Occupy London! Here we go again!

[[TW]Fox]

Yes, but the message was to the original poster who seemed rather unaware of China's success or how it achieved it or even that China is not all that communist at all any more if it ever was. And it achieved it by changing things gradually and not doing a Russia and getting in a worse mess.

But the gradual change in China is the move from Communist economics towards capitalism...

 

[StriderX]

I'm talking about why saving money isn't anti capitalist. As for the occupiers, are you saying none of them have iPhones, Facebook access, branded clothing or anything at all bar the bear essentials of life?

Really?



Maybe one day when you do you'll realise how tiresome, simplistic and bizarre your views can be.

Except capitalism isnt exactly around anymore, we live in Crony capitalism, things are a tad different.

 

[D.P.]

Implying that you earn more than you need for just the necessities of life, which is a pretty arrogant thing to believe that everybody does.

Are you going to sell your camera gear and pass the proceeds on to those who need it?

 

[Castiel]

To all the cynics moaning about the "hippies":

<some pointless image>

From where I am sitting everything is ok. I have a perfectly comfortable life thanks and see no point in demonstrating when I have no reason to.

I have nothing against those who wish to protest against whatever they like and if I felt strongly enough about something I would probably join them, however in the absence of a viable alternative to capitalism I see little point in tilting at windmills.

 

[kwerk]

To say that Africans are not "evolutionary wired for it" shows either one or two things: that you are racist and/or are completely uneducated when it comes to understanding evolution.

And the last part is just a load of juvenile male bovine claptrap. You will be able to provide no evidence to support that twaddle whatsoever of real value and once again show that you really don't understand evolution.

Read, learn, think freely.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000669

How did human intelligence evolve to be so high? Lynn [Lynn, R. (1991). The evolution of race differences in intelligence. Mankind Quarterly, 32, 99–173] and Rushton [Rushton, J.P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction] suggest that the main forces behind the evolution of human intelligence were the cold climate and harsh winters, which selected out individuals of lower intelligence. In contrast, Kanazawa [Kanazawa, S. (2004). General intelligence as a domain-specific adaptation. Psychological Review, 111, 512–523] contends that it is the evolutionary novelty of the environment which increased general intelligence. Multiple regression analyses support both theories. Annual mean temperature and evolutionary novelty (measured by latitude, longitude, and distance from the ancestral environment) simultaneously have independent effects on average intelligence of populations. Temperature and evolutionary novelty together explain half to two-thirds of variance in national IQ.

ETA: actually you can't read the whole thing and I can't post it because of copyright sorry. I have access to the full articles through college.

 

[StriderX]

Read, learn, think freely.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000669

How did human intelligence evolve to be so high? Lynn [Lynn, R. (1991). The evolution of race differences in intelligence. Mankind Quarterly, 32, 99–173] and Rushton [Rushton, J.P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction] suggest that the main forces behind the evolution of human intelligence were the cold climate and harsh winters, which selected out individuals of lower intelligence. In contrast, Kanazawa [Kanazawa, S. (2004). General intelligence as a domain-specific adaptation. Psychological Review, 111, 512–523] contends that it is the evolutionary novelty of the environment which increased general intelligence. Multiple regression analyses support both theories. Annual mean temperature and evolutionary novelty (measured by latitude, longitude, and distance from the ancestral environment) simultaneously have independent effects on average intelligence of populations. Temperature and evolutionary novelty together explain half to two-thirds of variance in national IQ.

ETA: actually you can't read the whole thing and I can't post it because of copyright sorry. I have access to the full articles through college.

Im going to have to agree with kwerk, science shouldn't be ignored due to apparent racism.

Though that doesn't mean that IQ tests are meaningful in the first place, if you understand Evolution and Natural selection, then you realism the inconvenient truth.

 

[UK-AL05]

It's a mistake to think evolution filters out the smartest people, however smart might be a function of adaptivity. The are many countries that have a higher IQ, but are less successful.

 

[StriderX]

It's a mistake to think evolution filters out the smartest people, however smart might be a function of adaptivity.

Evolution doesn't, however its a mistake to assume that the smartest wont be the most likely to survive and pass on their knowledge/genetics to their children.

Natural selection is funny that way.

 

[Naffa]

It's also a mistake to credit the work of Jean Philippe Rushton.

 

[UK-AL05]

Evolution doesn't, however its a mistake to assume that the smartest wont be the most likely to survive and pass on their knowledge/genetics to their children.

Natural selection is funny that way.

Yes, you can't assume neither. Leaving us where we left of.... Thus a pointless argument.

 

[Tefal]

Are you going to sell your camera gear and pass the proceeds on to those who need it?

No he expects the government to force you to do that.

of course when he is on the other side of the fence his tune may change.

 

[Castiel]

It's also a mistake to credit the work of Jean Philippe Rushton.

Indeed.

wiki:

The biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace criticized Rushton in his 1996 review of the book, Race, Evolution and Behavior (1996):

Virtually every kind of anthropologist may be put in the position of being asked to comment on what is contained in this book, so, whatever our individual specialty, we should all be prepared to discuss what it represents. Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy for the promotion of "racialism."

which just about sums it up.

 

[UK-AL05]

It's also a mistake to credit the work of Jean Philippe Rushton.

Case closed.

 

[PermaBanned]

Are you going to sell your camera gear and pass the proceeds on to those who need it?

What, the camera gear i got for free?

I'm talking about why saving money isn't anti capitalist. As for the occupiers, are you saying none of them have iPhones, Facebook access, branded clothing or anything at all bar the bear essentials of life?

Really?

Clearly not. But not all. And lets not forget that the whole point of this discussion was your defence of Capitalism. That if you survive on just the bare necessities then maybe one day you'll have enough to spend on a few luxuries. And that may well be true in a lot of the West. But the whole idea of Communism is that you have a right not just to the necessities of life, but to the benefits of civilization. And to do so without being enslaved, and working in a pointless job, or at something you don't enjoy.

Maybe one day when you do you'll realise how tiresome, simplistic and bizarre your views can be.

Naturally i'm far from the best at conveying them, but that's clearly an insult to one of the, if not the, greatest philosophers of all time. And it's a bit big headed of you to assume you're in a position to do such a thing.

 

[[TW]Fox]

That if you survive on just the bare necessities then maybe one day you'll have enough to spend on a few luxuries.

I said nothing of the sort.

And that may well be true in a lot of the West. But the whole idea of Communism is that you have a right not just to the necessities of life, but to the benefits of civilization. And to do so without being enslaved, and working in a pointless job, or at something you don't enjoy.

What are you waffling about now?

Naturally i'm far from the best at conveying them, but that's clearly an insult to one of the, if not the, greatest philosophers of all time. And it's a bit big headed of you to assume you're in a position to do such a thing.

What are you waffling about now?

 

[Castiel]

Clearly not. But not all. And lets not forget that the whole point of this discussion was your defence of Capitalism. That if you survive on just the bare necessities then maybe one day you'll have enough to spend on a few luxuries. And that may well be true in a lot of the West. But the whole idea of Communism is that you have a right not just to the necessities of life, but to the benefits of civilization. And to do so without being enslaved, and working in a pointless job, or at something you don't enjoy.

The problem is that as has been demonstrated time and again Communism simply is not practical and leads to oppressive authoritarianism and the enslavement that you claim it purports to oppose.

 

[Glaucus]

. And to do so without being enslaved, and working in a pointless job, or at something you don't enjoy.
.

Wtf, that is even worse in communism..

 

[[TW]Fox]

Wtf, that is even worse in communism..

He seems to have this idea that capitalism is about being a 'slave' and doing something you 'dont enjoy' so that 'one day' you can buy stuff, or something.

I suspect his views are mirrored by much of the protesters and go some way towards explaining what this is really about. Perhaps they want stuff without having to have a job?

 

[UK-AL05]

I believe communism may be possible, but it will be a natural inevitable thing. Someone can't
just turn up and say "Hay guys, we're doing communism k?" because that always leads to authoritarian society.

Capitalism it's self may turn into communism because we become so abundant.

 

[PermaBanned]

The problem is that as has been demonstrated time and again Communism simply is not practical and leads to oppressive authoritarianism and the enslavement that you claim it purports to oppose.

It's been demonstrated once, arguably twice that some forms of Socialism in a closed system, under intense outside pressure from Capitalist super-powers don't result in the sort of post-Capitalist ideal society that they were supposed to. But even that is ignoring all the good that came from the Soviet Union.

Fox, i'm not sure how you have trouble reading my posts all of a sudden, so i can't really help you with your predicament.

AcidHell... what the hell?

`Let us begin at the beginning,' continued Owen, taking no notice of these interruptions. `First of all, what do you mean by Poverty?'

`Why, if you've got no money, of course,' said Crass impatiently.

The others laughed disdainfully. It seemed to them such a foolish question.

`Well, that's true enough as far as it goes,' returned Owen, `that is, as things are arranged in the world at present. But money itself is not wealth: it's of no use whatever.'

At this there was another outburst of jeering laughter.

`Supposing for example that you and Harlow were shipwrecked on a desolate island, and YOU had saved nothing from the wreck but a bag containing a thousand sovereigns, and he had a tin of biscuits and a bottle of water.'

`Make it beer!' cried Harlow appealingly.

`Who would be the richer man, you or Harlow?'

`But then you see we ain't shipwrecked on no dissolute island at all,' sneered Crass. `That's the worst of your arguments. You can't never get very far without supposing some bloody ridclus thing or other. Never mind about supposing things wot ain't true; let's 'ave facts and common sense.'

`'Ear, 'ear,' said old Linden. `That's wot we want - a little common sense.'

`What do YOU mean by poverty, then?' asked Easton.

`What I call poverty is when people are not able to secure for themselves all the benefits of civilization; the necessaries, comforts, pleasures and refinements of life, leisure, books, theatres, pictures, music, holidays, travel, good and beautiful homes, good clothes, good and pleasant food.'

Everybody laughed. It was so ridiculous. The idea of the likes of THEM wanting or having such things! Any doubts that any of them had entertained as to Owen's sanity disappeared. The man was as mad as a March hare.