If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#531
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:47:23 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote: In order to communicate you have to be able to write words down. Really? You mean no one on earth communicated until 3000BC? You mean that the American Indians could not communicate, since they had no written language? Or to you think they just walked around saying "How!" all the time. Making sounds is just part of communicating. To be able to record your history and what you have learned is extremely important for any group of people. Holger http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm |
#532
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:47:28 -0700, "Circe" wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote: On 3 Jun 2004 11:12:35 -0500, (Herman Rubin) wrote: In article , Holger Dansk wrote: On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:33:07 -0700, "Circe" wrote: Um, are you suggesting that Greek was the first language to have vowels in it? I'm not suggesting it but saying that it was. At most, you can claim that Greek was the first language to have an ALPHABETIC system of writing with all vowels being EXPLICIT. One could make a case for this, but at least the Indian alphabet independently introduced vowels, and I do not believe that the Persian alphabet of the Behistun Rock, which does have vowels, is based on the earlier Semitic one. At least Grotefend did not find that to be the case when he deciphered the inscription. snip quote which has no relevance to the subject at hand It is totally relevant. To learn, you will have to do some listening. Notice the word "vowel" in the paragraph below. "The North Semitic alphabet was used to represent Aramaic and Hebrew, and was borrowed by the Phoenicians in approx. 1000 B.C., being passed on by them to the Greeks, who added vowels, and thence to the Etruscans in about 800 B.C. The Etruscan alphabet was the source of the Roman alphabet that has since been adopted for use in many languages around the world." You see, it says that the Greeks added vowels. These knuckleheads keep talking about spoken language which began about 30,000 years ago. Blink Bob and I (and Herman) have referred to languages like Hebrew, Sanskrit, and Chinese. We have not remotely suggested that any of those languages is 30,000 years old. Bob and I *have* stated that vowel sounds are a component of all human languages and have therefore presumably been present in human language since its earliest development. We are talking about vowels in the alphabet, not grunting sounds and screeches that people made. There is *no* exstant human language that does not consist of both consonant and vowel sounds, whether it was ever committed to a native writing system by its speakers. But, for a civilization to make progress, you have to be able to write your words down and record them. Why can't you get it through your thick head that we are talking about vowels in an alphabet used in a language or languages? It's like talking to a fence post. It is highly unlikely that any human system of verbal communication could have been produced without the existence of vowel sounds given that no language exists now that does so. Whether or not the vowel sounds are represented in *writing* has nothing, therefore, to do with whether vowel sounds are present in language. (Hawaiian was never committed to a native writing system, for example, yet it clearly has plenty of vowel sounds in it!) You are off in another world, and not even in the ball park. Please stick to the subject. I wonder if they even know what a vowel is? For their information, the modern English vowels are a, e, i, o, and u. Wrong again. You confuse the symbol with the symbolized. A vowel is a kind of sound, distinct from a consonantal sound; the letters you have written are merely symbols for representing those sounds. Moreover, in English, the alphabetic symbols for the vowels do not have a one-to-one correspondence with the *sounds* they can represent: a can be either an "ah" sound or an "ay" sound; e can be "eh" or "ee" or unpronounced, and so on. Oh, and you forgot "sometimes y". These are letters that are written, and they should have learned how to write some letters in the first grade. And we all learned to say them years before we learned to write them. Ergo, there is no relationship between *written* vowels and *spoken* ones. Ergo, you are full of ****. That may be why black people have trouble with language. Maybe they don't pay any attention to the way anything is spelled. If they did then "muhfugger" or "muller-****er" would become "mother-****er". But then, we all knew that already. Unfortunately, you don't know anything much. Holger Stick with what you know, ******, labor! Red Fox The Appolo Theater in Harlem when a man was harrassing him while he was on stage. |
#533
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:54:32 -0700, "Circe" wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote: Written language began about 3,000 years ago. Wrong again, BTW. "Nothing that we can call writing, however, evolved before about 3000 B.C. In other words, spoken human language seems to have been around from at least 30,000 - 50,000 years before writing was invented." You finally got something a little bit right. The Sumerians began writing with pictographs around 3,200 BCW (a little over 5,000 years ago). The Egyptians developed hieroglyphic writing around the same time. People in the Indus valley were writing by 2,500 BC, using both pictographs and alphabetic symbols for individual characters. See http://www.english.uga.edu/~hypertxt...y-writing.html Good! Good! Keep searching for web sites like this and you will stumble across many like the one below that mention the Greeks adding vowels. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fa...itinglect.html Holger http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm |
#535
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 00:17:11 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Info Junkie wrote: On Sat, 29 May 2004 00:53:38 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: You mean where they were kidnapped? THAT crime gives them MORE claim to this country than WE have! No Mr Walz, where they were sold by their brethern. This is fairly well documented, including a fairly recent acknowledgement by a country in Africa that admitted the same. ------------------------ While true, that's irrelevant, who "owned" and abused them and derived criminal gain is the determinant at question in America. Should their have been no market Mr Walz, then no ownership would've been possible. Yet the "market" had been around long before slaves were in America. That some were abused is true Mr Walz...but not to the extent that many claim, nor to the degree or knowledge which color was the "owner" or the "abuser" Mr Walz: Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library, in his book, Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University Press of Virginia-1995), wrote: "Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure." and "More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop"" Since there were black slave-owners Mr Walz, any "reparations" wrt those who may have ""owned" and abused them and derived criminal gain", MUST include the descendants of the owners, regardless of color. While "that crime" may or may not give them more claim to the own country of origin,, but not the one to which they ended up in, nor have you presented evidence they were ever kidnapped by any within this country (USA). ----------------------- Irrelevant. Kidnap is an ongoing crime, even now, since they still suffer. It is as punishable here as a continuing crime, as anywhere it first occurred. Kidnapping for the slave trade was accomplished by their African brethren Mr Walz, and if no market existed, no slave trade could've have existed. The crime (kidnapping) involved those in Africa at the time Mr Walz, not America. But I wouldn't advise it. The blacks in Africa live terrible lives. ------------ By no means all of them. For those interested, they are free, like any Americans to go to the origin of their ancestry should they desire. ------------------------------------ A crime here is a crime here, and must be recompensed, their origin is irrelevant. Then "recompense" MUST begin where the "crime" originally occurred Mr Walz, and involve those who were the "owners", including black slave-owners. It's important that you respect yourself, and you will not do that sitting on the curb all day saying "muhfugger" and "racist". ---------------- Actually, if you perceive that the degradation of your life and livelihood is caused by mother****ing racists, then yes, it can indeed restore much of your inculcuated depression produced by racists who have systematically degraded you. If you believe that you have been assaulted, instead of just believing what your assailants told you abiout yourself, then yes, it can indeed improved your self-esteem, and quite properly so!! When one is sitting in the perceived mud puddle of self-pity Mr Walz, one may get up and clean yourself off, or continue to splash in the mud puddle. ------------------------------- Vengeance cleanses just fine. Don't confuse hate and self-pity. Why would you "hate" and demand "vengeance" Mr Walz? Elsewhere you claim you're not black. You have to get off your ass and really strive to improve yourself. ---------------- There is no such thing as "Free Will". People do what they believe they must do, which is mostly what they have been told they must do. If you want someone to stop cussing you, you'd better stop treating them in a manner that any behaviorist can tell you will make them do that!! I've previously addressed this issue Mr Walz. --------------------------- Not effectively. You're entitled to your opinion, M Walz. and it's not done by poor language, making poor grades, incorrect behavior, and the crimes that blacks commit, etc. -------------------- They must be given what has to replace their business, the way they survive, which may seem like crime. AND THEY MUST BE GIVEN IT BEFORE BEING EXPECTED TO RELINQUISH THE OTHER!!! People have to EAT!! Most dope dealers SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES!! Disrespect for people who want their family to go hungry is NATURAL!! Not anyone wants your family to go hungry. ----------------- Don't pretend a polite lie!! The rich would much rather go on six to eight vacations a year than for their renters to eat properly and have a decent life. They try to justify this by claiming that everyone decides their own fate, when that is a ridiculous lie! Now you are a spokesperson for "the rich"? It appears you wish to blame others in another form of "splashing in water" in your perceived "mud puddle" Mr Walz. -------------------------------- Your mud-puddle analogy is rotting, it's irrelevant. Vengeance cleanses the heart. So you're not interested in facts, rather, "vengeance". How, uh, "tolerant" of you and your leftist- socialistic desire for wealth redistribution. Like Bill Cosby says, it would be great if you would help yourself to be better by speaking correctly and not stealing and killing so much. ------------------------------------- Like Bill Cosby LIEs, you mean. If he actually believes such things after all the education he is supposed to have had, then he was a really ****ty student who didn't pay much attention, and if he does not then he is a damned liar fueled by political prejudice, ambition, and the criminal urge to justify his own wealth in a cowardly manner. So IYO of course, Mr Cosby lies, not because he believes what he says, but beaciuse he was a "really ****ty student who didn't pay much attention"? ----------------------------------- I don't bother to distinguish which. He's wrong, and that must be said. IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Understood. ANYONE who EVER took a couple decent philosophy courses KNOWS that Determinism is the most legitimate view of causation, no matter how much it seems to violate the preferred popularized American Myth of Self-Determination that is merely promoted by the wealthy as an effort to shame the poor for their own fate so they won't gang up on them and kill them all! There are many theories in various areas of philosophy Mr Walz. ------------------------- Nonsense, I've been over all the territory of Determinism, it just isn't that large, because the question is actually fairly simple. Only ignorance and willful disregard of logic makes it seem otherwise. Which is still a theory, and facts will only confuse, as asnyone thatdisagree must be "ignorance and willful disregard of logic". Understood. For those you claim to "KNOW" it's meanings, they would no longer be therories, but facts. ------------------------------ I know its theories, and which of them are facts and which theories are NOT theories, actually. They don't HAVE to be only one or the other. They are NOT mutually exclusive, so quit playing semantic games. Glad to see you admit it's still theory Mr Walz. And ANYONE who has had a chemistry class or a science class knows that the universe runs on cause and effect, and that what happens inside your skull is every bit as determined by physical laws and physics as any other experimental milieu in science, and that brain chemistry is NOT ruled by our notions in some fanciful image of over- riding "self-control", but rather instead the determinate chemistry PRODUCES those notions and motivations. Hmmm. What effect Mr Waltz, does the cited "ozone depletion", have on the "chemistry" of the mind and subsequent thought processes? Feel free to provide such evidence Mr Walz, not another theory. ----------------------- Whatever its effect, it does NOT cause any "free will". IYO of course. OTOH, if what you claim were true Mr Walz, then this would also conflict with those that claim humans evolved from "less-civilized" beings. ------------------------ Humans are defined as civilized. There is no such thing as "less" or "un"-civilized except in instances where the term is used colorfully, but inaccurately. Whatever "colorfully" means. Yet slave ownership was once consider "civilized", and now is not. Yet you desire "vengence" against that which was once considered "civilized". How odd indeed. How does one "evolve" to a "higher level", while your claim that a person's "notions and motivations" that are "inside your skull is every bit as determined by physical laws and physics"? -------------------------- Accident that includes a society accidentally evolving and finally getting its **** together and effecting everyone's life. Evolution is that happy accident that retains its own advantages. If "every bit as determined by physical laws and physics", "determined" does not equate to "accident" nor "lucky". Cosby is supposed a Ph Ed, which means he has supposedly had a LOT of philosophy and sociology, so either he was a ****ty student, or he is a liar! Or you could be wrong on any and all of which you write. ------------------------------- Nope. Not when I'm right. Quit playing games and go play now. IOW, don't confuse you with your own ideology. Understood. |
#536
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 31 May 2004 23:47:01 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Info Junkie wrote: On Mon, 24 May 2004 01:36:33 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: Info Junkie wrote: On Sun, 23 May 2004 11:54:41 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: Holger Dansk wrote: "snip" We do not have time machines, and we are not responsible for the deed of people who lived many years before we were born. -------------------- Not unless we still have benefit of the wealth they stole through slavery, AND collectively, we DO!!!! That amounts to the possesion of lost or stolen property, and ANY disparity of wealth that we have allowed to afflict new generations of blacks, because of our ongoing greed in NOT returning our ill-gotten gain, this is ALSO our debt!! This is why we owe blacks complete restoration to the wealth and position, power, and education they would have had they been white!! Because Color WAS the distinguishing feature that identified them as slaves for hundreds of years, deprived them of family, tribe, and culture, and left them in this condition. Oh my. Where should such monies for "reparations" (which is what you're speaking of) come from: --------------------------------- Confiscated wealthy from all the wealthy. So you wish the government to take monies from the wealthy (whatever "wealthy" means) to give to blacks, not based on law, but because you believe it o be "right". Understood. ----------------------------- No. You don't. Then you're free to show where I've erred. 1. Would you include receiving monies(from) those that originally captured and (then) sold them into slavery? -------------------------- Impossible, and irrelevant. Impossible? Aren't there things such as trade agreements? "Irrevelent"? Hardly "President Jerrauld Rawlins of Ghana and President Mathieu Kerekou (Bennin) apologized for the role their ancestors played during the African slave trade," "We have always found it difficult to accept that the slave trade could not have flourished without the participation of Africans. But now the issue of African complicity had been addressed... by the descendants of those who had sent their brothers and sisters in chains to the New World" "Throughout its history, many African-Americans have suppressed one glaring fact as if they wanted to purposely ignore it. That is, that African Kings and rulers sold their ancestors into slavery." Ivory Coast Director M'Balla, commenting about a film release on the African role in slavery: "It focuses on the complexity of African people in selling their brothers into slavery"...(it) doesn't dimish the role of the white slave-traders, but shows that slavery wouldn't have happened on the scale it did had Africans not collabroated" (http://www.whro.org/benin/apology.shtml) (http://www.mamiwata.com/noble.html) (http://www.pbs.org/wonders/Episodes/Epi3/3_rete4d.htm) Quite relevent indeed. 2. What of those whose families owned no slaves, and were in fact against slavery? Would you "pick their pocket" for "reparations" as well? ------------------------------ Those who are wealthy should be relieved of it. It would appaear you're not interested in facts Mr Walz ,but may just be jealous of those wealthier than you, and while you may prefer a socialistic ideaology of wealth distribution, using the "race card" as a method to justify the means to an end is a poor one indeed. 3. What, do we "owe blacks" that are descedants of black slave owners Mr Walz? Or are you claiming only white people were slave owners in this country. --------------------------------- Same as we owe EVERYONE. A decent education, job, home. For clarification then, you beleive: 1. Descendants of black slave owners should also receive "reparations"? 2. Descendants of black slave owners should also receive "reparations" even if they happen to be wealthy? For that matter we also owe each child born into our society their own residence, free and clear, simply because 500 generations of the labor of our collective ancestors slaving for the rich have already earned them that inheritance, and by right of equality they each should already own and control their fair share of the entire earth!! Where do you get "500 generations"? ------------------------------------ It doesn't matter, moron, it's not specific, nor does it have to be. You make the assertion, you provide the evidence. -------------------------------- It was an offhand number that need not be accurate, in fact it can be longer or shorter with no change in the certain truth of my assertion. It depends on what you call a generation, if it is 20 years, fine, and if as some say, it is 30 years, then still, fine. Since we have a body of common ancestry that is distanced from the present by between 10,000 and 100,000 years, it is unimportant. And in any case, everyone *IS* related to everyone else. Yet you wish only blacks to receive "reparations" for slavery, paid for by citizens of a country where the majority never owned slaves, in a country that has not existed with a Consitution that we've had for far less than 100,000, or even 10,000 years old. "Off-hand" is not irrelevent Mr Walz, as an assertion of "500 generations" wrt making "reparation" payments for which you desire be paid to blacks, must have a beginning and an end. OTOH, If one wishes to claim, "everyone *IS* related to everyone else", then why should we pay our relatives for injuries never incured by ourselves to ourselves? Blacks are the only ones who can help themselves. ------------------ That doesn't happen, there is no "Free Will", we are products of our experience, and nothing else, and we cannot change what circumstances have made us think and what we do because of it. We can only wait for new circumstances and experiences, or others to affect our thinking. This may be true for animals Mr Walz, ------------------------------- Nope, it's true for ALL beings in the world, your trying to speak of self-awareness, not realizing that self-awareness has nothing whatsoever to do with "Free Will", you obviously need some college philosophy coursework. One that believes as you do also knows there are opposing theories that dispute your belief. ------------------------------------------ Wrong ones, yes, and held for ulterior illegitimate motives of greed and power. "Wrong ones" is but your subjective opinion Mr Walz. They too may make the same claim against your theroies, and are but just as subjective and their opinion. but many times people change their ways because of their experiences...some to improve themselves, some to enact reverge, some to wallow in self-pity. --------------------------- Yes, they change because of experiences, ansd without those important lucky, formative experiences, they do NOT!! In other words, they do NOT have "Free Will". Now by asserting these people have obtained new experiences, they are "lucky". Doesn't sound very "scientific", at least to use as any sort of "proof" of your belief over opposing theories. ------------------------------------ What would you call a happy winner of a random chance award? That's purely scientific. I would call the winner, "a happy winner of a random chance award" OTOH, you believe that "luck" is "purely scientific"? How does one come to a conclusion that is "purely scientific" based on variables that are not repeatable? We do what we do because of who we are, which is produced by our life experiences, in the precise order they occur, and our chemical reaction to them which is entirely determined by cause and effect. There is ONLY ONE outcome for events at a specic place and time, and ONLY one finally happens, regardless of how many other universes were also produced which did NOT become this thread's future! As previously provided to you Mr Walz (and shown below), "based on your beleief, the "ONLY one final outcome" would be the same for all individuals, and be at the least easily predicatible". If there was no such thing as "free will" Mr Walz, all individual outcomes would be predictible for each of us. throughout history. ------------------------------- No, they would merely be unary, ONLY one final outcome, which is true. Yet based on your beleief, the "ONLY one final outcome" would be the same for all individuals, and be at the least easily predicatible. ------------------------------------- All individuals are not the same, nor the place and time nor the order of their life experiences, nor their experiences themselves the same, and prediction presumes advanced enough science or the possible impossibility of prediction, which still does NOT prevent there being ONLY ONE UNARY OUTCOME FOR EVENTS IN ANY LIFE AT ANY PLACE AND TIME! Thus all outcomes are Deterministic. Unless such items are predictible Mr Walz, it is hardly "purely scientific". OTOH, how does one arrive at your phrase of "possible impossibility of prediction"? Either it's possible or it's not Mr Walz, or you're claiming that "guessing" at potential variables is somehow "purely scientific". The notion that they must be predictable relies upon your ability to fathom the totality of the science of causation, which neither you nor other lower animals have. The only thing that may now be predictible in your posts, is that you've begun down the path of ad hominem. -------------------------------- No. I don't have the ability to predict all causation either. By "you" I meant the general "you" here. Yet you made the statment that predictibility "relies upon your ability to fathom the totality of the science of causation, which neither you (posted to me) nor other lower animals have. This is not a "general" phrase Mr Walz, and implies you claim such an "ability", as opposed to "(me) nor other lower animals have." I may suggest since you believe you fully understand the aetiology of human nature, you publish your works and disprove those with far more knowledge in this field than you or I, wrt your belief on "free will". ------------------------------ It's no mere "belief", it is inarguable truth based on logic. Things cannot be successfully argued to operate otherwise. If an "inarguable truth", you'll have no problem publishing your works Mr Walz. If we had "Free WIll" we could decide apart from any and all causes, to think differently than we had, in the manner we'd prefer, and we'd think we were somewhere else than we are, and we'd be there, because we would be able to firmly retain belief in that in spite of all of the conflicting and confounding evidence to the contrary occuring to our senses, and we would be quite schizophrenic and lost in a fantasy world. We but limit ourselves Mr Walz, to those endeavor with which we wish to aspire. IOW, there is no reason a child can not become an astronaut, fireman, professor of biology, etc. Some have coined the phrase, *thinking-out-of-the-box* wrt "to think differently than we had". Yet this is far different than believing "free will" is somehow connected to our physical presence, nor is it logical Mr Walz, nor is it in context with your wishing to force others to make "reparation" payments to blacks. That IS what such a power entails, and it makes coherent living of a lifetime impossible. It can be argued that those who do so are lives than go out of existence out the sides of reality leaving only the rest of us who cannot, to exist coherently, moment to moment, trapped in our life birth to death. We will never know of those others' existence, if they can be said to have one without a single certain life that they cannot escape, in fact it can be maintained that such an entity would NOT be merely ONE entity by MANY or even ANY entity! This is why we cannot have any such thing as "Free Will", we would immediately CEASE TO EXIST! Actual "Free Will" would make any kind of Life altogether IMPOSSIBLE! Psycho-babble. Everyone is responsible by his past choices or decisions for his present condition in life. --------------------- Nope, a hundred TIMES more decisions by OTHERS produce our mind in our lives than those we even CALL our own, and our own and also merely the result of cause and effect outside of us. Saying we're responsible only says that we are who suffers, it does NOT make us able to change ourselves on whim, without reasons that would compel us beyond our control. How unfortunate all of your decisions (which you believe are not your own apparently) ---------------------- I cannot control what I am, and obviously neither can you, or someone so pitifully unable to argue as YOU are would OTHERWISE do far better! While you may not be able to control WHO you are, only you may control HOW you implement your beliefs. ------------------ Meaningless. What sort of thing is that, "style"?? What is NOT my core belief that is what I believe? Nothing! No, all is belief, and it is not under our control. Rather it IS what controls us, and how we ARE controlled. I made no mention wrt "style" Mr Walz, That is but a methodology, not a belief. That you may change your "core belief" has been shown by many others throughout history Mr Walz. Wrt what is not under your control, (which I hope) is that another person did not type your words in the post to which I'm responding. While there are consequences for ones actions, implementation of ones own beliefs that determine the extent of your "free will". To suggest you can not is not only foolish, but self-defeating. -------------------------- You're arguing for some undetectable epiphenomenal "you can't and yet you can" sort of "Free Will", which is nonsense born only of verbal assembly and not a logical assertion. Not at all Mr Walz. There are those that have been told time and again that they were paralyzed would never walk again...yet they did. Just because you can verbalize something doesn't mean it must be so!! You think that you possess the "feeling" of "running your own mind", but that is only an idea that was taught you, it is not shown, it is a belief without evidence. It was an idea that I discovered Mr Walz...on my own. I seroiusly doubt I was the first or only one that has done so. If you wish to wallow in self-pity or not is a option Mr Walz. How you implement your option is your "choice" Mr Walz. Whether you (or you believe someone did it for you) is irrelevent, since IF the conclusion is not desirable, you have but more options to change again. It is what the RC Church taught people so they could hold them criminally responsible for what they THINK, when that is balderdash on its face to imagine that someone actually controls what they THINK! Ah, so now we're getting to the "nub" of the matter. Unless you wish to clarify, you believe that no one may be held responsible for their actions? All that sort of thing is done for is for terror purposes, not because someone actually controls what they think! Can terror control people, sure, partially, falsely, and unsuccessfully, but it can seem to work for a time, till they slit your throat. But terror does not of itself change thoughts in minds permanently. The assault is remembered, and forms a bio-neurologic source of rebellion and secret plotting of revenge. If what you claim is (horribly) true Mr Walz, then neither the blacks (as slaves nor their descendants) nor slave owners (nor their descendants) should be held responsible or their actions, i.e. no reparations. Understood will dictate all of the decisions your children will make when they are grown, and the children beyond them. ---------------------- No, children are affected not only by MY input, but by a hundred times MORE uncontrolled experiences in their life in the world. Children may be "effected" by their parents input, but it does not determine HOW they would implement their actions based on your beliefs, ------------- You mean "affected", yes. Which would allow them different opitons, i.e., "choices" to which they may make differing choices than their parents. and in the manner you would implement your actions based on your beliefs, nor are their actions predictible. --------------- They get more predictable the more they are moral, because moral treatment of others earns their love, which ensures the desire to become cooperative and retain the relationship closely and amiably. Which allows those "they love" to control what they think even more completely. If their experiences are "uncontrolled", they may implement their actions far differently than others would, and no "ability to fathom the totality of the science of causation" wrt predictiblity will change that. --------------------------------- Even if things in children's lives are uncontrolled, if you have behaved morally toward them they will appreciate it, and separate you from the group of effects that they resent and which they plot to damage, change, or destroy. Your proof that such an environment (uncontrolled childred become more appreciative) has ever been scientifically tested? In the "real world" Mr Walz, those who are or have been parents understand what you claim is but pyscho-babble, as children, even treated them "morally", do not understand what "morally" is or is not, and constantly "push-the-envelope" wrt their own behavior., and must be disciplined. How sad for you and yours, as there have been many, many others that have decided (free will) not to share your state of self-pity. ------------------------ No, that is merely their mistaken belief that they are unable to change because they have no "Free WIll", they were brainwashed with such crap and have never had to examine it logically. Whose "mistaken belief"? If you believe neither your parents nor yourself had "free will", then both you and your parents (and subsequently your children) were also "brainwashed", ergo you'd have no ability to "examine" what was or was not "crap" nor think "logically". ----------------------------- No, you're getting confused. Life experience does not brainwash us. It teaches us what we must learn and deal with, and how. Brainwashing is when someone as a separate agency tries to bully us into phony edicts of thought and behavior that actually contradict our other much more massively persuasive life experience. Which "separate agency" does your children listen to *over* your child-raising? If you have life experiences that are contradictory to what some "separate agency" is saying, you'll reject it. If you wish to listen and learn that which you do not full understand or have an "open mind" (tolerance), you'll learn both sides of the issue and make your own decision. If your decisions is undesirable, it becomes another *notch* in your "life experience" to make alternate choices. We always know inside when we have been forced to lie by threat, to ourselves and to others, though under said threat of torture we may act and forget it is just a phony play we are pretending, for a time. When one is under duress, one has no opportunity to express "free will" Mr Walz, and the two are not comparable.. Your condition or the circumstances that you are living in today are a direct result of your decisions in the past. You are also responsible for your future. Not anyone else. Just you. Holger ---------------------- Sorry, we are NOT islands, divisible from the rest, we are literally produced and created by the actions of others, and everything we are came from outside us and beyond our control. We owe each other support and fairness!! We are a group species, a group cultural mind. If this were true Mr Walz, one would be a robot or a domesticated and herded animal. --------------------------- No, that is not what a robot or a cow is, those are mechanical or organic devices that have no self-awareness, but as I have told you AND SHOWED you with a simple thought-experiment, self-awareness has nothing whatsoever to do with "Free WIll". Self-awareness does NOT include some magical ability to change what you think about your existence, even though self-awaress does think ABOUT its existence and models its existence internally in its mind as a means of perceiving the past! Pyscho-babble. --------------------- You're a liar, a coward, a nincompoop who cannot reason logically. Your blurting is cowardly and defensive because you are unable to respond logically. So much for your "free will" Mr Walz. Who is controlling your typing of ad hominem Mr Walz? If we could change what we thought we would go totally insane almost immediately because we would decide to think we were elsewhere in some life and location that we preferred far better and we would leave this reality and perhaps leave behind a catatonic body abandoned by any person in touch with reality. We would mentally mastrubate our mind into insanity and total loss of reality if given whimsical control of what we believe!! That's the prime reason we CANNOT HAVE "Free Will", because it would make Reality itself and individual coherent lives IMPOSSIBLE!!! More Pyscho-babble. If one does not learn Mr Walz, one remains a child. How one implements what has been learned determines ones future. ------------- But how one implements anything comes from our life experience and beliefs that come directly from them. No argument here Mr Walz. You are pretending that you can separate what is experienced from how it affects beliefs, and hence acts, and you CANNOT! Those separations are verbal ONLY, and ONLY as a feature of sentence structure, they are NOT real, except as speech fragments. I have no need to "pretend" wrt things that are false Mr Walz. Things I once believed are no longer part of my beliefs Mr Walz, as I grew and learned to put away such childish beliefs. In my youth, with my childish beliefs, I made childish decisions, based n the life experiences and knowledge I had acquired at the time I acted. I have since learned from my life experiences, and much later in life,I made far more mature and reasoned decisions. This is not merely "verbal" as I made and acted upon, my decisions based on my life experiences, and not how others "controlled" me. OTOH, some have learned to change not only what they've learned previously may be incorrect, but have made appropriate changes in how they implement their new experieces, including how they treat others...none of which were predictible. ------------------------- Nonsense, they are as predictable as anything, FOR YOU JUST DID SO!! This means they are caused by external experiences and how they affect our internal workings entirely beyond our control! If this were not so, then no transformative experiences would be possible! If they are not repeatable Mr Walz, they're not predictible. Claiming a predictibility, one must have a means to repeat the "experiment", including all variables. And experience means EITHER external OR INTERNAL, because we can be JUST as taken somewhere we might not have tread by our own musings and pouring over old experiences as by new ones! This is NOT any form of "self-control", this is merely dynamic logic at work, the action of delay and feedback in the Deterministic mechanism of our chemical physical mind!! We do not control, we are controlled by everything else!! Hence the point wrt "reparations" of which you wrote is unnecessary. While you may believe it is true for you Mr Walz, ------------------------ Don't be a disingenuous ****, you dummy, you know full well that I hold it to be true of everyone forever and always!! AND YOU KNOW THAT I CAN PROVE IT TO YOU AND YOU DON'T WISH TO ADMIT IT!!! (And your ad hominem becomes more shrill - as predicted above) --------------------------- You asserted that I merely BELIEVE it, or "for me alone" and that was an insulting ad hominem, however smug and round about, and why I lashed out at you. If you don't desire to be assailed, desist from such gambits! I merely noted you cited your opinion to which I disagreed Mr Walz. OTOH, you typed in "caps" (i.e. yelling) Mr Walz, and claimed I was "a disingenuous ****, you dummy". . This is not an assertion, but a fact that may be seen as repeatable and read over and over by the readers in this NG. Admit "what" Mr Walz? Areyou claiming you can not learn anymore than you already have ("I hold it to be true of everyone forever and always!!")...or just that you refuse to admit that what you've have learned to date may be, at least in part, incorrect? That you believe there is no "free will" Mr Walz, may be true for you, but is a theory that is disputed even among professionals. ------------------------------------- Not competent ones. Those who reject it are clearly only doing so because of their inability to reason and their fear of it as to what it means, having been raised in a punitive blaming society that holds people responsible for their very thoughts, which they cannot help. The arguments of such inferiors are so specious that it is barely believable that a someone pretending to authority could dare even to publish them and reveal their shallow grasp of the question. It is only because they are unaware how stupid they look that they can dare do so at all. This evidences that others do indeed grasp the subject far better, even if their inferiors are unaware of this. As I previously noted Mr Walz, let us know when your works are published and may show all dissenters of your opinion have been shown in error. The most well-accepted school of thought in QM is the MWI or many worlds interpetation. It solves so many problems compared to all other models that it simply cannot be ignored, and because of the nature of its claims, cannot even BE refuted, but like Determinism, it frightens the **** out of Fundy Xtians with their limited and shame-based world-view, even if they CALL themselves physicists! The rest of physics and physicists laughs at them both in front of and behind their backs, because they can never win an argument. Many a "well-accepted school of thought" in various fields have been found to have failed over time Mr Walz. Yours will be no different. "Environment is responsible for over half of the variance in the trait. Note that ‘environment’ includes not only the circumstances of a person’s upbringing, this is just its most obvious and important aspect, ‘environment’ also includes everything that is not inheritable, all the non-genetic factors that might be relevant, from experimental error to free will. " ------------------------------ Wrong! The half-and-half doctrine is between nurture and nature. And the other "half" of cause is what? Genomic?? In other words, YET MORE input into who you are and how you behave that you cannot control or prevent!! Now this half and half baloney is so much pure crap in biology, it is merely a nod to each other between psychology and biology, dividing "turf" as it were. Nobody actually knows what does exactly what, and they'd be better off admitting it till they do! Then you will be sure and show them the error of their ways when you publish your works won't you? (http://www.bioethics.net/genetics/ge...&articleID=759) If no such thing a "free will" exists Mr Walz, why is such a phrase considered by the American Journal of Bioethics as a "trait", even part of ones "environment"? Are you claiming they are wrong and only you are correct? --------------------------------- The presence of non-science and even anti-science in the bordeline sciences is always good for a laugh. When writing in such fields, most of what people write is mere opinion, they do not always write science. Don't be decieved. In these much more complex human fields in which we have the least grasp of how things occur of all fields, some fanciful guesswork seems unavoidable, even if it may later stymie the real science from progressing. It is better to speak and lay one's assumptions on the table for future review, than to leave them unsaid. Thus, people often write their unjustified belief systems into their supposedly "scientific" efforts. Examples of this are so numerous! Feel fre to laugh Mr Walz. Yet,as I said, many a "well-accepted school of thought" in various fields have been found to have failed over time Mr Walz. Yours will be no different. What is meant BY "Free Will" in different circumstances does of course differ. Sometimes it means no more than self-awareness, sometimes it means no more than the ability to learn from experience, even in lower animals where the mechanism doesn't even seem to be an aware process. So you're citing "logic", yet you've not full and accurately defined what you're arguing against? Hmmm. You have to examine them to know when it is being mis-used in a shoddy and free-form manner than ignores and denies the quite proper claim of Philosophy alone to be its definer. Depending on whose doing the "defining", eh? Yet you admit there are those more qualified than you that disagree. You were brainwashed with Rightist moronic "individuality" and "self-reliance", so that you could justify Rightist abuses of those less fortunate in life, because you don't even grasping that those are nothing but fatuous MYTHS! What is clear Mr Walz, is what you believe far exceeds what you know Mr Walz, My upbringing ("brainwashed" to you) was quite center to left-of-center...I "grew up" and learned the world is not so (pardon the pun) "black and white". --------------------------------------- You fancy yourself as a Leftist, but from where I sit you are to the Right because you are unaware of why you believe the little things that you do that make you effectively a Rightist. The dogma you assert is inherently Rightist, it supports no other direction of belief, but you don't know that yet, apparently. I have previously clarified my political-position in Usenet for those that wish a "label". Anyone that has read my posts Mr Walz, would hardly say I'm a "leftist". ROTFLMHO. Much of what I was taught was similar to the baloney you are spewing Mr Walz. ------------------------------------------ And which you weren't bright enough to understand, obviously. If you were taught it, you should use it. When I was a child Mr Walz, I did. I've since put away such childish thoughts. This was quite evident when you snipped my questions to you wrt "reparations" Mr Walz, as you did not wish to deal with them as facts not "myths". Instead, moving to fallacvies of distration rather than staying on-topic wrt "reparations". ---------------------------------- I don't distract, I attack. If you don't understand what I say ask questions. I did ask Mr Walz. You "snipped" them from your original reply.. Feel free to read: Message-ID: and your repsonse:: Message-ID: fortunately there are many that refuse to wallow in your type of self-pity and have raised themselves up from whatever position they originally started...regardless of race and without any need for "reparations". --------------------------- No, those who think they did were merely lucky, Hmmm. I thought it was based upon "upon your ability to fathom the totality of the science of causation'? ------------------------------------- You seem to believe that I asserted I had such a thing. I simply reminded you that YOU do not, which you onviously took personally and now fancy that *I* pretend to it, which I do not. Might I suggest you post what you mean Mr Walz, else simply impying otherwise one may ascertain many things. and wish to take phony credit for it, and believe that either they did it all by themselves, which is nonsense to anyone acquainted with cause and effect in physics, and who doesn't try to separate it from real LIFE. Which has differing, and disputible theories., none of which are appllicable to reparations. --------------------- Everything is disputable to sufficiently ignorant stubborn and conniving people who are unwilling to reason logically. Such an assertion that everything is disputable might lead the fatuous to believe that there is no Truth. Hogwash. Truth can only BE determined by people WILLING AND CAPABLE of divining it by LOGIC! Which doesn't refute my comments. OTOH, have you published your works yet? To all others, the Truth is NOT, in fact, "disputable", it is merely UNAVAILABLE to them because of their ignorance and willful intellectual misbehavior!! Truth is truth Mr Walz. How such information is disseminated and interpreted leads invariably to 'differing, and disputible theories., none of which are appllicable to reparations.' That you may believe your is better than other theories has not been proven by the works that you've had published for further scrutiny. This allows them an excuse to keep their ill-gotten wealth and allows them to think they can justify their abuses of those less fortunate. So even those blacks that ae wealthy was accomplished by "ill-gotten" means and not talent, and should have their wealth "confiscated" beacuse they only use their wealth so "they can justify their abuses of those less fortunate"? ------------------- Absolutely. WHOEVER benefits by the degradation of another, is at fault, and must be penalized till they do NOT benefit inordinately over others. Now how could one possibly "benefit(s) by the degradation of another" if, as you claimed, "We do not control, we are controlled by everything else!!". Ego, no one is responsible for their wactions Mr Walz. twist it anyway you wish, but that is what you've been saying all along. It's mostly the greedy self-indulgent excuses of the thief and bandit that motivates the Rightist to justify their unfairly gotten wealth by pretending that "Free Will" exists, when every logical argument trashes that Myth totally! If "every logical argument" shows there is no such thing as "free will" Mr Walz, --------------------------------- It can't. It is unable. Then no reparations need be made Mr Walz, as no one is repsonsible for their actions, nor could they have possibly (based on your argument) benefit from "the degradation of another". |
#537
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Bob LeChevalier wrote: wrote: Reading and writing were invented by whites and Asians. Really? Got any names? Confucious... Guess those people in Upper Egypt weren't reading and writing. Mediterranean types were essentially white (as opposed to DAFN). No,many ancient people in this area were racially mixed.Look at the Egyptians very carefully.You can see all racial types in their facial features. Riverman |
#538
|
|||
|
|||
Holger Dansk wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:56:32 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: Holger Dansk wrote: The Greek and Roman civilizations existed about 2,000 years ago. They contributed a great deal to the modern world. The Greeks had the greatest ancient civilization. All of those thousands of years the black savages in Africa were just savages contributing nothing to the world. Holger http://www.mind****.com/~holger1/holger1.htm -------------------------------- Greeks did nothing but quarrel and fight, the Athenian democracy was impossible without the enslavement of captives taken in often cowardly raids on other more peaceful peoples. Thomas Jefferson studied Aristotle and used his philosophy when he wrote our Constitution. (He was the primary author.) The Greeks put vowels in the alphabet which made language a lot more useful. Mind you, I even LIKE the Romans, and Latin, which I studied for 5 years and can still SPEAK conversationally! Latin is a dead language. Not anyone speaks it. --------------------- You've just proved you're an ignorant uneducated boor. That's obviously why you're a racist. Steve |
#539
|
|||
|
|||
Holger Dansk wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:33:07 -0700, "Circe" wrote: Um, are you suggesting that Greek was the first language to have vowels in it? I'm not suggesting it but saying that it was. Holger ------------------- You need a course in linguistics - written vowels were merely written first by the Indians and Greeks, and before that written language was merely a form of consonantal shorthand for speech. It doesn't mean people didn't SAY the vowels!!! Steve |
#540
|
|||
|
|||
Holger Dansk wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:50:09 -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: Holger Dansk wrote: On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:32:43 -0700, "Circe" wrote: Holger Dansk wrote: On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:33:07 -0700, "Circe" wrote: Um, are you suggesting that Greek was the first language to have vowels in it? I'm not suggesting it but saying that it was. Nonsense. It is *impossible* to speak without making vowel sounds. Period. Vowel sounds are a necessary requirement of human speech. And Greek is hardly the first language invented by humans, let alone the first language to be represented by writing. Are you suggesting that the Egyptians (as just one example), who were capable of representing names like Osiris and Amenhotep in hieroglyphs 2000 years before the Greek alphabet was invented, did not use vowel sounds in their languages or did not have words? Or that the Chinese, who have been writing their language down without interruption since 1200 BC (fully 400 years before Homer and the dissemination of the Greek alphabet) do not now and did not when they began writing use vowels when they spoke? All I can say is that you are *sadly* misinformed. Greek Alphabets Apart from using the characters of the Greek alphabets as notations in my maths and science classes, I don't know how to read Greek. (Sigh. This is a real tragic.) Nor am I a linguist genius, since English is the only language I know. English is the only language I can read and write. (Judging by the number of spelling and grammar errors I had, I haven't even fully mastered English.) However, I can give you a brief history on the Greek alphabets. Which is totally irrelevant. Language is primarily a spoken phenomenon. Alphabets are merely one way to write down a language to preserve it in readable form. Every language of the world before Greek had vowels. Most of them had NO way of being written, but they existed nonetheless. Some, the Semitic languages, had ways of being written without vowels, because if you know the language you can figure out the vowels, jst s ths sntnc s ndrstndbl t mst ppl wh knw nglsh. Some, like Chinese, used individual symbols for entire words, and thus displayed neither consonants nor vowels. But written Chinese notwithstanding, Chinese does have both consonants and vowels. God help you. You are so messed up mentally. Get straightened out quick. Life is too short. You will live it without even knowing what was real and what was not. It seems that it may have been caused by too much lying and being around people who do a lot. -------------------------- People like you. You just got told about your ignorance again, so you explode in insult instead of accepting your ignorance and trying to become educated. Steve |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A first 'Parker Jensen' bill advances | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 8th 04 06:29 PM |