| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Michael Gordge" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2007 05:21:18 PM |
| Object: |
Blaming Causes Within A Cause |
The Jews blame radical Islamists for the evils of the world.
The catholics blamed the priests who fucked little boys.
Neither want to address or blame irrationalism, which is the real and
only cause of all evil in the world.
Why?
Because to do so would be to blame themsleves.
To blame irrational ideas as a cause of evil would be to point the
finger back at their own ideas.
There is no such thing as less evil, less irrational.
The cause is irrationaliam, the cause that many dont want to blame,
and the rational mind knows why they dont want to.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Blaming Causes Within A Cause |
06 Aug 2007 05:27:17 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1186438878.866626.111960@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
The Jews blame radical Islamists for the evils of the world.
The catholics blamed the priests who fucked little boys.
Mike Gordge and team randroid blame Kant and wish they had the little boys.
The irony is that Mike Gordge and team randroid don't have a clue about what
it is they constantly whine about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Blaming Causes Within A Cause |
07 Aug 2007 02:50:17 AM |
|
|
On Aug 7, 7:27 am, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1186438878.866626.111960@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
The Jews blame radical Islamists for the evils of the world.
The catholics blamed the priests who fucked little boys.
Mike Gordge and team randroid blame Kant and wish they had the little boys.
The irony is that Mike Gordge and team randroid don't have a clue about what
it is they constantly whine about.
Chazzzz Sean and Chris tweaking your tail again dopey?
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Blaming Causes Within A Cause |
07 Aug 2007 06:13:47 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1186473017.641069.63010@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 7, 7:27 am, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1186438878.866626.111960@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
The Jews blame radical Islamists for the evils of the world.
The catholics blamed the priests who fucked little boys.
Mike Gordge and team randroid blame Kant and wish they had the little
boys.
The irony is that Mike Gordge and team randroid don't have a clue about
what
it is they constantly whine about.
Chazzzz Sean and Chris tweaking your tail again dopey?
You still trying to write a literate sentence, shagger?
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Blaming Causes Within A Cause |
07 Aug 2007 04:42:23 PM |
|
|
On Aug 7, 8:13 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1186473017.641069.63010@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 7, 7:27 am, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1186438878.866626.111960@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
The Jews blame radical Islamists for the evils of the world.
The catholics blamed the priests who fucked little boys.
Mike Gordge and team randroid blame Kant and wish they had the little
boys.
The irony is that Mike Gordge and team randroid don't have a clue about
what
it is they constantly whine about.
Chazzzz Sean and Chris tweaking your tail again dopey?
You still trying to write a literate sentence, shagger?
MG- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You only squeak when chazzz tweaks.
Hows that than?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Blaming Causes Within A Cause |
06 Aug 2007 09:36:38 PM |
|
|
On Aug 6, 3:21 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
The Jews blame radical Islamists for the evils of the world.
The catholics blamed the priests who fucked little boys.
Neither want to address or blame irrationalism, which is the real and
only cause of all evil in the world.
Why?
Because to do so would be to blame themsleves.
To blame irrational ideas as a cause of evil would be to point the
finger back at their own ideas.
I believe the blame resides in a situation where it is easier to
divide the world into two groups, our ingroup and the outgroup. This
probably got strongly developed 50,000 or more years ago in humans in
competing tribes. Your tribe and their tribe, the human and the
subhuman. This is a slight bias in all humans but probably can be over-
riden by some learning and continual practice. Psychologists note this
behavior universally. So it is more likely that it is not irrational
but that it is human nature in a different setting than the tribal
hunter/gatherer world we come up out of.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
Unreflected Ingroup Favoritism - One who reflects does not
discriminate?: On the role of unreflected cognitive processes for the
occurrence of ingroup favoritism between artificial groups;
A categorization of individuals in two groups
based on completely trivial criteria like flipping
a coin to determine which group one is
assigned (Group X or Group Y), can
be sufficient to cause mutual
preferences for one's
own group.
Social identity theory assumes a fundamental striving towards a
positive distinction of one's own group from other groups. The
tendency to a preference for one's own group is clearly reduced in a
situation involving intergroup judgments on negative comparison
dimensions or distribution decisions on negative stimuli (burdens,
aversive stimuli), in comparison to those in the positive realm.
These basic judgment processes may be the fundamental determining
factors of and conditions for social discrimination. Of some influence
may be the role which evaluations of oneself play for the positive
evaluation of minimal social groups. It is assumed that an unreflected
cognitive process is critical for this, in the course of which, as a
rule, the positive self-image is transferred to the new ingroup. Due
to the lesser degree of similarity to oneself, an outgroup cannot
benefit from such a generalization process.
Correspondingly, a positive distinctiveness of one's own group can
result solely from the self-ingroup relation, independent of an
ingroup-outgroup comparison. There is a generalized positive attitude
to the ingroup, and demonstrating the role of a low degree of
reflection for the occurrence of favoritism in minimal intergroup
situations and considerations of outgroups.
The randomly assigned individuals generally act as if those who share
their meaningless label are their good friends or close kin. Subjects
indicate that they like those who share their label. They rate others
who share their label as likely to have a more pleasant personality
and to have produced better output than outgroup members. Most
strikingly, subjects allocate more money and rewards to those who
share their labels.
In other related social experiments at political rallies it has been
noted that researchers faking injuries, were helped more or less
depending on whether their protest sign, and slogans supported or went
against those around them who could help.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
There is no such thing as less evil, less irrational.
The cause is irrationaliam, the cause that many dont want to blame,
and the rational mind knows why they dont want to.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Blaming Causes Within A Cause |
07 Aug 2007 06:02:46 AM |
|
|
On Aug 7, 11:36 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I believe the blame resides in a situation where it is easier to
divide the world into two groups, our ingroup and the outgroup.
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. ingroup outgroup FFS
what non-sense
The two groups would be:
Those who say prove it without contradiction AND using matter of
sensory existence.
AND
The mystics (incl. the god ilk, especially the agnostics, the athiests
who cant explain what it is that they say doesn't exist, the Kantian
Timberina Chazzzzweena ilk) who say dopey things like, I cant be
certain, I cant prove anything and anything I feel is true, is true.
The rational Vs the irrational.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Blaming Causes Within A Cause |
07 Aug 2007 11:01:44 PM |
|
|
On Aug 7, 4:02 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Aug 7, 11:36 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I believe the blame resides in a situation where it is easier to
divide the world into two groups, our ingroup and the outgroup.
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. ingroup outgroup FFS
what non-sense
I believe that the theoretical evidence of evolutionary theory and
anthropology make a very strong argument that we are driven to view
the outgroup as irrational.
Xenophobia denotes a phobic attitude towards strangers or of the
unknown. It comes from the Greek words (xenos), meaning "foreigner,"
"stranger," and (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used
to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people
different from one's self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia
The two groups would be:
Those who say prove it without contradiction AND using matter of
sensory existence.
The proof would be theoratical then since sensory experience is
contingent upon what happens next, this is not necessary as part of a
definition is necessarily and deductively true.
(Deductive Reasoning as necessarily part of the definition of the
middle term):
Socrates is a Man
All Men are mortal
Therefore, Socrates is Mortal
(Inductive Reasoning depends upon confirmation with sensory experience
and is contingent upon beliefs about probable furture events):
Every day the sun has risen
The sun rose yesterday
The sun rose the day before that
The sun rose the day before that, etc.
Therefore, the sun will rise tommorow.
Belief as a Habit: Skepticism quite properly forbids us to speculate
beyond the content of our present experience and memory, yet we find
it entirely natural to believe much more than that. Hume held that
these unjustifiable beliefs can be explained by reference to custom or
habit. That's how we learn from experience. When I observe the
constant conjunction of events in my experience, I grow accustomed to
associating them with each other. (Enquiry V ii) Although many past
cases of sunrise do not guarantee the future of nature, my experience
of them does get me used to the idea and produces in me an expectation
that the sun will rise again tomorrow. I cannot prove that it will,
but I feel that it must.
Remember that the association of ideas is a powerful natural process
in which separate ideas come to be joined together in the mind. Of
course they can be associated with each other by rational means, as
they are in the relations of ideas that constitute mathematical
knowledge. But even where this is possible, Hume argued, reason is a
slow and inefficient guide, while the habits acquired by much
repetition can produce a powerful conviction independently of reason.
Although the truth of "9 =D7 12 =3D 108" can be established rationally in
principle, most of us actually learned it by reciting our
multiplication tables. In fact, what we call relative probability is,
on Hume's view, nothing more than a measure of the strength of
conviction produced in us by our experience of regularity.
Our beliefs in matters of fact, then, arise from sentiment or feeling
rather than from reason. For Hume, imagination and belief differ only
in the degree of conviction with which their objects are anticipated.
Although this positive answer may seem disappointing, Hume maintained
that custom or habit is the great guide of life and the foundation of
all natural science.
Necessary Connection: According to Hume, our belief that events are
causally related is a custom or habit acquired by experience: having
observed the regularity with which events of particular sorts occur
together, we form the association of ideas that produces the habit of
expecting the effect whenever we experience the cause. But something
is missing from this account: we also believe that the cause somehow
produces the effect.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4t.htm
http://members.aol.com/moresophia/hume.html
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/humebio.htm
AND
The mystics (incl. the god ilk, especially the agnostics, the athiests
who cant explain what it is that they say doesn't exist, the Kantian
Timberina Chazzzzweena ilk) who say dopey things like, I cant be
certain, I cant prove anything and anything I feel is true, is true.
Can you define certainty?
The rational Vs the irrational.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
