That much is obvious dogsmilk: you know stuff!Just for the record - I never covered WWII in GCSE at all.

Moderator: Moderators
Could you provide a link to evidence that stands up to scrutiny?There's something I don't quite get about this whole train of thinking - even if we assume for a moment there were no gas chambers (though a simply enormous body of evidence suggests there were)
you appear to be on well dodgy ground IMO but you need to say what you really mean or just drop it.Meanwhile there is currently a gene pool acting in its own interests versus all others... preserved for centuries it is... protected by a raft of 'isms'
There you are! Where have you been!rodin wrote:Dogsmilk quote
Could you provide a link to evidence that stands up to scrutiny?There's something I don't quite get about this whole train of thinking - even if we assume for a moment there were no gas chambers (though a simply enormous body of evidence suggests there were)
And point out an example of altruism? That is, an act that is contrary to the interests of your gene pool?
This is the best debunking of altruism i have read - decades ago...
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Wor ... fish.shtml
Meanwhile there is currently a gene pool acting in its own interests versus all others... preserved for centuries it is... protected by a raft of 'isms'
This is what genes are PROGRAMMED to do. Survive at the expense of others.
Anyway, I shall respond to the point about altruism later...purely out of the goodness of my heart.Well, if you follow the links to muslim_watch.org, you'll see that there is simply no single piece of evidence that PROVES they did it. All Cheney ever talked about was the 'September Surprise" (forgetting the amount of birthdays among friends and family around that time) and, in terms of the camps, the "final reckoning".
Of course, at Gitmo2, Johnny Aryan found a door made out of tissue paper that had been there since at least 2011 and in one of the cells found a Wii4 - some concentration camp. In those camps, they had four meals a day, a gym, tv room, and weekly massage. Those earphones played the music OF THEIR CHOICE, and were NOT used for 'audio torture' (whatever that's supposed to be). The bags on their head simply allowed them to get a good night's sleep. And I think I'd quite like being wheeled about on a trolley instead of having to walk.
So what if Bush says Pearle told him Cheney was going to 'do the arabs?' - those memoirs were written in crayon which can easily be manipulated and what was actually the case was Bush said that because he kinda knew he'd be arrested in the future and wanted a get-out clause.
The Truth commission was a whitewash and the whole thing was the Saudi muslim puppetmasters (who financed the neocons? Have you read those articles yet?). All those 'confessions' were bogus. Everyone knows those tin foil hats the Truth Commission wore emit mind rays. Beyond that, daily exposure to Fred's Funtastic Videodrome would break anyone.
And who said Bush was such a bad guy anyway? Have you actually read "Mein Pet Goat"? - you might find some of it disturbingly resonant. People forget the muslims declared war on the neocons - they wanted to destroy our freedoms ferchrissakes.
You can point to any damaged steel beam you like. The fact is, they do not match up to the levels of explosives used. Harold Nordic did a comprehensive analysis that shows only office furnishings could possibly have caused those levels of steel evaporation. He put a telephone directory in a whole in the ground, tried to burn it, pissed on it then did a little dance. I don't think anyone could argue with that level of painstaking research.
The blunt fact is, we were duped by evil muslims into thinking they didn't do what really did. It's the scam of he century. We're going to hell in a hancart. You couldn't make it up.
Anyway, I shall respond to the point about altruism later...purely out of the goodness of my heart.
I haven't read it myself - it's one of those books I never seem to get round to, so you might have to correct me on a few things.rodin wrote:Anyway, I shall respond to the point about altruism later...purely out of the goodness of my heart.![]()
Ian - have you read 'The Selfish Gene'?
Obviously altruism must appear to be real. But under the surface it is not. Many examples were clevery decoded by Dawkins in his seminal work. Decent people (including us) appear to do altruistic acts. But when you analyse deeply you will find that THEY or THEIR GENES get a kickback. Give me any example of so-called 'altruism' and I will offer an alternative motive for the act.
This is not to say that people do not willingly act decently, and will help out. I got off my bike, threw it in the boot of the car that was being pushed along the dual carriageway and lent a hand. I did not expect reward not was it forthcoming. I was simply helping out a stranger in need. Was that altruistic?
I would say not. It was spontaneous - yes. But looking back I can see that it gave me a good feeling - of having helped someone. My kickback.
Dogsmilk wrote:There's something I don't quite get about this whole train of thinking - even if we assume for a moment there were no gas chambers (though a simply enormous body of evidence suggests there were)
rodin wrote:Could you provide a link to evidence that stands up to scrutiny?
No one can successfully argue against the free-fall collapse times as being absolute proof of CD. ie of MIHOP, since CD requires preparation. Even the dubious Steven Jones admits this, because he knows not to do so will discredit himself.Dogsmilk wrote:[Firstly - no I can't. In the same way you can't present any evidence for MIHOP that JREF would be happy with.
MIHOP does not consist of Steven Jones. Very few (if any) truthers would say their position rests on a single point. The position tends to consist of a multitude of points that converge on a specific conclusion. What does the balance of probabilities suggest. The steel has (apart from a few pieces) gone. There will be no documents saying how it was done. There will be no written order. There may be confessions. Some of the initial claims turn out to be wrong. Others are disputed within the field. Further claims may turn out to be wrong. New ones may emerge. Reffers will hold up each of them in turn for ritual dismissal.rodin wrote:Dogsmilk wrote:There's something I don't quite get about this whole train of thinking - even if we assume for a moment there were no gas chambers (though a simply enormous body of evidence suggests there were)rodin wrote:Could you provide a link to evidence that stands up to scrutiny?No one can successfully argue against the free-fall collapse times as being absolute proof of CD. ie of MIHOP, since CD requires preparation. Even the dubious Steven Jones admits this, because he knows not to do so will discredit himself.Dogsmilk wrote:[Firstly - no I can't. In the same way you can't present any evidence for MIHOP that JREF would be happy with.
Yup!Dogsmilk wrote:Broadly speaking, I agree to a large extent. But I suppose it depends how rigid your definition of 'altruism' is. Being a fan of Kropotkin's mutual aid I'm quite a strong believer in the evolutionary necessity of 'atruistic' co-operation which I guess is encoded in our genes.
Took the words right outa my mouth...."Do unto others..." is actually very, very sensible. Unless you're an extreme masochist or something.
yesAnd yeah, you might get a warm glow from helping others which is 'selfish' , but does that really sum it up totally adequately?
ecstasy is an addiction not a callingOne might say a Christian dying for their faith in Rome was 'selfish' in wishing to avert the greater horror of hell. But does that adequately sum up the relationship they felt they had with God? Does it capture the emotion they feel when they see the image of Christ on the cross?
Thery probably hate humans like my guinea-pig adoring nieceIf someone breaks into a laboratory to rescue some rabbits from having stuff poured in their eyes so some guy can justify another year's research grant, is it simply they wish to make themselves feel a bit better about the whole thing? Does it capture the the depth of feeling they have for the plight of a species that can never even understand what they're doing?
In stress sitches we do what we must. Personal safety/comfort becomes less of an issue. Plus the soldier is PROGRAMMED more than most.When some guy risks his life under enemy fire to rescue a wounded comrade, is it just to avoid future guilt or fulfill his group instinct? Does that fully capture his determination to not leave his comrade behind? (though I would recommend he should probably have thought about the primate group thing before getting himself into that situation in the first place).
Since you were feeling things you'd never felt before, we must assume this is not routine?By extension, when you lie next to your loved one after a marathon session of red hot lurve, hold them close, feeling things you've never felt before, whispering things you've never said before, does it adequately sum up the experience to simply say you've just fulfilled the urge to reproduce and are now engaged in pair bonding for the benefit of future offspring? Or you've selfishly avoided the fear of growing old alone in a care home wearing a big nappy?
Aaaahhh being in lurve - such a sweet state of intoxication...The urge to mate is biologically based but doesn't explain what it's like to be in love. You can even isolate the chemicals it produces in the brain (I'm sure I read somewhere it's very similar to bipolar disorder), but the 'explanation' doesn't quite capture the experience.
Not listened to them... but I can imagine...Is hearing Napalm Death just sounds hitting your ear drum? Does that explain why they ROCK? (I just said that as I'm listening to smear campaign right now.)
Yes they do. But we can still savour the experience (thinkey - what is sex like for a gyneacologist?)This reductionist stuff I believe is probably correct, but kind of misses something in the translation. Evolutionary explanations do not capture what it is to experience something.
NOW YOU'RE TALKING! By being our selfish selves we can build a better world. By following paths laid down by those at the apex of the pyramid we are doomed to a life of dissatisfaction at best...However, does it even matter? Surely it's how we use the words? If I eat all the pie and don't leave you any, we'd probably agree that's selfish. If I spend my last few quid buying you a birthday present, we'd generally agree that's altruistic. Even if I get a smug, saintly glow for doing so -you still feel chuffed with your new 1933 edition of the protocols - everyone's a winner! If we can build a better world by people being routinely selfish in a way that makes everyone happy - how cool is that?
I too have a soft spot for wild things actually. But I do like a good barbecue...F*ck the genes - I used to spent regular Saturday mornings trying to save the lives of little red canine things that aren't even the same species. Against the will of other members of my own species. My genes might be responsible for the initial impetus, but I have a consciousness borne of language which, although it may be 'hard-wired', is not simply defined in terms of genes. They're a template.
Blair has no soul left. As for demonising other pigmentations - I actually disagree there. I am intrigued by difference...Personally, I feel an appreciation of the kind of primitive primate group instincts that allow inane actions like waving the Union Jack (as opposed to burning it), rallying round some chump 'alpha male' (Blair would never had cut it 'in the wild' - funny how how alpha males change), demonising 'other' primate groups of differing pigmentation, spacial location or genetic origin, having 'countries' and 'nationalities' (chimps mark their territory with poo - we draw lines on maps), saying "are you looking at my bird" and all that is probably more urgent. A world of selfish altruistic co-operation I can live with.
Religion is a great control mech because is fills the logic void in most peoples brain - 'who made us' etc.Interestingly, Buddhism and certain strains of the occult do try to get totally beyond the 'human condition'. The (lamentably misunderstood) ubermensch. But whether that's possible or not is a very big area.
Richard Dawkins wrote: Whatever the philosophical problems raised by consciousness, for the purpose of this story it can be thought of as the culmination of an evolutionary trend towards the emancipation of survival machines as executive decision-takers from their ultimate masters, the genes. Not only are brains in charge of the day-to-day running of survival machine affairs, they have also acquired the ability to predict the future and act accordingly. They even have the power to rebel against the dictates of the genes, for instance in refusing to have as many children as they are able to. But in this respect man is a very special case, as we shall see.
What has all this to do with altruism and selfishness? I am trying to build up the idea that animal behaviour, altruistic or selfish, is under the control of the genes in only an indirect, but still very powerful, sense. By dictating the way survival machines and their nervous systems are built, genes exert ultimate power over behaviour. But the moment-to-moment decisions about what to do next are taken by the the nervous system. Genes are the primary policy-makers; brains are the executives. But as brains became more highly developed, they took over more and more of the actual policy decisions, using tricks like learning and simulation in doing so. The logical conclusion to this trend, not yet reached in any species, would be for the genes to give the survival machine a single overall policy instruction: do whatever you think best to keep us alive.
The Selfish Gene, p59.
Though maybe not for me. Differing realities i guess.yes
Who says it's ecstatic?ecstasy is an addiction not a calling
Common assumption. It is almost routine for animal rights activists to be passionate about or active in human rights. It's usually a passion for life. Some misanthropists, but you get them anywhere.Thery probably hate humans like my guinea-pig adoring niece
Not all soldiers are programmed. The guerilla or partisan may act purely of their own volition. During major wars when conscription looms, the time for adequate programming is scarce.n stress sitches we do what we must. Personal safety/comfort becomes less of an issue. Plus the soldier is PROGRAMMED more than most.
Anything you feel must have been felt for the first time at some point whenever that may have been.Since you were feeling things you'd never felt before, we must assume this is not routine?
Touring this summer!Not listened to them... but I can imagine...
Only if we're being selfish by trying not to be selfish.NOW YOU'RE TALKING! By being our selfish selves we can build a better world. By following paths laid down by those at the apex of the pyramid we are doomed to a life of dissatisfaction at best...
How does being intrigued imply demonisation? I find insects intriguing, but I've grown out of pulling their wings off.Blair has no soul left. As for demonising other pigmentations - I actually disagree there. I am intrigued by difference...
Quote:
Strictly speaking, Buddhism is more of a practice. As is the occult.Religion is a great control mech because is fills the logic void in most peoples brain - 'who made us' etc.
It's not me you have to convince.More's the pity because the laws of physics are not amenable to photoshopping and the free-fall collapses PROVE CD. Not who did it - just CD.
Strictly speaking I, er, didn't write it - I'll get Joey two-rivers to channel the correction, though.chek wrote:Interesting discovery you'll make there DM.Dogsmilk wrote: Have you actually read "Mein Pet Goat"? - you might find some of it disturbingly resonant.
Though I think you'll find it's "Die Pet Goat"
Annie wrote:Did any of you see the recent BBC Adam Curtis offering? He of "The Power of Nightmares" fame. The latest series was called "The Trap" and he analysed how the "game theory" aka the cold war mentality was developed by a paranoid schizophrenic. This then evolved into the whole "selfish gene" and "yuppie" theory, which has since been used to fragment our community spirit.
Yet all recent psychological studies indicate that most people gain the greatest contentment from being part of and contributing actively to a community. He postulated that the"game theory", and all psychiatric ideas which followed, were part of a scheme to create division to evolve better societal control.
Absolute balderdash. Cold war was a psyop from start to finish. Selfish gene has nothing to do with Yuppies. Yuppies are selfish people who want to party. Selfish genes want to survive.Annie wrote:Did any of you see the recent BBC Adam Curtis offering? He of "The Power of Nightmares" fame. The latest series was called "The Trap" and he analysed how the "game theory" aka the cold war mentality was developed by a paranoid schizophrenic. This then evolved into the whole "selfish gene" and "yuppie" theory, which has since been used to fragment our community spirit.
Yet all recent psychological studies indicate that most people gain the greatest contentment from being part of and contributing actively to a community. He postulated that the"game theory", and all psychiatric ideas which followed, were part of a scheme to create division to evolve better societal control.
Annie, I did see "The Trap", in fact you can find most of Curtis' documentaries kicking around the net.Annie wrote:Did any of you see the recent BBC Adam Curtis offering? He of "The Power of Nightmares" fame. The latest series was called "The Trap" and he analysed how the "game theory" aka the cold war mentality was developed by a paranoid schizophrenic. This then evolved into the whole "selfish gene" and "yuppie" theory, which has since been used to fragment our community spirit.
Yet all recent psychological studies indicate that most people gain the greatest contentment from being part of and contributing actively to a community. He postulated that the"game theory", and all psychiatric ideas which followed, were part of a scheme to create division to evolve better societal control.
Indeed - and a useful term here was developed by my old mate - London based Zippy type Fraser Clark - he called it :ian neal wrote:Seriously Rodin have you led such a life that you have never come across acts of altruism or selfless action by people of one 'gene pool' towards another? I have, many times
The thing is that Dawkins' central thesis: that the gene is the fundamental unit of natural selection and that it is gene survival that determines the direction of natural selection, not the individual or the species is essentially correct and is hardly controversial among biologists.utopiated wrote:EmptyBee wrote: although Dawkins himself does have a tendency towards reductionism.
I nominate that for most understated statement ever since the old daze of Usenet... which most people here will think is a piece of fishing apparatus.