Guest guest Posted July 26, 2001 Report Share Posted July 26, 2001 >Those aren't scare quotes; those are distancing quotes. > >Yeah, I guess I basically agree with Peele. I have never seen >any biochem evidence which was convincing, or even consistent. > > I'm suspicious of Peele, I'll tell you that right off the bat. I believe he has his motives for his beliefs. Also, I don't find behaviorism, certainly not in a sweeping version, that scientific. That's in part because it reacted to fears of eugenics in the wake of World War II as well as a philosophical fear of physical determinism. 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 >In my opinion, you didn't understand what Peele said because you >haven't read up on behavioral economics. And in answer to your >previous question, you should read up on it so you look like you know >what you're talking about. Do a Google search. I think I did. If Peele chooses to make reference to behavioral economics in his website, which is about behaviorism, not behavioral politics, that's his problem as well as his business. As I'm not a Peel acolyte, I don't feel the need to be some quasi-official translator. I think I understood him well enough. > > > > >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 > > In a message dated 7/27/01 7:44:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > kenr1@c... > > The issue is not " sympathy " for anyone, but liberty. The free speech > > clause > > is necessary to protect only unpopular speech, and what will be > > unpopular > > will vary with time and circumstances. Yet the *principle* stands to > > protect > > everyone's speech no matter the times and circumstances. > > > > I may not agree with the Aryan Brotherhood's views, but I'd fight like > > hell > > for their right to a parade permit. Similarly, I might not like it if > > Joe > > Bob doesn't want to serve a black person at his diner, but I even less > > like > > it that armed agents of the state will force him to. And I certainly > > object > > that I am not permitted to exclude fundamentalist Xians from working > > in my > > office. > > > > Ken, doncha wish Diener was still here? I'm sure *HE* would be able > > to set > > me stright here. > > > > --Mona-- > > Mona, > > 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. " > > 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. > > It was this sort of thing (among others) that the civil rights > legislation put a stop to. > > Ken Ragge In the matter of liberty, and free speech, wheather we like it or not conflicts of rights come into play, and the rights of some do supercede the rights of others. We are forced to prioritize, as a society. The more socially resposible descision should prevail. In the preservation of a democratic system were all rights are to be preserved and respected, can we really allow the rights of those who wish to destroy that system to go ahead and do so? Yes, it is, a paradox, unless you establish some guidelines. Social resposibility is the guideline. 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. If I were living in the south at that time and someone refused to serve me a cup of coffe for no other reason than the fact that he is stupid, narrow-minded and has a selfish desire to be cruel to people that are not just like him, I know how I would feel. I would think it perfectly reasonable to express my views by comming back at night, smashing his windows out, going in and destroying the place. Ok, so destroying someone elses property is illegal, but what about destroying someone's sense of being? Someones basic right to be treated as an equal citizen. In the case of the fundys, if our business expanded to the point where Jeanine and I needed to hire some extra help, would I refuse to hire someone on the sole basis that they were a fundy? Damn right I would! Does this seem contradictory? Yes it does, however, the fundys are already granted special rights in this society (see link - Devin is rabid), and they they are actively creating socially irresponsible situations, in a clear, unmittigated effort to destroy the freedom that we still have. We can either try to maintainn freedom or allow sick, twisted, delusional, nazis to walk right in take it all away. They have every right to express thier veiws and practice thier idiotic superstitions, but they need to keep thier delusions the fuck out of the government, that is for all of us, not just for them. Devin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 >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. 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? 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 I see what Steve fantasizes about as just that, a fantasy. Steppers are always hoping that something or someone will achieve what is actually the responsibility of the individual. With this " alcoholic gene theory " they are merely hoping that the choice to drink will be eliminated from any potential " alcoholic " before he is born. In my opinion (which has about as much to do with Fact as the Opinion/fantasy of the steppers), to be able to take away that choice to drink or not drink will also take away virtually all other choice. I guess that is wonderful if you want a bunch of robots/androids/clones. Dealing with " alcoholism " through genes is a fantasy, and a very scary one if viewed without bias. I think it is more realistic, when thinking about genes, not to say there is an alcoholism gene, but that there are genes or gene combinations that lead to less stable mental health. As there are genes that lead to poorer physical health or poorer physical attributes. That is just what was simply called heredity in the old days. But to say there is a specific alcoholic gene that can be countered and solve the problems of alcoholics everywhere is, IMO, ludicrous. > > > What you say about the twin studies may be true, but nevertheless in > > the bigger picture it is extremely irrelevant. Are you not more interested > > in demographic and sociological studies of alcohol use/abuse?< > > > > Another reason why I believe a genetic predisposition is quite relevant. > > What if a purely choice/behaviorist approach tells people over and over that > > it is nothing but their choice and their fault they get drunk time after > > time, when a genetic predisposition says, while you are choosing to drink, > > indeed, you are, to some degree due to an inheirted genetic makeup, affected > > differently? > > The net result is sociological and psychological -- that these people don't > > beat themselves up with so much self recrimination. > > Plus, some researchers stressing the genetic predisposition believe it's > > specifically related to neurotransmitters in the limbic system. In another > > post, I mentioned the possibility of genetic engineering in utero to > > allieviate this genetic predisposition. Even before that point, if SSRI's or > > something newer in the psychopharmaceutical bin were found to treat the > > specific neurotransmitters of potential alcoholics or addicts before they > > became that way, and such potential alcoholics or addicts were identified > > based on genetic testing, it would again be very relevant. > > Steve > > -------------------- > > But again your focus on biological issues prevents you from looking at social factors -- if there are social factors in alcohol abuse, then there are social factors in AVOIDING alcohol misuse. > > To use a rather extreme example, look at the teenage pregnancy phenomenon. Teenage birth rates have fallen off dramatically in the last two decades and continue to do so. Contraceptives have been available for much longer than that, but it's well-known that there was a teenage subcultural phenomenon of both unrestrained sexual activity, and non-use of contraceptives. Now, teens could have been injected with hormones to blot out their sexual urges, and this may well have produced the same drop in teen pregnancy. But, instead, educational outreach -- and an ensuing shift in the teenage sexuality subculture -- were astoundingly successful. And not a moment too soon -- teenage HIV infections were also rising alarmingly, and have dropped off. More and more teens are rejecting the idea of casual/recreational sex, and most who are sexually active are using condoms and other " safe sex " procedures. Teenage sexual culture increasingly encourages responsibility in sexuality. > > My suggestion is that if we have a resurgence of cultural and familial encouragement of moderation in alcohol use, i.e. making the phenomena of culturally-based low rates of alcoholism among Jews and Asians more widespread, that this would be a better and more humane way of preventing alcohol abuse/dependence than encouraging people with a supposed " genetic predisposition " to take psychotropic drugs in an attempt to " ward off " alcohol abuse before it occurs. > > Why don't you read some of the studies that Peele cites? -- particularly studies of families where parents specifically teach moderate drinking behavior to their children, do not stigmatize alcohol (thereby making drinking a secret, forbidden activity that can't be discussed), and generally teach responsibility as well as problem-solving skills. Their DNA hasn't changed, nor has their biochemistry -- but alcohol abuse/dependence rates are very significantly lower than the general population in such families. > > ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > In a message dated 7/27/01 7:44:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kenr1@c... > writes: > > > > I grew up partly in the Deep South during our own American version of > > apartheid and in my late teens and early 20s worked in Las Vegas and > > have a great deal of difficulty having sympathy for the " loss of > > freedom " of the people who ran public accomodations and facilities. I find the use of the word public interesting... what about those who provide private accomodations or services or those who own private facilities? It is my belief that the advantages the government were seeking to give those in the south has turned out to be a disadvantage. Tough love would have worked better (perhaps longer, but in the end a better result) than Robinhood tactics. And the problem with Robinhood tactics, that those who do the accomodating are expected to do so forever, and moreso over time. Tha's hardly " equality. " > The issue is not " sympathy " for anyone, but liberty. The free speech clause > is necessary to protect only unpopular speech, and what will be unpopular > will vary with time and circumstances. Yet the *principle* stands to protect > everyone's speech no matter the times and circumstances. > > I may not agree with the Aryan Brotherhood's views, but I'd fight like hell > for their right to a parade permit. Similarly, I might not like it if Joe > Bob doesn't want to serve a black person at his diner, but I even less like > it that armed agents of the state will force him to. And I certainly object > that I am not permitted to exclude fundamentalist Xians from working in my > office. > > Ken, doncha wish Diener was still here? I'm sure *HE* would be able to set > me stright here. It's too bad, really, he may have set me straight too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 >I see what Steve fantasizes about as just that, a fantasy. Steppers >are always hoping that something or someone will achieve what is >actually the responsibility of the individual. You have not been reading my posts completely, and/or not have yet received my last one or two. First, I haven't said that only one gene is involved. In fact, in my last reply to Rita, I specifically said it is in all likelihood, a multi-gene phenonemon. Most genetic traits are. Second, I don't see it as a fantasy. I'm not advocating " Brave New World, " but that's no reason for us to bury our heads in the sand about genetic engineering. Like it or not, like nuclear weapons, it will come. With this " alcoholic >gene theory " they are merely hoping that the choice to drink will be >eliminated from any potential " alcoholic " before he is born. In my >opinion (which has about as much to do with Fact as the >Opinion/fantasy of the steppers), to be able to take away that choice >to drink or not drink will also take away virtually all other >choice. I guess that is wonderful if you want a bunch of >robots/androids/clones. Dealing with " alcoholism " through genes is a >fantasy, and a very scary one if viewed without bias. Why is it scary if viewed without bias? I find scientific facts, and scientific theories as well, scary only when viewed **with** bias. If it's the " Brave New World " angle that scares you, that's why we have regulatory agencies, IMO. Not that that can prevent Drs. Moreau, or whatever, setting up shop on Caribbean islands. > > I think it is more realistic, when thinking about genes, not to >say there is an alcoholism gene, but that there are genes or gene >combinations that lead to less stable mental health. As there are >genes that lead to poorer physical health or poorer physical >attributes. That is just what was simply called heredity in the old >days. But to say there is a specific alcoholic gene that can be >countered and solve the problems of alcoholics everywhere is, IMO, >ludicrous. I agree with you. Again, if you do read my posts, you will **repeatedly** note that I do not deny individual responsibility or social contributory causes of alcoholism. 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 I never considered that a liar = a coward. Especially for a politician. Politicians lie, that is their job. That is what they get paid to do, to get votes, by whatever means necessary. I don't like him, but I won't call him a coward for such a stupid reason as doing his job. If you think there is or was a different definition of politician than mine (given above), please tell me when mine becamse the accurate definition. > > > BUT -- the fact is that Bush has stated publically, numerous > > times, that he is completely abstinent and has been so since his > > decision to stop drinking some 20 years ago. Therefore moderate > > drinking on HIS part shows him to be a liar and a coward. > > > > > > ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > I find the use of the word public interesting... what about those >who provide private accomodations or services or those who own >private facilities? It is my belief that the advantages the >government were seeking to give those in the south has turned out to >be a disadvantage. Tough love would have worked better (perhaps >longer, but in the end a better result) than Robinhood tactics. And >the problem with Robinhood tactics, that those who do the >accomodating are expected to do so forever, and moreso over time. >Tha's hardly " equality. " What would have worked is if the Republican party had held firm on Reconstruction about 130 years ago rather than slowly abandoning Southern blacks, especially after the cynical 1877 deal to ensure the election of " Rutherfraud " B. (shades of Florida, 2000). This includes not deactivates most of the Civil War army. If we needed to keep 200,000 troops in the South for 20 years or so, until a new generation learned something different from the ground up, it might have been better. (Not that a lot of Northern whites didn't have things to learn, either.) And it's too bad the Senate didn't boot out at his 1868 impeachment trial. It was our last best hope to become a parliamentary, or quasi-parliamentary, government. 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 > 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 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. 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 needed a car and couldn't get to your job without one, and had no means of buying a car, would you be justified in stealing mine? --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 >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 _________________________________________________________________ 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...
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.