The reason? Their divisiveness.

To say parasites are found less in conservative areas is to state that conservatism usually isn't a parasite itself. It is subjective. We are all dregs in our own way. As you stated before, people are divided due to their sense of realism, which here would place the function of parasite to mean something to you, and something else to another. If we are surrounding ourselves with only those akin to us, WE WILL DIE OUT. It is the ability to see our opposite and live with it that strengthens our own perceptions.
Satre pined to create his Existentialist credo as the answer to many of the 'extreme issues' Marxism, through its tenets of materialism and determinism, could not. Yet, as we progress through the works, we see that Existenialism at its reduction was a 'parasite' of Marxism. Interesting.

sprinkle some fries on those CUPCAKES.

[default homepage]

8:11:38pm Apr 27,2024
load time 0.01192 secs/10 queries]