Taboo Topics

Wearing feathers in ones hair doesn't make you pow wow better

 

Boy's if there is any credence to your wrap there is no discussion on points of divergence. Instead of paragraphs of endless qualifications., you should speaking in sentences to make sense.

 

Look dude you have no place in this discussion. You are not committed to logic, reason, or science. This is that type of discussion, and you have proven yourself inept at every turn. Your command of the English language is lacking and your continued resort to nonsensical gibberish only serves to make you look foolish and out of place. You are the heckler at a scientific conference shouting about the imperfections of the studies without offering anything of value yourself.

You make no reasoned arguments, you draw no conclusions. You are presented with evidence, and you proceed to say things like "Really belief doesn't apply to whether a situation is just, it only applies to your belief."

We're discussing specific problems while you try to placate the potential offendees. This is me imitating you "YES there's a mountain of evidence showing that all these ultra civilized parts of the world were produced by people with rather high IQs. But what does civilized even mean? Surely sub saharan Africans have just as many upsides. They are far more civilized in terms of not polluting. For that matter, how do you even define evidence? Evidence has multiple definitions of which you have addressed none. Do your research and define evidence next time. Point scored match set. I win."

You're not equipped to speak the language of reason and science. At least you have not demonstrated any ability to address the argument. Play the fucking ball, not the man. Or keep making yourself look foolish, I don't care.

When you stick your nose in a scientific discussion and refuse to follow the rules of scientific discussion, you're not wanted. Just as if I joined in a rap battle and started yodeling I would be unwanted.

Offer some of your own evidence and you will be wanted. Draw conclusions that others might accept or reject and you will be wanted. If all you do is shout "your evidence isn't good enough! It's not 100% comprehensive!" This is not an enlightened approach. Find evidence on the other side and present an opposition. Allow the evidence to lead you to the most likely conclusion.

 

Look duddette, you have not provided one solid axiomatic statement to build reason from. You don't know how to use what you have. You are just rubbing yourself with your own impressions and hoodwinking yourself in doing so.
I am committed and ready right now and as always to get some logic reason and science. Bring it on, but don't tell me what my business is. My purpose is to taste and to know, your purpose is to gain worthy attention.
So if want to fulfill your purpose you better start providing me some. Otherwise I might begin to think you are a slope head.

 

What you guys are doing is grabbing divergent pieces and put together an argument, that is not reasoning. /that is trying to make your case. If it has reason then it is reason enough to be shared. If you know anything teach that thing. All you guys are doing is arguing for your thing and we all end up as though no one said anything. Gossip

 

So if I have no place in this discussion I am not only a taboo topic but it is taboo that my name even appear here. That is how understated, you both are.

 

Grabbing divergent pieces and putting together an argument is called CONSILIENCE. It's a beautiful word, and its application is necessary to all the soft sciences. You seem to be under the impression that only hard sciences are worth consideration. It's not only about chemistry and physics. The most important questions regarding public policy requires the convergence of seemingly disparate data, stitched together via debate.

Read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience friend

 

I thought you said he was not commited to science at all?

 

i'm a scientist you are a novelist. So your excuse now is that you are soft scientist. I am ever more just thinking you are soft in the head.
Defending your position does no good when you don't have one, you need one mutually verifiable fact to accomplish a chain of reasoning.

When you have established a firm chain of reasoning then you can apply that process to divergent facts that then brings them together in understanding.

 

No----it was late and I couldn't keep my eyes open, so maybe I wasn't being clear----Steven Pincker based on the study he refers to---which I recall to have been controversial and biased----stated that if the US population faced the same murder rates as the tribes in this study---we would be at 2 billion murders in the 20th Century. I thought the numbers were more exaggerated than they were, so I was wrong on that matter (I didn't catch the 20th Century part).

TheDope if you watched the video you might know what I was talking about. Regardless, there are multiple scholarly sources that cite how much of the Native population in the Americas died of disease brought by the White man. I think we all know what happened to most of the survivors---which is why the Native population is extremely small today. If not there are tons of history books I can point you to.



Actually, as tired as I was, I realize now that I misinterpreted the statement---and may have confused this study with an earlier one---which may or may not have been done by Keeley, but tried to make the same point. Keeley wrote the book, War Before Civilization (you can see info on it on Wikipedia). The study arguments I referred to are in a Dutch journal on Indonesian and South East Asian studies. The journal is published in the Nederlands but includes many English articles-----it is very good and is archived on the web if anyone wants more details---though most of the articles are focused primarily on Indonesia and South East Asian anthropology, linguistics and so forth. I have the article saved as a .pdf, along with hundreds of others, but I am not going to search it out now.

Keeley's book is, not surprisingly, controversial as well (if it is indeed a different study). For example, it refers to cases of scalping in the Americas before the white man. It is widely accepted, and Native communities insist, that scalping was introduced by the White man (This makes sense, by the way, as scalping was one of the easier ways of proving an Indian kill for a bounty---something Indians would not have had a reason to do).

 

Tell me do you think the average IQ of the world is shrinking or growing? Let me guess you think it's admirable to not think critically on this topic and you don't take a position.

 

That is a fair sentiment, considering that what I have written seems to perpetuate the prejudice of the Noble Savage. Also there are further points I was trying to make about western civilization which I was too tired to make.

Yes, I do have a strong sense of injustice---indigenous people the world over are subject to discrimination, violence, and so forth. The fact that an innocent Native American was just gunned down in Utah by a police officer, and there is no news coverage is a case in point. There needs to be dialogue on these matters.

Yes---by making a point, it seems that I am pushing indigenous culture over Western culture. It was my hope to talk more on Western culture and clarify that this morning----but I have been writing this----and I am missing out on trading opportunities in the market so that will have to wait till later today.

In truth I do not hold hunter-gatherer culture as superior to Western culture----just different-----and in those differences I think we have things to learn that can help us resolve the Post-Modern Crisis. There are attributes they had that were superior, and attributes we have that are superior. But indigenous people and civilized people are people----there is violence and non-violence. But there are cultural biases that anthropologists have long placed on indigenous people by trying to place our western values on their zeitgeist and way of doing things-----even despite what indigenous people themselves say about those values and perspectives. But by bit, anthropologists are coming to terms with that-----but I will speak up whenever I see it perpetuated. This perpetuates to cultural biases----the Noble Savage, and the Savage beast. Neither one are valid. I try to speak out against both----I apologize if I come out seeming to perpetuate one in trying to defend it. It is a very tricky thing to convey------Natives themselves always seem to perpetuate the same thing in defending their culture, when they are the ones who are the most sensitive to the Noble Savage prejudice.

 

Now you are qualifying in order to defend your position
I haven't seen your basis point for reasoning.
My reasoning does not depend on watching your videos, yours does. My reasoning comes from the reasoning out of real proportions in my living experience. You are not talking to me like a chief or medicine man but as someone who is still asserting, recognize that word? What we need be doing is apprehending to handle the situation.

You want to ascend to the transcendent experience to make it perceptible, not make assertions and build a case. It doesn't matter where your assertions come from they are still not axiomatically sound.

We essentially know nothing we become familiar with things and this is when we can say we know, when we can speak without someone or something else providing the substance of your case.

The millennial reign cannot occur with out laborers. We have all the information streaming out over the airwaves everywhere with receivers everywhere. It is just sitting there waiting to be apprehended. An etymological check of the words millennial and reign will help delineate what it means.

 

How about 'the sustainable savage'.

 

. I can think critically or criticize about any subject, but being critical is not the same as reasoning.

1. 
   Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following : understand the logical connections between ideas.
   
2. 
   I don't think there are reliable statistics on that issue. If there were and they indicated a decline in average IQ, what relevance do you think it has?
   
3. 
   This is the independent thinking part.
   

 

How strong? A strong sense of injustice indicates a soft sense of justice.
A statement too tired to make, another racket, you made a statement.
No matter how tired I am my reason doesn't fail me.
It is not your take on noble savage that is suspect, it is your sense of injustice.
What does the perception of inequality foster? A sense of injustice.

 

Where is the post you made about my comments not having an axiom, and being axiomatic---not the one word comment above---but the one where you had ‘axiom’ in large bold letters. That is the one I was especially looking forward to responding to, but I have been too busy all day.

But first---what video are you talking about that I need to post to make a point? The only video I posted was a sketch from last week’s Saturday Night Live---just to add a little humor.

I was responding to a video that Nerdanderthal posted and I pointed out that if you did not watch the video then you would not have understood what I was talking about. And then you accused me of just defending my position. (It doesn’t matter if I may have made a mistake on the counter-study I mentioned---and I wasn’t stating that just in response to you.)

How can you understand the reasoning of a statement if you do not pay attention to the whole conversation. Nerdanderthal posted a video, I responded to it---am I not allowed to respond to something someone posts? If I disagree with something someone posts, but I did not do the actual study that demonstrates my point---am I not allowed to cite that study or refer to it---am I supposed to only post the results of studies that I personally have done? Am I simply supposed to stay out of conversations unless I have personal experience in the topic---to the point where I am a leading authority and have no need to cite anyone else?

I am not a medicine man----I would not even want to be a medicine man. But you clearly do not have any idea of how a medicine man talks. A medicine man does not simply speak from what he knows---he teaches the wisdom of the elders before him, he shares stories from ancient times, he tells what spirit has revealed.

I am also not Native American. I never profess to be, and so I didn’t quite get what you were saying about wearing a feather and dancing a pow wow. Yes I do practice the spirituality, and I insist that we all have indigenous ancestors---but I do not profess to be Native. I don’t even claim, as so many do, to have a relative that is even a tiny bit Cherokee.

What you are telling me is that I shouldn’t argue a point if it is not axiomatically sound. And then you imply that I don’t really know what I am talking about, I am just trying to build a case---if I really knew I could just speak, and everyone would just listen----I assume you mean that they would all listen just as they listen to you.

I stepped into an argument about racism. My opinion is that I dislike racism—but that cannot be an axiom, because it is a subjective opinion. We cannot state it to be self evidently true, because it is an ethical issue, and a very complex one at that.

But perhaps, since I jumped into the thread mid-stream, you have been making axiomatically sound arguments based on an axiom all along. If that is the case----I would like to hear what the axiom is---or you can repost that post as a quote, because I didn’t really go through the whole thread----just asked a question to Nerdanderthal when I saw his post at the end. But so far, all I have seen is name calling and a holier than thou attitude.

But guess what---one of my first posts involved an axiom---my axiom---my self-evident postulate is that racism has been repressed into the national collective shadow. Of course, if you were unfamiliar with Jungian psychology, you may not catch how it is self-evident, but that doesn’t then make it a non-axiom. Instead it simply means that you do not understand it.

Clearly when you say I am asserting, you are stating it in the negative sense (and not the sense of the definition to, ‘confidently state a fact.’ You are referring to when I disagreed with the part of the video that tried to disprove a newspaper article that stated that Natives had low crime rates (Oh---I forgot to addess that one) and that combat was largely ritual in nature. Did I say something outlandish there? Did I make something up? My reasoning is that natives were much more peaceful than Western prejudices assert them to be. My comments fit what is generally accepted among scholars on the subject, and that many tribes claim as fact.

If you don’t understand the reasoning, you could simply ask. But as we have seen in many other threads---most recently the one on Schrodinger’s cat---you don’t seem to want to understand the whole picture-----but rather just jump in and argue. In the Schrodinger’s Cat thread, there is also a clear axiom I base my reasoning on----that the double slit experiment demonstrates the need for an observer. It is self-evident if you are familiar with the double slit experiment and its variations and attempts to disprove it. But it is clear you are not familiar with it, and instead try to turn the argument to something that the experiment does not indicate----in other words you try to create your own axiom, which is subjectively self-evident to you, but certainly not to me----it is clearly subjective, and ignores the experiment. The results of the experiment are what they are. You claim I am ‘asserting’ there too, but I am sticking to the actual axiom---what the experiment shows, not trying to construct a different basis for reality that ignores the results of the experiment. (Or maybe your assertion was not so crazy, that there does not have to be an observer----but that is contradictory to the results of the experiment. It may be an axiom to you and your life experience----but if it doesn’t explain the results of the double slit experiment----the axiom of the reasoning----then what is the point in that argument? There is none.)

 

What----a strong sense of injustice indicates a soft sense of justice-------and then your reason doesn't fail you?

Let's look at what you are saying here----I have a strong sense of injustice---for example, in regards to the horrible treatment that has been done to the Native Americans. Let's include blacks in here as well.

You therefore conclude that I have a soft sense of justice----what justice would I be soft on? The mentality of Manifest Destiny which made it just for white people to slaughter whole Indian villages and then take over their fields because it was too hard to clear the land? Am I soft on the justice that enabled white folk to keep slaves and protected their property rights over those slaves? Do either of these represent justice in the modern sense?

What axiom is this reasoning based on? What is the reasoning?

 

Justice is not injustice. the post you requested is in Buddhist section