Right wing disinformation mill in full swing

Good stuff...You sound scared....LOL

 

Ever do more than trolling one liners?

 

Well you have some nut talking about taking up arms against law enforcement etc....He pretty much got the response he deserved

 

You want to praise this babbling idiot?.....

 

Here is the modern Left/Democrats march of tyranny:

• Attack people wearing opposition campaign hats
• Label all opposition racists
• Physically Attack opposition exercising Free Speech on College Campuses
• Ban opposition Free Speech on College Campuses
• Take away Opposition Candidates ability to appear on ballots (disenfranchise opposition votes by the MILLIONS)
• Use Federal Agencies to attack opposition groups (IRS)
• Use Federal Agencies to attack/spy on opposition candidates (FBI)

Now, the Left/Democrats want to ban guns. The 2nd Amendment was created to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. We can NEVER let them, they have already proven in the last few years what absolute tyrants they would be given more power.

 

You ready to fight law enforcement?..........Over your worship of guns...New laws are coming...You've been warned

 

lot's of folks have already fell for this. Lots.

 

^^^^ Authoritarians lusting for seizure, power, and control. This is some weird crap right here.

100% Un-American

We must always maintain our ability to thwart Authoritarian rule. The is the reason for the 2nd Amendment. Without it, we lose the rest of the Bill of Rights. It's just a matter of Leftists incremental attacks on our freedoms.

 

Nobody wants to Ban Guns. NOBODY.

"Ban Guns"?

 

Lies, Feinstein

 

I'm not a scientist, if by that you mean a cognitive psychologist, who are the relevant 'scientists' in this case. My PhD is in Computer Science. As for 'qualified' -- there are some technical statistical issues that I would like to be more knowledgeable about so that I could better understand the arguments about g-loading and related issues, but I don't think they're critical.

As for 'plenty of evidence that disputes my findings, of course there is -- that's why it's a disputed question. And there is plenty of evidence the other way as well. What we do not want to do in any question is to reach a conclusion that fits with our political or other beliefs, which makes us ignore the evidence that challenges it. Have searched for this evidence? Yes, I promise you. Or rather, I have searched for and found books and papers by people on both sides and in the middle of this controversy. I've mentioned a couple of authors and would be happy to give a longer reading list to anyone who's interested. or they could start with the Wiki article on race and intelligence, but it's a bit daunting.

My criterion for someone's intellectual honesty and capability is this: if you believe something, is there any evidence that could make you change your mind? If not, your belief is a religious one, not a rational one. (That's not my original idea by the way, I stole it from someone else.)

I don't know what you mean about 'separating people out based on their IQ'? 'Separating out'? I suppose you mean, why study this? Well, it's important -- as our species has climbed up out of ignorance and backwardness, we've discovered a wonderful approach to understanding the world, the scientific method. Look for evidence, frame hypotheses, test them if possible. Nullis in verba.

What makes humans behave as they do is a critically-important question. It's interesting, to an inquiring mind, in and of itself. But it's also a practical question, because it relates to how can we, and how far can we, change human behavior.

For example, in something evidently not related to IQ, there has recently, apparently, been a link made between having the allele of a certain gene, and impulsive behavior. It also turns out, according to this study, that people with this variant of the gene, if they are raised in homes which teach discipline, do not then go on to yield to impulsive behavior -- whereas those who have it, who are raised in homes which don't impose discipline, do yield to it.

Are the people who decide that it would be a good idea to kill others driven by their environment alone, or is there some neurological disorder influencing them as well, something we could detect and even treat? Low IQ correlates with a lot of negative things - can we raise it, and if so how, and are there biologically-governed limits to what we can accomplish?

There is a related term -- sociobiology --the very idea of which drives the Left wild, including into acts of physical violence against its proponents, because it challenges their 'blank slate' view of human beings who can be molded into perfect angels by a strong, benevolent state. It was politically risky to be associated with this view, given the strong Leftist bias of the academy, so modern-day adherents of this view call it 'evolutionary psychology'. Even more so than the question of IQ, it's hard to actually do controlled experiments in the field, so arguments here tend to be over how best to interpret the data that nature has given us.

As for why separate people along racial lines, why not do it just on IQ lines -- again, I'm not sure what you mean. We -- society -- separates people out on racial lines all the time: to get into a particular Ivy League college I know about, if you're white or Asian, your IQ [ or rather tyour highly-correlated achievement on the SATs] must put you into the 99th percentile. But if you're Black, you only have to achieve the 75th percentile. If they treated people just on the basis of their IQ (or a related proxy), they would have many fewer Black students.

Race is an obvious characteristic of people, and it correlates with various forms of behavior, not just performance on IQ tests. If you're walking down the street at night and hear footsteps behind you, and turn around and see three young white men, as opposed to three young Black men, you will feel a sense of relief. The three young whites could be murdering psychopaths, the hypothetical three young Blacks could be Christian evangelists, but your brain cannot help but make statistical correlations. It may not know the exact statistics about color and violent crime but it knows the general truth. Nothing you can do about your brain's response, and responding that way does not make you a racist, just someone with normal commonsense reactions. (You would respond that way, wouldn't you?)

IQ is of interest mainly because it would be wonderful if we could raise it substantially for everyone. And we will, with further progress in genetic engineering, although this will be for our descendants, not us. In the meantime, we could do much better in the field of education for all children, regardless of their IQ. IQ is important, but it's not everything -- knowledge is important as well, and someone with a good fund of knowledge is, in many fields, preferable to someone with a poor endowment thereof, even if the latter has a higher IQ.

And independently of both knowledge and one's speed at processing it, there is the question of moral character. Someone can be knowledgeable and smart, but still be evil. (That El Paso murderer comes to mind.) Or still be intellectually dishonest, or intellectually lazy, refusing to examine evidence which contradicts their beliefs, responding to differences of opinion about factual questions by dodging them, or pretending to more knowledge than they have, or just playing to the crowd with witty remarks. We can see that behavior among a lot of people who are probably pretty smart. I don't know if there is a genetic influence.

 

The Aussies here are a mixed bag, and unless people visit the Aussie section they won't be aware of that or even of who the Aussies here are. We range from out & proud racists who defend Apartheid Sth Africa to dyed in the wool lefties & everything in between.

Thank you for the kind words. We try our best. We also punch vastly above our weight in sport and the creative fields. It is fair to say that we have taken the cultural & intellectual inheritance Britain gave us & built it into something unrecognisable and I would argue much more successful in most respects.

In this case I think you really are being too kind. Too few regular posters & too many who behave in unproductive ways. However, we are hardly alone in that respect on PF.

 

The Dayton killer comes across as a sociopath who got his jollies by bullying and trolling and then eventually went postal.

 

PARANOID NON SENSE....But many want to Ban ASSAULT WEAPONS...Will you cry?

 

Contextomy FALLACY duly noted!

Here is Patrichk Henry's FULL QUOTE on the topic and refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA!

https://www.mediamatters.org/dana-l...chs-new-gun-book-botches-quotes-from-t/201264

 

Quoting the NRA shilling for the firearms industry?

 

Name these imaginary "rights given to us by god" and provide links to support where your god said that you have freedom of expression, freedom of religion, right to privacy, right not to suffer cruel and unusual punishment, right to vote, etc, etc, etc.

 

I also find it interesting that the alphabet soup continue to refuse to quote the entire manifesto that the El Paso nut produce in which he makes it abundantly clear that his primary issue wasn't race but environmental concerns.

 

Trump was talking about universal background checks...until the NRA leader called him and told him to back off.
75% of the nation wants them. A majority of Republicans and even NRA members want them but...

 

Yup semi-auto magazine fed guns of any sort are a danger to society

 

As well as the law that made it harder for mentally disabled folks to access guns

 

I'll just answer the last point, which is the only coherent one. (I think you probably understand your own statements but -- I'm really not being partisan here -- to me, at least, they are often gnomic. I know you're a serious thinker -- your embrace of Austrian Economics shows that, or rather your embrace of their position on the Socialist Calculation Question, and your proposed solution which would allow a socialst society to benefit from rational price allocation. So you clearly could contribute to a serious debate. But for some reason, you don't. This is not a personal criticism.)

I'm not sure if you live in America, but in that country, for 99% of the people, 'liberal' does NOT mean a 'classical liberal', a 19th Century Free Trader, or an 'Austrian'. It means someone who believes that the Federal Government has a big role to play in promoting the general welfare. Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Minimum Wage, the Tennessee Valley Authority. I promise you that a lot of social conservatives, if you talk to them, do not oppose these things on principle, although, like any reasonable person, they are alert to the possibililty of their abuse. They're not rank-and-file followers of the AEI or Cato Institute.

Case in point: for some decades now, the Republican Party have been strongly in favor of Free Trade. It was a point of difference between them and the Democrats. But ... they were not driven to this position by their base. They have it because it's what their Donor Class want, just as that class was happy to have an endless supply of exploitable labor coming up from Mexico, people who would not be able to complain at their treatment for fear of deportation. It used to be certain Democrats, for example those close to the United Farmworkers Union, who denounced illegal immigration, for precisely this reason: it undermined the labor movement.

Trump understood that and connected with it. Thus his talk about building 'infrastructure'.

Oh well, one other point: "leftism". Yes, our political vocabulary is impoverished. There is an enormous difference between a genuine democratic socialist, especially a libertarian socialist, and an apologist for North Korea. Just as there is an equal gulf between a Libertarian Party member or a Republican-voting grandmother at Memorial Day service, and a neo-Nazi. Partisans on all sides often conveniently elide these differences, for their own dishonest reasons.

However, we have to go to war with the vocabulary we've got, trying to use it in such a way that it doesn't create more confusion than already exists. I use 'leftism' to refer to that family of ideologies which seek to use the state (in the case of Marxists, a new state) to remove power from the property-owning classes, ostensibly in favor of an egalitarian society: the key ethic is 'fairness'. It's not fair that some people should be wealthy just because they own property, and others not. (I'm aware that genuine Marxists would scorn this idea, and they would be right to do so as an explanation of Marxism abstractly. But it definitely defines the motivation of Marxists.)

Some members of this family want the all-out suppression of capitalism, removing not just power but property from the privileged, others just want to tweak the existing order a bit to make it more 'fair' by raising taxes for redistribution, or forcing employers/landlords to treat their employees/tenants in a way that they would not without state coercion. The Left has, in general, championed fairness in other aspects of life, such as the treatment of racial and sexual minorities and women. Although there have occasionally been people who are racial chauvinists but otherwise orthodox Leftists, like the Guevarist JVP in Sri Lanka, these are very rare.

Like all ideologies, which are in part reflections of underlying society, leftist ideology has evolved as society has changed. So today we hear much less from the left about workers' rights, and a lot more about transgender rights. But the common thread is 'fairness'.

But how do you get all this complexity into a single word or phrase? The answer is, you don't. You just have to work with the imperfect materials our vocabulary has given us, and make explanations, amendments, qualifications, exceptions, where it seems best.

 

He made no such law. All he did was make it so that if you got mental health treatment via social security that you name was added to the fbi criminal background check list. That didn’t keep people from getting firearms, but stigmatized the poor or elderly that might be getting mental health treatment, and called them criminals.

Not everyone getting mental health treatment is a danger. In fact we want to encourage people to get it, not discourage as Obama did

 

Notice you don't highlight the pertinent parts like this one.

 

You didn't have a point. Economic liberalism is a reference to free markets. It doesn't matter if you're picking your nose in the US or picking it in Europe. The term doesn't change.

Rather than coming across like the Duracell Bunny running up and down the keyboard, you can just type one word: oops. A rather efficient outcome.