On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 02:43:08 -0000
> > Not sure what you mean.
> I mean what I said. If I say "a wheel is spinning freely" you
> understand that there is little friction to it spinning.
Talking in wrong analogies and 'parables' isn't your best bet
> Likewise, it
> seems obvious that the social friction of the day that would make it
> socially difficult to maintain certain attitudes about race. Those
> attitudes are easier today, and in fact maintaining racist type ideas
> is more difficult.
> >> Now, not so much.
> > So?
> So, as I stated: there are limits to free will, and limits to your
> whole 'moral agent' thing.
You stated something, presented some sort of 'proof' and now
you are authoritively 're-stating' the same thing. Impressive.
Do you think that slaves wanted to be slaves? And do you think
that the people who enslaved them were not responsible for the
enslavement? THAT is free wiil at work.
"There are limits free will" is just a vague, irrelevant
> > I don't know, I mean, I see stray dogs all the time. They
> > don't belong to any pack. And then there are dogs that have
> > 'owners'. Those don't belong to packs either...they belong to their
> > masters...
> You're likely wrong there, with strays, I mean.
I am not. But I can change the animal anyway. Cats don't have
'leaders'. And my remark would be as relevant, or even more
relevant than your comments about humans being 'primates'
> Usually even stray
> dogs will belong to a pack.. a few other strays that they will hang
> with. Usually not full-time, they adapt.. but that is selection bias.
> People call the animal wardens on 3 or 4 dogs traveling together..
> not so much on a single dog sniffing around.
> And the dogs with owners do have a pack leader: the owner. In their
> eyes, their owner is the pack leader.
So you say. So what. Bottom line is, comparing humans to other
animals doesn't prove anything.
> >> unsure of what to do, and pissing themselves.. the leader says, I
> >> KNOW WHAT TO DO. He's quick. He's certain. He's "strong." That is
> >> comforting to people. Hence, Trump, by the way.
> > ...trump is a 'leader'? More than half the electorate hates
> > him actually...
> A leader is simply someone who has followers. And yes: Trump
> obviously has followers.
OK. So in **authoritarian cultures**, some grown-ups pay
attention to 'leaders'. There are also grown-ups who believe
incredibly stupid and evil nonsense they call 'religion' -
especially rhe jew-kkkristian sort. Do you think the bible
comes from the DNA? But it just so happens that children don't
believe that shit 'naturally'. They have to be brainwashed and
coerced into believing it.
> > I'm not really following. No doubt we can find more than a
> > few instances of people acting like animals, but what of it?
> > It's also true that people can act in rational ways, and
> > that's what supposedly make them human.
> Agreed, with the proviso that quite often people rationalize, rather
> than act rationally. They rationalize away animal instincts.
I don't know what you mean by 'rationalize' - Isn't that
Also, there are animal behaviours that don't entail aggresion
towards other animals, so even "acting like an animal" isn't
necessarily a bad thing.
Bottom line again, your 'realistic' view that SOME humans do
what they do because of their animal nature is bullshit.
> >> but we can acknowledge it, acknowledge its pull..
> >> like gravity. And we can begin to understand it, and understand how
> >> to overcome it.
> > I don't know. I don't go around robbing and killing people,
> > like, say, state agents do. Do you act like a primate?
> Ever get jealous of a guy hitting on your girlfriend? That's primate
If you say do. Did you learn that in the discovery channel?
> When I say animal instincts, I'm not just talking about going around
> robbing and killing and whatever. There are all manner of similarities
> between primate behavior.
> > I don't think I have the problem of acting like a primate.
> > But thanks for the (unneeded and unasked) advice anyway...
> Well, I didn't necessarily mean you personally. I don't know you. I
> was more talking in generalities..
Right. You are generalizing and that's why your argument fails.
> about Joe six pack, basically.
Joe six pack doesn't necessarily join the military to murder
brown children for fun.