Murph said

Conservationist said

Murph said

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.

All facts are theses, by this definition, because undiscovered correlative facts could change their meanings

" the combination of more possible outlooks serves to allow the construction of ideas" -- yet you assume each of those are distinct ideas, and that they are not self-serving. Are humans not on the whole self-serving? And of 10,000 men, do you not find four or five ideas repeated in different form?

Determinism is a doctrine, but so is its opposite. And if we admit that both predetermined capabilities (nature) and learned capabilities (nurture) influence a person, cannot we reverse your argument and say that there is no proof anomalies are only anomalies, and that if most people follow the pattern of nature being MORE IMPORTANT THAN nurture, that it is the guiding principle here?

Name exceptions, if you would, otherwise... I sense fantasy on the wing, and recommend you read Pinker. First, intelligence is wholly heritable, barring negative events. It cannot be improved. With education it can be guided, but a 105 never outpaces a 125 on the IQ scale. So we can see the trend goes in one way but not the other.

"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" -- no agreement here whatsoever, as it does not account for people being hardwired toward that idealism, or that idealism being a compensative factor (cognitive dissonance). Differing senses of realism -- but there is one reality -- so you are saying that people being in error contributes somehow to discourse? Really? Only if one does not ever want to arrive at an answer, an event feared only by those who are afraid of what that answer means FOR THEM PERSONALLY.

As to your points about the division of states, consider this: right now, the country is vastly divided. No one side wins for long. Who loses? The people, as they have inconsistent leadership that spends more time infighting than addressing actual issues. A sign of a declining civilization... the original ideas of confederation, based on the 13 colonies, would free successful areas from obligation to other areas, and vice versa. It would be no more divisive than now because the opinions of individuals would remain the same, so would the division in society.

"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. " -- ah, a semantic argument! To say the word parasite means one thing to someone, and another to something else, does not change the DEFINITION OF PARASITE, only the term used to refer to it. We can play word games all day long.

Why do conservative areas have fewer parasites? Because they are less concerned with inequality, and so do not support as many parasites. Compare the midwest to the coasts.

"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." -- this doesn't follow. If we are surrounded by those near us, AND WE ARE REALISTIC, we have no need for these partially realistic delusional perspectives you speak so highly of.

Marxism is a distillation of Hegelianism, or the idea that through conflict we arrive at a higher form of socialization. Well, let's see... planet in ruins, still constant conflict, nuclear proliferation, pollution, less literacy and more people... I think Hegelianism has failed. Other than our technology, are we better off or worse off than in the past?

We will die out, I'd argue, if we cannot find reality and agree on it, which does not mean that every perspective can be considered equally.

This has been your most forced post yet.

Intelligence may be inheritable, but to strip away the potential for advancement for a single mind at any time is a waste of what it is to be human, which, barring INJURY OR DISEASE is a constant POTENTIAL for growth. It might seem fitting to be cynical, but it is in no way close to reality. Some people born into considerably low-functioning, low-stimulus environments go on to live lives of incredible intellect and cognitive function. Your NATURE vs. NURTURE argument follows trend in situations most often when the standard of living in a particular area matches the education provided to those in the area ie. the ability to 'move up' correlates to the position deemed at birth or through economic status during the formative years. It is impossible to deem 'anomalies' just 'anomalies' because those anomalies produce the results that move the margins and shift perceived life expectancies past perceived limits. They are useful to actuaries, perhaps, but in real life, your hunches are just that: hunches.

I never consider that all ideas are constructive, yet it is impossible to be exacting when dealing with influence in the structure of the human mind and its ingenuity. Why play safe and categorically say that within a certain group of people, only this permutation of ideas can be created, deemed to be of only so much worth? Why is it that 4-5 ideas so similar mean less? Perhaps that is an indication of an idea holding more weight that 4-5 answers of vastly different properties? WHY BE SO EXACTING?

A 105 never outpaces a 125 on the scale? So the higher an IQ score the better quality of life someone can have? There is no need for an intelligent answer here because no matter how a person scores on a HUMAN test administered to measure PERCEIVED intelligence, to negate free choice in the destiny of any individual is to deny what is essentially human: some may be provided with a natural advantage, but it is to the individual to use that in a way that prospers. A 105 could lead a much more fulfilling life than a 125 if the 125 makes choices that do not fit with the normative being of society.

Someone being in error does account to discourse. While perhaps a bit cheeky for argumentative purposes, it is impossible to grasp the most normative behaviors without studying their most deviant possibilities. No single person's mind is able to comprehend all things in the most sound of ways, as the mathematics just weigh too heavy in the favor of error.

Your points about confederation are simply personal taste, and favor nothing of reality. Your point of inconsistent leadership is laughable, as having 13 states within a single nation with as much power as you propose would lead to 13 individual voices of (hopefully) equal power and might? Oh, that's right, some states who 'have it right' should not have to worry about those 'in the wrong.' There is no textbook that can solve the issues we have, which is why, as a united nation we use the platofrms of states to present problems which, as a whole, can be used to advance each state in its own way. WHERE'S THE FLEXIBILITY? And to be so wry as to say my parasitic point was a semantic argument means you've never studied a language outside of your native tongue: a perceived 'universal' definition of a word does not exist! In some biological cases a parasite can be something wholly negative or wholly necessary (japanese beetle vs. caituru fish). The definition of parasite is an arbitrary title: to place so much upon a perceived meaning is too rigid.

Also, I'm am neither a Marxist or neo-Marxist, so there is no need to fret. Your incredulous attitude toward my want for differing views is just too shortsighted: of course not every point-of-view holds the same weight, but that's not what I'm proposing. The fact is, there is not much we can do to affect the fact that no matter how streamlined and uniform our education system could possibly be, some people will believe and act just how the feel necessary, even in some cases completely in the face of convention and rationality. But we cannot cut those people off from ourselves. Discourse, now as much as ever before, keeps ourselves relevant. Every aspect of life, from humor to politics deals with cultural relevance. I just do not see how your ideas of separatism could at all benefit our way of life: you must realize no matter how we try only a fraction of the population could even participate in the argument we're having. There are only so many biological factors one can process in order to understand people until we being to realize that some people just choose to function at a certain level.