Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > Jim Crow laws were socially > > irresponsible, as a society we made a descision that the right to > > be treated fairly regardless of skin color superceded the rights > > odf a business owner to be cruel and inhuman, I agree. > > > >Jim Crow laws were enacted because without them, not all southern >businessmen >would discriminate. Those laws were immoral, in part, because they forced >a >businessowner to do with his own business and property that which he >otherwise might not have been inclined to do. Repealing them was a moral >imperative; passing laws coercing the same businessman from the other >direction are also immoral, and should also be repealed. As if businesses wouldn't cartel to discriminate if we didn't have anti-discrimination laws? That's either naive or disingenious, Mona. I don't know which but I can take a pretty good guess. >Free people have the right to be assholes. We don't need protected >liberties >because men are angels; we need them because they are not. An emotional >appeal can always be put forth to whittle away at freedom " just here, " > " just >for this problem. " Such appeals will always be there, and always tempt us >to >give up pieces of freedom in exchange for enforcing our preferred morality. >Down that road lies tyranny. We need protected rights for the same reason, Mona. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > To me, the various civil rights acts adopted by Congress..... and let's > > remember there's not one civil rights act... are about enforcement > > mechanisms for the 14th Amendment. Now, Mona, do you oppose that also? > > > >Not in its original principle and purpose. But the pernicious " enabling " >legislation is very wrong in many instances. > >--Mona-- So, you would prefer an emasulated version? Or one so narrowly defined in civil rights as to make no difference? Pernicious? As in the tyranny of the white majority defining just how narrow those civil rights will be? Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 You know, I could be wrong about what Peele meant, but I don't think I'm calling upon you to be a " quasi-official translator " when what he's talking about is clearly not behaviorism, but behavioral economics. > > > >You need to read up on behavioral economics. It's very different > >from > > > >behaviorism. > > > Don't you rather mean that Peele does? That was a direct quote from > >his > > > website. > > > Steve > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 >You know, I could be wrong about what Peele meant, but I don't think >I'm calling upon you to be a " quasi-official translator " when what >he's talking about is clearly not behaviorism, but behavioral >economics. I may have been a touch sarcastic. But, it is his quote, from his website, in which he is talking purely about behaviorism and not behavioral economics. If he wants toconfuse the two, again, that's his problem, error, mistake, or business. Why not write him and suggest he do a Google search? Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > Let the scientists do their thing then. Don't try to convince me > >of something that science has as yet failed to prove, though. > I was trying to convince you of something science ***has*** proved, but of > course, you are obtuse. > > > > And I'm certainly not a paranoiac about our government. > > > > You will be. > > Only if you're part of it. I thought I was - we the people and all that, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 What you really need to do is pay attention to what you're reading, instead of assuming the word " behavioral " denotes " behaviorism. " Use some analysis. Don't be a robot. > You need to read up on behavioral economics. It's very different from > behaviorism. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 \>What you really need to do is pay attention to what you're reading, >instead of assuming the word " behavioral " denotes " behaviorism. " Use >some analysis. Don't be a robot. Me, a robot? Only behaviorists believe as though people act like robots. I don't believe " behavioral " **necessarily** denotes " behaviorism. " However, I believe it can, and that it does at times. How's that for analysis? And I believe it does, in the case of Mssr. Peele. How's that for a little more analysis? And I must? I really need to? I think I understand Stanton Peele well enough. Just because my interpretation of what he's saying doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean I don't understand him. Any other things I " need " to do, while you're at it? Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 Re: Sober as a Bush? > In a message dated 7/27/01 10:09:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > steverino63@... writes: > > I said the gov't owed it. > > > > The government owes you happiness? You are joking, right? > OK, I was being a bit elliptical. The govt owes me the full protection of a right to pursue happiness. And yes, that may come into conflict with others pursuit. So, the govt is a nanny. It always will be. Back to the Hobbsian theme. A sociopath may find murder to be perfectly moral. Because one person doesn't have the same view as the rest of society, the govt is forced to be a nanny there. It's simply a question of where and to what extent you want nannyism, in my view. It's a differencew of degree and nothing more. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 Could someone please tell me who is Dubya, and what imo means. New to list - still learning. Interesting discussions. Expected more about ppls experiences with aa and why they left and what they are doing now. I personally want to be involved in legislation that makes aa a religion, and from my experiences with my doc's, apparently the medical comm. badly needs reeducation as to what addiction treatment currently is, how badly it's outcome is, and what alternatives may be. I find it soooo frustrating that my doctor thinks aa is treatment. It seems to me the steps hardly have a thing to do with achieving abstinence. I told this to my last and final aa friend who holds a watered down " alternative " aa meeting in her home and is an atheist. Even she blew me off. It seems she can't handle anti-aa opinions. That's too bad - I liked her. But when I told her I wouldn't be back to the meeting - I haven't been in ages and she said everyone was " worried " about me - she blew me off. Oh well. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 At 10:04 AM 7/28/01 -0400, you wrote: >Could someone please tell me who is Dubya, and what imo means. " Dubya " is a nickname for the current US President, W. Bush. People who don't like him sometimes use childish variants like " Dumbya " or " Shrubya. " IMO means " in my opinion. " You'll also see IMHO sometimes, which stands for " in my humble opinion. " > New to list - >still learning. Interesting discussions. Expected more about ppls >experiences with aa and why they left and what they are doing now. We talk about that too, sometimes. >I personally want to be involved in legislation that makes aa a religion, Not sure what you mean here. >and >from my experiences with my doc's, apparently the medical comm. badly needs >reeducation as to what addiction treatment currently is, how badly it's >outcome is, and what alternatives may be. I find it soooo frustrating that >my doctor thinks aa is treatment. It seems to me the steps hardly have a >thing to do with achieving abstinence. It's one of the classic questions of the field. If heavy drinking is a disease, why is the usual treatment a religious conversion? >I told this to my last and final aa friend who holds a watered down > " alternative " aa meeting in her home and is an atheist. Even she blew me >off. It seems she can't handle anti-aa opinions. That's too bad - I liked >her. But when I told her I wouldn't be back to the meeting - I haven't been >in ages and she said everyone was " worried " about me - she blew me off. Oh >well. These watered-down meetings never seem to last long. Folks either leave entirely or accept enough dogma to join regular AA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 " Dubya " is the current President of the United States.... W. Bush. " imo " means " in my opinion. " Pam > Re: Sober as a Bush? > > > Could someone please tell me who is Dubya, and what imo means. > New to list - > still learning. Interesting discussions. Expected more about ppls > experiences with aa and why they left and what they are doing now. > > I personally want to be involved in legislation that makes aa a > religion, and > from my experiences with my doc's, apparently the medical comm. > badly needs > reeducation as to what addiction treatment currently is, how badly it's > outcome is, and what alternatives may be. I find it soooo > frustrating that > my doctor thinks aa is treatment. It seems to me the steps hardly have a > thing to do with achieving abstinence. > > I told this to my last and final aa friend who holds a watered down > " alternative " aa meeting in her home and is an atheist. Even she blew me > off. It seems she can't handle anti-aa opinions. That's too bad > - I liked > her. But when I told her I wouldn't be back to the meeting - I > haven't been > in ages and she said everyone was " worried " about me - she blew > me off. Oh > well. > > Jan > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 > Are you kidding? I never would have guessed! I consider myself a social democrat in the best European-left sense of the term. Not all leftists are new age weirdos or American limousine liberals. Some few of us are Diogenian, almost cynical (in its original sense) left-wingers. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 > Could someone please tell me who is Dubya, and what imo means. New to list - > still learning. Interesting discussions. Expected more about ppls > experiences with aa and why they left and what they are doing now. Hi and welcome, Jan. I agree with you! Someone recently got angry because some people on this list talk about AA too much! I thought that was funny though, and I think it is a good idea to talk about experiences, both positive and negative that we've had with AA. Dubya is a disrespectful nickname for the President of the US and IMO means In My Opinion. HTH (oops - that means Hope That Helps!) > I personally want to be involved in legislation that makes aa a religion, and > from my experiences with my doc's, apparently the medical comm. badly needs > reeducation as to what addiction treatment currently is, how badly it's > outcome is, and what alternatives may be. I find it soooo frustrating that > my doctor thinks aa is treatment. It seems to me the steps hardly have a > thing to do with achieving abstinence. I think you will get along with most of the people on this list! > I told this to my last and final aa friend who holds a watered down > " alternative " aa meeting in her home and is an atheist. Even she blew me > off. It seems she can't handle anti-aa opinions. That's too bad - I liked > her. But when I told her I wouldn't be back to the meeting - I haven't been > in ages and she said everyone was " worried " about me - she blew me off. Oh > well. I've learned from my own experience and from reading about the experiences of others that steppers can be quite insensitive, quite irrational and quite stubborn. As a former stepper, I still have some of these traits, but I am better off now than when I was trying to practice the steps, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 It's difficult for me to believe that you read this: " In this classic piece, Stanton and DeGrandpre review human and animal research against the claim that cocaine is such a powerful reinforcer that it invariably causes the organism with unlimited access to self-administer the drug to the exclusion of all other activity and reward, often until death. In place of this model, Stanton and Rich apply behavioral economic research and models which show that animals balance the opportunities for available rewards, among which cocaine appears to be a strong but far from overwhelming or unique example. " and assumed that Stanton Peele is a behaviorist. Isn't the first sentence of the abstract a complete contradiction of the behaviorist viewpoint? If you would swallow your pride and read up on behavioral economics, I think you would understand what Stanton is saying here. As long as you believe that " behavioral " equals " behavioristic " , it must be real contortionism to make sense out of it. In other words, Stanton is DENYING that using cocaine must invariably lead to a particular response. Now go look up behavioral economics, not because I want you to agree with me, but because it's a fascinating subject, worthy of debate, and particularly interesting when debated with people who are intelligent and open-minded. > \>What you really need to do is pay attention to what you're reading, > >instead of assuming the word " behavioral " denotes " behaviorism. " Use > >some analysis. Don't be a robot. > > Me, a robot? Only behaviorists believe as though people act like robots. I > don't believe " behavioral " **necessarily** denotes " behaviorism. " However, I > believe it can, and that it does at times. > How's that for analysis? > And I believe it does, in the case of Mssr. Peele. > How's that for a little more analysis? > And I must? I really need to? I think I understand Stanton Peele well > enough. Just because my interpretation of what he's saying doesn't agree > with yours doesn't mean I don't understand him. > Any other things I " need " to do, while you're at it? > Steve > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 > " In this classic piece, Stanton and DeGrandpre review human > and animal research against the claim that cocaine is such a powerful > reinforcer that it invariably causes the organism with unlimited > access to self-administer the drug to the exclusion of all other > activity and > reward, often until death. In place of this model, Stanton and Rich > apply behavioral economic research and models which show that animals > balance the opportunities for available rewards, among which cocaine > appears to be a strong but far from overwhelming or unique example. " > > and assumed that Stanton Peele is a behaviorist. Isn't the first > sentence of the abstract a complete contradiction of the behaviorist > viewpoint? If you would swallow your pride and read up on behavioral > economics, I think you would understand what Stanton is saying here. > As long as you believe that " behavioral " equals " behavioristic " , it > must be real contortionism to make sense out of it. First of all, I don't distinguish " behavioral economics " as a separate school of thought from " behaviorism. " So I'm not even on the same philosophical page as you. Nor do I care to be. > > In other words, Stanton is DENYING that using cocaine must invariably > lead to a particular response. Now go look up behavioral economics, > not because I want you to agree with me, but because it's a > fascinating subject, worthy of debate, and particularly interesting > when debated with people who are intelligent and open-minded. I believe myself to be intelligent and open-minded, both. Certainly intelligent enough that I don't cotton to direct orders. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 Re: Sober as a Bush? > In a message dated 7/28/01 11:46:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > steverino63@... writes: > > > > It's simply a question of where and to what extent you want nannyism, in my > > view. It's a differencew of degree and nothing more. > > > > That would collapse all meaningful distinctions. Government only " owes " you > the protection of your life, liberty and property from those who would take > them. You have a right to be free FROM, but no rights TO vis-a-vis the > government, because the government has nothing to give you, unless it takes > it first from me. Again, I disagree. > > What is your moral justification for taking money from me so the government > can spend it as you, but not I, would prefer? If it is an insoluble > conundrum in areas such as, say, national defense, does that mean wholesale > robbing of money is justified by this hard case? If you really want to follow libertarianism to its ultimate conclusion, why have government at all? Even for police protection? Why not just let everybody contract for their private security? Let people drive as they will? If libertarianism's ideas are pursued with ultimate vigor, I can see them leading to anarchism as surely as Humean empiricism leads to solipsism. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 Re: Re: Sober as a Bush? > > " In this classic piece, Stanton and DeGrandpre review human > > and animal research against the claim that cocaine is such a powerful > > reinforcer that it invariably causes the organism with unlimited > > access to self-administer the drug to the exclusion of all other > > activity and > > reward, often until death. In place of this model, Stanton and Rich > > apply behavioral economic research and models which show that animals > > balance the opportunities for available rewards, among which cocaine > > appears to be a strong but far from overwhelming or unique example. " > > > > and assumed that Stanton Peele is a behaviorist. Isn't the first > > sentence of the abstract a complete contradiction of the behaviorist > > viewpoint? If you would swallow your pride and read up on behavioral > > economics, I think you would understand what Stanton is saying here. > > As long as you believe that " behavioral " equals " behavioristic " , it > > must be real contortionism to make sense out of it. > > First of all, I don't distinguish " behavioral economics " as a separate > school of thought from " behaviorism. " So I'm not even on the same > philosophical page as you. Nor do I care to be. To follow up and be more specific, I believe behavioral economics, in lowest common demoninator terms, can involve using money on people as the carrot rather than cocaine on lab rats. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 I don't see how you can say anything about behavioral economics if you don't know what it is. It has nothing to do with behaviorism. > > Re: Re: Sober as a Bush? > > > > > " In this classic piece, Stanton and DeGrandpre review human > > > and animal research against the claim that cocaine is such a powerful > > > reinforcer that it invariably causes the organism with unlimited > > > access to self-administer the drug to the exclusion of all other > > > activity and > > > reward, often until death. In place of this model, Stanton and Rich > > > apply behavioral economic research and models which show that animals > > > balance the opportunities for available rewards, among which cocaine > > > appears to be a strong but far from overwhelming or unique example. " > > > > > > and assumed that Stanton Peele is a behaviorist. Isn't the first > > > sentence of the abstract a complete contradiction of the behaviorist > > > viewpoint? If you would swallow your pride and read up on behavioral > > > economics, I think you would understand what Stanton is saying here. > > > As long as you believe that " behavioral " equals " behavioristic " , it > > > must be real contortionism to make sense out of it. > > > > First of all, I don't distinguish " behavioral economics " as a separate > > school of thought from " behaviorism. " So I'm not even on the same > > philosophical page as you. Nor do I care to be. > > To follow up and be more specific, I believe behavioral economics, in lowest > common demoninator terms, can involve using money on people as the carrot > rather than cocaine on lab rats. > Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2001 Report Share Posted July 29, 2001 You have a right to be free FROM, but no rights TO vis-a-vis the > government, because the government has nothing to give you, unless it takes > it first from me. Again, I disagree. The government (with narrow exceptions) has no money it does not take from others. You cannot get money from then government unless you first adovcate that it be taken from another. But if you wish to abolish the federal income tax, and insist that the feds owe one and all any entitelment that meets your fancy, be my guest. No skin off my nose. Just don't steal the money from others. But then, how are you going to fund the entitlements? >>If you really want to follow libertarianism to its ultimate conclusion, why have government at all? Even for police protection? Why not just let everybody contract for their private security? Let people drive as they will? If libertarianism's ideas are pursued with ultimate vigor, I can see them leading to anarchism as surely as Humean empiricism leads to solipsism.<< All very interesting issues Steve, but please first answer my questions, which were: What is your moral justification for taking money from me so the government can spend it as you, but not I, would prefer? If it is an insoluble conundrum in areas such as, say, national defense, does that mean wholesale robbing of money is justified by this hard case? --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2001 Report Share Posted July 31, 2001 What makes you think state law was any protection for ethnic minorities? It wasn't illegal to beat black people. Not illegal where, Ken? If you are talking post-bellum South, you are mistaken. But even if you were correct, the CRA does jot simply provide that all laws probibiting violence shall apply regrdless of race. If that is all it did, there would be objection to it only from the fever swamps. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2001 Report Share Posted July 31, 2001 MonaHolland@... wrote: > In a message dated 7/27/01 9:27:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > kenr1@... > writes: > > > >> We are not talking about the Aryan Brotherhood " expressing their >> views " >> when we are talking about the need for U.S. Civil Rights Act unless >> we >> are describing lynchings, beatings and cross-burnings (in someone's >> yard >> who doesn't want it there) as people " expressing their views. " > > The CRA is not necessary, and not even particularly used for, > prohibiting > such activity. Homicides, assault and battery, and trespass are > against the > law regardless of motive, and with or without the CRA. Mona, What makes you think state law was any protection for ethnic minorities? It wasn't illegal to beat black people. Only if one makes the mis-assumption that blacks were considered people (other than people who deserved to be punished for biblical reasons) can one say there was law protecting them. Regardless of whether the CRA was particularly useful in and of itself, it marked the beginning of Federal intervention and the threat of Federal troops, something without which the system wouldn't have changed. > > > >>If a restaurant owner ( or shop owner ) was to allow the " colored " > (anyone of non-European descent) to eat or shop, they would be subject > > to great intimidation ranging from cross-burnings in their yard to > being > burned out.<< > > Which is illegal, quite aside from the CRA. If the CRA existed only > to > prohibit such behavior (it does not) I would have no problem with. > Non of the above was illegal. Sure, technically, but a judge who wears a sheet on the weekend is not going to enforce it. I'm not arguing that the CRA didn't bring a horde of locusts with it. Ken Ragge > > >>It was this sort of thing (among others) that the civil rights > legislation put a stop to.<< > > No, it did not. What the CRA did was hand people in my profession the > key to > the bank (or, more accurately, the bank accounts of businessmen), so > that > employment discrimination lawsuits can rob business owners of their > money, > with a good 1/3 of the " damages " going to me and mine. > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2001 Report Share Posted July 31, 2001 MonaHolland@... wrote: > In a message dated 7/31/01 5:53:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > kenr1@... > writes: > > > >> What makes you think state law was any protection for ethnic >> minorities? It wasn't illegal to beat black people. > > Not illegal where, Ken? If you are talking post-bellum South, you are > mistaken. Mona, If you mean in some technical sense that it was illegal to beat black people, sure it was. But the technicality is meaningless when neither the police nor the courts would ever enforce it. > But even if you were correct, the CRA does jot simply provide that > all laws probibiting violence shall apply regrdless of race. If that > is all > it did, there would be objection to it only from the fever swamps. > In the post you are responding to, " I'm not arguing that the CRA didn't bring a horde of locusts with it. " Ken Ragge > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.