Prev: Do bums have rights?
Next: The End of an Era - That of The Natural Numbers
From: Zinnic on 22 Apr 2010 10:02
On Mar 19, 4:11 am, tooly <rd...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 9:10 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > An argument which appears to be quite valid but is in reality invalid
> > is one which suffers from any of a number of fallacies or other flaws.
> > We should expect to see this sort of thing because most people do not
> > reason very well and no one reasons perfectly. Fallacious arguments,
> > then, are natural - but what is not so natural is to offer fallacious
> > and flawed arguments deliberately. When that happens, we call it
> > sophistry.
>
> > The term sophistry comes from the ancient Greek Sophists, philosophers
> > who were thought to teach their students to win arguments by any means
> > necessary. Sophists were able to argue for any side in an issue
> > equally well - for some, this might be considered a mark of
> > intellectual sophistication and development, but critics blasted them
> > for not holding true to any one position and not really believing in
> > anything.
>
> > Thus, the Sophists were accused of not really being interested in
> > truth or reason; instead, they were only interested in making money by
> > helping their pupils argue, and by using arguments they knew were
> > wrong or at least flawed in the hopes that others would be convinced
> > anyway. Today, a person being accused of sophistry is being accused of
> > sacrificing truth and reason by trying to argue for their position
> > with reasoning which they know is invalid.
>
> > Despite this knowledge, the sophist hopes that no one will realize
> > that the arguments are invalid and will believe them anyway based upon
> > how strongly the argument appears to be valid. Thus, the accusation of
> > sophistry is a pejorative claim - it is essentially the equivalent of
> > saying that the person is deceitful in how they approach the
> > discussion and even a charlatan in their pretensions of making valid
> > arguments.
>
> > Accusations of sophistry can be made too quickly and should be done
> > with care. Sophistry is a matter of intention. When you accuse someone
> > of sophistry, you aren’t simply accusing them of using flawed
> > arguments - you are accusing them of using deliberately flawed
> > argument in an effort to deceive others. That is a serious claim which
> > goes much further than merely pointing out fallacies.
>
> > Nevertheless, sophistry does occur over the course of quite a few
> > debates. People want to be right, they want to win arguments, and they
> > want to be seen winning those arguments. Sophistry may not be the most
> > honest means of achieving such goals, but it can be a very effective
> > means when used by someone who knows what they are doing against
> > someone else who doesn’t know nearly as much.
>
> > The only truly effective means of combatting sophistry is a clear
> > understanding of logic and reasoning yourself. When you know how
> > arguments need to be structured in order to be valid and how the
> > various fallacies work, then you will also understand when an argument
> > being offered is simply unacceptable. You cannot prevent a person from
> > trying to use sophistry, but you can demonstrate that their attempts
> > won’t work because you know more than they are giving you credit for.
>
> >http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/sophistry.htmht...
>
> What is the nature of fascism anyway?  I think since you are smarter
> than me, it means you can 'bully' me 'intellectually'.  Smart people
> can make stupid people look bad...like they are dumb or something.  It
> is humiliating to be a smaller ape; badgered and oppressed by the
> bigger apes...those 'smarter'.  Why are you so smart anyway?  Was it
> something you did...or just how you were born?  I really do think
> there is more to fascism than we give credit [not that you have to
> like it, but only that it explains some things...is perhaps a deeper
> understanding].  Like wrestling, people entertwine with their brains
> and see who can strong arm the next.  Oh, there's truth and stuff I
> suppose...but that's not what it is about.  The struggle is for
> significanse among ourselves.   I think your brain is wrong minded.
> But I'm probably just stupid.  Socialism is not what it's about
> either.  We all want power and control is all.  Admit it; We are "ALL"
> fascists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

IMO Facism, Communism and other 'religions' are different facets of
the inherent "Lucifer Principle" (a la Howard Bloom) that motivates us
all to a greater or lesser extent in human societies (superorganisms).
To gain status and move up in the 'pecking order' as an individual in
our own community, or as a nation among nations, is a human imperative
which, if entirely frustrated, inevitably leads to extreme and often
violent reactions.
As Bloom says, superorganisms, memes and the 'pecking order' are not
inventions recently prgrammed into us, but have been with us since the
dawn of the human race. The sooner we realise that these survival
instincts will continue to function so long as we remain human, the
sooner will we devize a society that contains and directs them for the
greater good. Future society must be structuresd around human nature.
Attempts to mould humans nature to fit preconceived social ideals is
doomed to failure.

The "noble savage" in harmony with his natural environment is pure
invention. A pride of lions tearing the living flesh from a grounded
water buffalo is the real 'harmony' in Nature's music!
From: Day Brown on 24 Apr 2010 00:54
Zinnic wrote:
> IMO Facism, Communism and other 'religions' are different facets of
> the inherent "Lucifer Principle" (a la Howard Bloom) that motivates us
> all to a greater or lesser extent in human societies (superorganisms).
> To gain status and move up in the 'pecking order' as an individual in
> our own community, or as a nation among nations, is a human imperative
> which, if entirely frustrated, inevitably leads to extreme and often
> violent reactions.
> As Bloom says, superorganisms, memes and the 'pecking order' are not
> inventions recently prgrammed into us, but have been with us since the
> dawn of the human race. The sooner we realise that these survival
> instincts will continue to function so long as we remain human, the
> sooner will we devize a society that contains and directs them for the
> greater good. Future society must be structuresd around human nature.
> Attempts to mould humans nature to fit preconceived social ideals is
> doomed to failure.
In general, agreed. But Barford, "The Early Slavs" writes of Slav cabins
archeology has found from the 5th century, hidden away in the bush. The
Roman legions had long been little more than slave raiders, and this
resulted in barbarians abandoning a 100 mile swathe of land across the
Rhine and Danube. Which grew back up into impenetrable bush. If you've
ever gone into an old clearcut, you know you can only see 20 yards in
any direction, rarely even 50.

Roman farming tools sometimes found suggests slaves fled the empire, and
as we now say, 'homesteadded' hidden away in the bush. Being an alpha
male is of no use whatever. There is no power structure. Like Native
Americans, they could not make slaves of Slavs, who'd just disappear
into the forest- where they knew how to get by.

> The "noble savage" in harmony with his natural environment is pure
> invention. A pride of lions tearing the living flesh from a grounded
> water buffalo is the real 'harmony' in Nature's music!
Agreed. But Steven Pinker "The Blank Slate" and LeBlanc "Constant
Battles" also note the graveyards of these yeoman farmers had only 5% of
the signs of violent trauma on the bones as the hunter graves.

No doubt, millions of the descendants of these yeoman farmers came to
America to homestead. Which is still evident in the yearning many have
for a place in the country, as well as an antipathy for government or
any other kind of power structure. The Tea Party plugs into this, but
they lack the skill sets to manage a place; which I'm sure they sense.
Its part of the reason they suffer, as Nietzsche put it, "The rancor of
the impotent".

But Garrison Keillor's "Lake Wobegon" culture also retains the innate
modesty and disdain of status. But different gene pools have different
sets of these instinctive behavior patterns. Hunter/nomad lineages
produce men who pay close attention to status. Its not skin color.

Swedish and German studies of the Saami and Gypsy show the same high
rates of drug abuse, alcoholism, crime, and violence along with the same
low rates of education and income we associate with 'minorities'. But
are as white as I am. There are conversely a few African cultures that
had evolved agrarian lifestyles that also have low rates of violence.

Course, every gene pool has some who are violent, some who are not. No
tribe can exist without some in it with the foresight to manage the
local resource base, but some tribes would need much closer supervision
and case management. Some devised draconian rule trying to keep a lid on
the violence. But homesteadders just want to be let alone.

At the very least, we mite warn the women to get DNA data.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605123237.htm there are
also high correlations between alcoholism and drug abuse with high
levels of adrenalin and seratonin, which are genetically determined. It
mite help to supplement with dopamine and seratonin before puberty. But
"human nature" varies too much for any one policy to work.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Do bums have rights?
Next: The End of an Era - That of The Natural Numbers