quote
follow
|
21-06-2013 Here comes the ad hominem's. Of course.No, it's not harassment. Inviting someone to coffee is not harassment, regardless of where the invitation occurs, in an elevator or in the middle of a street. Before you know it, talking to women will be harassment. Evolutionary psychology is not science ? Do you just parrot what Watson says ? Did you even read the article I linked ? Irina, isn't this the type of person that should be banned from here ? Jesus Christ. |
|
16-09-2013 I had a discussion with a vegan about this very subject the other day. I was arguing that even though it's true that the vegan position is the more ethically sound compared to that of the meat-eater's (that is, people like me... sorry, but I really am a lethargic asshole, I'm hoping cultured meat will soon be available, I think it might persuade more people, but maybe I'm just projecting) man's cruelty to animal though definitely horrible, doesn't even begin to compare with the rest of the misery going on "in nature" every day, every second. It really is a damn tragedy this whole thing called life. As for the comment claiming that beings aren't killed "in nature" for entertainment, it's easy to find footage of house-cats playing around with their prey for absolutely no reason to do with survival. Don't let their furry exteriors fool you: Beneath their cute paws, stylish whiskers and the fun and fuzzy feelings it creates inside when observing their shady activities on youtube hunting laser-dots and rip up toilet-paper... wait, what was I talking about? Oh right, *ahem*: Cats, brutal killing machines with no sense of honor! Talking about honor, you can find even worse footage of killer-whales playing around with a seal in the first episode of the BBC documentary "Frozen Planet". The narrator explains that the whales could easily just have snatched the seal by its tail away from the ice-platform it was sitting on. Instead they chose to play around with it because, as the narrator explained: "this has now become a kind of game". When he said that I actually almost shouted to myself alone and aggravated: "Killer-whales are dicks!". I mean that was just waaaaay too human not to elicit a reaction from me as I would have towards humans playing around with something innocent, human or otherwise... animals don't always just do it for survival, is my point. Who knows, maybe experiencing joy in being cruel might be a good survival-mechanism to have evolved: Animals can be jerks as well (just watch the cat-video about cats being jerks: it's totally true and also scientific) Love your blog and youtube-videos by the way. Please keep it up. |
[ link ] |
17-09-2013
Well, I am not a vegan myself, only a vegetarian hoping one day to become vegan (yep, it's hard), but the rational point in veganism is not to add to the already existing suffering in nature by breeding billions more animals, torturing and killing them for our enjoyment. Though it's one thing to recognize the truth and another to follow it. I don't like those who think universal veganism would solve all the problems for animals and life on earth for them would be so peachy. Those people are not in touch with reality. Animals always have and always will suffer in the wild, too. This is how life on Earth is run. Glad you liked my vids and blog, thanks for letting me know) |
|
17-09-2013 Bernardo, you are a fool. That's a fact, not a personal matter or an ad hominem, obvious to anyone who observes your behavior. But whether irina wants to ban me from her blog or not is her personal opinion and does not concern you in the least.When you come on to a woman in an unwanted way or situation, that is sexual harassment, you dickhead. Evolutionary psychology is not a science any more than Creationism is a science. Its basic premises are false, asshole: "1. The brain adapted to the conditions homo sapiens lived in during the Pleistocene era; these conditions are collectively called the EEA (Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness). There hasn’t been enough time for evolution to operate on problems that have appeared since then." - FALSE. The brain is too plastic to claim that it cannot "operate" on new problems. And the single biggest change in human history, agriculture, happened AFTER the Pleistocene, ASSHOLE. "2. The brain adapted to these conditions through the emergence of various discrete modules that solve specific problems (such as, for instance, choosing a mate)." - There is zero evidence of this presented by evopsychs because EVOPSYCH IS NOT A SCIENCE. "3. We can discover these modules by looking at problems that exist in the EEA, guess at what adaptations would best solve the problems, and examine if present-time humans possess these supposed adaptations." - PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC BULLSHIT. There is NO desire for evopsychs to demonstrate that any given human trait is the result of an adaptation or merely an evolutionary side-effect because EVOPSYCH IS NOT A SCIENCE. Evopsych is social darwinism adapted for the 21st century and anyone who follows it is a neo-nazi. It's as simple as that. Keep up the goose-stepping, herr bernardo. |
|
17-09-2013 "Bernardo, you are a fool. That's a fact, not a personal matter or an ad hominem"Seriously ? It's not an ad hominem ? Oh lord. "When you come on to a woman in an unwanted way or situation, that is sexual harassment, you dickhead." That's hilarious. And here you reveal the basis of feminism: "I don't like certain stuff and I must be pleased!" "Evolutionary psychology is not a science any more than Creationism is a science. Its basic premises are false, asshole: "1. The brain adapted to the conditions homo sapiens lived in during the Pleistocene era; these conditions are collectively called the EEA (Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness). There hasn’t been enough time for evolution to operate on problems that have appeared since then." - FALSE. The brain is too plastic to claim that it cannot "operate" on new problems. And the single biggest change in human history, agriculture, happened AFTER the Pleistocene, ASSHOLE. "2. The brain adapted to these conditions through the emergence of various discrete modules that solve specific problems (such as, for instance, choosing a mate)." - There is zero evidence of this presented by evopsychs because EVOPSYCH IS NOT A SCIENCE. "3. We can discover these modules by looking at problems that exist in the EEA, guess at what adaptations would best solve the problems, and examine if present-time humans possess these supposed adaptations." PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC BULLSHIT. There is NO desire for evopsychs to demonstrate that any given human trait is the result of an adaptation or merely an evolutionary side-effect because EVOPSYCH IS NOT A SCIENCE. Evopsych is social darwinism adapted for the 21st century and anyone who follows it is a neo-nazi. It's as simple as that. Keep up the goose-stepping, herr bernardo" Not only am I a fool, but I'm also an asshole ? You're on a roll here. Anyway, in regards to plasticity, Pinker said it best: Plasticity is just learning at the neural level, and learning is not an alternative to innate motives and learning mechanisms. Plasticity became an all-purpose fudge factor in the 1990s (just like “epigenetics” is today). But the idea that the brain is a piece of plastic molded by the environment is bad neuroscience. I reviewed neural plasticity in the chapter “The Slate’s Last Stand” in The Blank Slate, with the help of many colleagues in neuroscience, and noted that the plasticity that allows feedback during development and learning during ontogeny is superimposed on an innate matrix of neural organization. For example if you silence *all* synaptic activity in the brain of a developing mouse with knock-outs, the brain is pretty much normal. Also, "there is no evidence because evolutionary psychology is not a science " ? , Evolutionary psychologist can't demonstrate that any given human trait is the result of an adaptation or merely an evolutionary side-effect because evolutionary psychology is not a science" ? My god, do you even understand what constitutes an argument ? It's funny that you condemned creationism because here you are displaying the same sort of faith-based attitude. Evolutionary psychology is not a science. Why not ? Because. Is that really how you do about things ? Listen, I know that you have been taken notes from Watson's science denialism. but you need to understand that that shit simply doesn't fly with me. I previously linked you a page where Watson's views on evolutionary psychology are analyzed in extreme detail and you simpler ignored it. Read that link or read a Steven Pinker book, do something. |
|
17-09-2013 Oh yeah one more horrific thing to add: Just to hammer the point home about what could be called "animals' inanimality to animal" (no?) one should watch the clip "true facts about the duck" on youtube. Never was pro-creation so... well... fucked (I know what some of you might be pundering here - don't do it):http://tinyurl.com/d4qz6sx |
[ link ] |
17-09-2013
Jebus f*ing christ! That's some screwed up fucking (in the video you shared)! Rape is natural, that much I know. Not so long ago I've read a report on this http://www.theawl.com/2011/03/sea-otters-do-terrible-things-to-baby-seals |
|
17-09-2013 Are you seriously using that charlatan Steven Pinker as an argument? The guy who falsified data to "prove" that primitive societies were more violent than squeaky clean Western societies? You never give up even though you've been demolished over and over. You are a fraud, bernardo. |
|
17-09-2013 A charlatan ? lol.What you mean demolished ? What are you, 12 ? This has been just non-sequiturs and ad hominems. And of course, the old "evolutionary psychology is not science" canard. The fact that you think you have "demolished" me after having flagrantly demonstrated that you can't even formulate a single logical argument is quite surreal. Beyond words really. Oh you scientific illiterate people... |
|
17-09-2013 And your evidence is what? A discredited charlatan and a web site? My evidence is all of neurology. Don't you call me scientifically illiterate, you little piece of shit. You obviously can't present any scientific EVIDENCE from actual SCIENTISTS. |
|
17-09-2013 @Irina quote:
Though it's one thing to recognize the truth and another to follow it. Yeah no kidding? I often claim to be following Peter Singer's utilitarianism when it comes to alleviating poverty, but of course in reality I really don't (I've seen him admit in a debate with another ethical theorist that he doesn't really think of himself as living up to his own principles either, so I take some pathetic comfort in that ). My only good reason for trolling other people with his "pond paradox"-video from the film "Examined Life" is hoping someone will take it to heart and just for once in their life not buy those extremely expensive shoes/pieces of furniture/designer loudspeakers/whatever and maybe give something to those worse off instead. Once is better than never I suppose. ...and don't even get me started on those few megalomaniacal moments in my life where I consider myself a rational Kantian. Here's even more cute animals killing for no other good reason than "why not?": http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/09/dolphin-serial-killers.html I found scientific entry suggesting cruelty may have been a by-product of developing predatory behavior. I think it makes sense considering the above, but there's a lot of counter-articles making a fuss about the main-article not being proper science (my favorite title: "Nice idea, but is it science?"). Thought I'd link to it here in case anyone was interested (main article is called "Cruelty's Rewards: The gratifications of perpetrators and spectators"): http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=BBS&volumeId=29&seriesId=0&issueId=03 |
|
17-09-2013 Huh, looks like my last link broke. Oh well, just search the title in google scholar, and it should be the first thing to pop up. |
[ link ] |
18-09-2013
I've just learnt from you that that thought experiment Singer mentions in his lectures or talks is called 'pond paradox'. When I first heard it I thought it was great, in fact, here is the vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xCLXADVuxg I don't donate shoes worth of money regularly but I might actually reach that sum in a year :D depends, which brand of shoes So once a year I rescue a child! XD No actually my donations don't save any children, usually. Because I send them to animal shelters. I realize realistically I could be donating twice more sometimes but I'm just like the majority of people who prefer to 'forget' about the problems and spend their money on useless entertaining shit instead. Anyway, how I feel about my actions is secondary to the fact that I am giving some money regularly and it hopefully makes a little difference. I guess that's also Kantian to act in a way you'd like the rest of the world to behave. Of course, I'd prefer a world where everybody sacrifices a little bit every month for some good cause than the one where people don't do that at all. Cruelty in animals is an interesting topic. I don't hear much of it though. I mean, not the kind of pointless just-for -the-fun-of-it cruelty. Seems like your link was time-sensitive. Found this on in Google Scholar, seems to be the same http://66.199.228.237/boundary/hematomania/Compassion_as%20_an_antidote_to_cruelty.pdf |
|
18-09-2013 I thought the "pond-paradox" was pretty great as well. It's been criticized for not describing the actual situation: Donations in reality usually goes through a third-party or some such, where it may not end up being used in the way you thought it would. I don't really think that it's a good critique of the problem however, since it's pretty evident in most cases through pictures or other sorts of documentation if a charity makes progress with their donations. MSF for example made an entire documentary about their people and their work, so I think Singer's concept fits the description pretty well despite the third-party problem in their case.But anyway, the idea makes one become slightly more conscious of the way your money is spent, and that's something at least. I mean... especially in cases like these: http://most-expensive.com/ice I mean, just... wow. Thank FSM for folks like Peter Singer who're at least trying to question the madness. quote:
I guess that's also Kantian to act in a way you'd like the rest of the world to behave. Yeah I guess... in my case however it's more like "everybody should act like me but preferably muchbetter than that" Not too sure what Kant would've made of that maxim It reminds of Louis CK's joke about "they're just my beliefs - I just like to have them". He actually channels the categorical imperative directly in that joke |
[ link ] |
19-09-2013
The point that donations get stolen leaves us with several options: - do a fundamental research before you donate - donate to different organizations thus increasing chances that at least some will be used for a good cause - get involved personally, become an activist, donate your time instead of money - do not donate at all until you live in a perfect world which someone else should build before you risk a bit of your money "in my case however it's more like "everybody should act like me but preferably much better than that"" hehe i thought that too. but then i thought I'd actually hated it if I was the only one doing much less. I'd feel guilty then)))
|
Comments to Non-human animals in captivity and in the wild