Fresh from the Men’s Rights subreddit, some thoughts from some dude called atiwywr on cougars, age of consent laws, and Justin Beiber.
So “cougars” are perverse, but pedophilia – sorry, ephebophilia — is natural and good?
The age of consent in most American states is 16.
Complaining that men can’t legally have sex with girls – sorry, “fertile women” – aged 15 and younger: Men’s Rights activism at its finest!
He also hasn’t heard of chaos theory, which I learned about while watching Jurassic Park when I was 12. The system’s so complicated, it’s kind of a moot point whether there’s free will or not. It’s not like we’ll be able to figure it out.
Argh, no! Part of the debate over free will is what, exactly, counts as free will. That’s still a philosophical matter.
One of the reasons I asked you to lay out your definition of free will was that not all definitions of free will require non-determinism.
Let’s see here……….we still have: Bigotry, violence, sexual assault, and social inequity. People still have the same drives and instincts as they did 60 years ago. After all, a smile still means the same thing now as it did then. I hope you understand the concept.
Nomless: Please keep up the ad hominem attacks. It certainly makes you seem like an intelligent and rational person.
Keep mistaking insult for Ad hom, it makes you look so much more intelligent than those who just complain we are mean.
Let’s see here……….we still have: Bigotry, violence, sexual assault, and social inequity.
And they are just as prevalent as they were, and we still worship god-kings and live in a state of nature.
No one said that genes had no role in determining human behavior. The argument is that environment and culture ALSO play an important role, alongside genes.
No, that idea was your straw man. It’s not the cornerstone of anything.
So you learned what you know about Chaos theory from a movie, eh? Try reading a book instead or actually studying physics. The system is not random, despite not being 100% predictable. It IS deterministic because its output depends upon its inputs. The fact that it may appear to be random does not make it random. True randomness requires an equal distribution for all possible outcomes. But if you do have mathematical evidence that this is possible from a deterministic system, do show us.
But if you do have mathematical evidence that this is possible from a deterministic system, do show us.
So, feel free to give us your definition of free will, and the mathematical evidence to support it.
Social inequity, at least, is not a human universal. The rest, while they do show up in most, if not all, places, don’t mean the same thing everywhere. Ancient Greeks didn’t give a shit what color your skin was, and husbands were legally incapable of raping their wives fifty years ago here.
I do not think this at all.
And furthermore: If you think that I’m going to post my medical records on the INTERNET just to satisfy your standards of proof that I have asperger syndrome, think again. It’s moronic on your part to believe that AS was not know about by psychiatrists before 1994 when it was introduced into the DSM. Especially given the fact that the British psychiatrist Lorna Wing first coined the term “asperger syndrome” in a 1981 publication.
While quantum mechanics contradicts traditional ideas of determinism, it still leads to a sort of probabilistic determinism. The macroscopic realm of human decisions and actions is, in my opinion, almost certainly deterministic.
But, Monsieur sans Nom, chaos theory holds true even within deterministic systems. I don’t think it’s fair for you to criticize someone else for learning about chaos theory from a movie when you know even less about chaos theory than the person you’re criticizing.
Random’s just my internet handle, and I got it from a book character (Random Frequent Flyer Dent). It’s not how I view the world. However, again, the system’s so complicated that it looks random to us, because we cannot possibly account for every variable. I would be very surprised to learn that we know every variable in the first place. Put down the freshman physics text.
How exactly did you know this about the Ancient Greeks? Did you ask any of them? Skintone is not the only basis for constructing a social order, mind you. And just because any given culture treats people the same regardless of their *race* does not imply that it’s an egalitarian society.
We know full well that the Ancient Greeks did not have an egalitarian society. No one said that they did!
Good Lord, how many straw men can you create in a single day?
I’m pretty sure that nobody was suggesting that the Ancient Greeks were egalitarian, given their attitude towards women, or slaves. “Egalitarian” has a meaning rather wider than “not racist”.
I think Om Nom has a whole cupboard full of straw men just waiting to be deployed. He’s a classic lulz troll, with a bit of added sexism.
No, the Ancient Greeks were most certainly not egalitarian. Didn’t say they were. That was separate from the bit about social inequity, which you can tell by the use of the words “the rest”. However, they did not care about skin tone. They cared about whether or not you were Athenian or Spartan. And I guess you could say that I asked them; I read what they had to say about it.
Is mine the only school with history and anthropology departments? They’re a fascinating recent development where you can go to learn all about other cultures and times. It’s almost like having a time machine!
By the way, it’s rather unfair to assume that my knowledge of chaos theory begins and ends with Jurassic Park. It’s not like I said that, but then again, that hasn’t really concerned you elsewhere.
Not true. It can be difficult to distinguish between chaotic patterns and randomness, but it isn’t necessarily impossible as you claim it is. Highly complex patterns can and do arise from a set of relatively simple rules.
That we all share some instincts /= everything we do is shared. Since you want to talk facial expressions, kindly explain what someone is trying to convey when they bite their tongue (literally, not the idiom). Also, 60 years ago I would have had to restrict my movements to select few “coloured” areas in South Africa, yet I have traversed the country and been able to go wherever the fuck I wanted. 60 years ago I would have had to keep any sexual or romantic encounters with White women very close to the chest, yet I openly flirt and hook up with White women currently. 60 years ago half of my circle of friends being White would be unheard of. Bigotry may still be present, but the acceptability of open bigotry by society has changed drastically. The shit that people could openly do 60 years ago, as far as bigotry, violence and sexual assault, is so much worse than it is now that I can’t believe you made that stupid an argument of your own free will.
60 years ago my marriage would have been illegal in some states (due to anti-miscegenation laws).
We could do this all day, but why bother? It’s pretty clear that “nothing has changed” is a combination of trolling and wishful thinking on Om Nom’s part.
Am I the only one having a WTF moment? Who brought up your Aspberger diagnosis?
Anathema: While quantum mechanics contradicts traditional ideas of determinism, it still leads to a sort of probabilistic determinism. The macroscopic realm of human decisions and actions is, in my opinion, almost certainly deterministic.
This isn’t the universal thinking of physicists, e.g. Lawrence Krauss
It’s not mine either, but I don’t have enough physics to be more than opinionated.
Well, now there are LEGAL as well as social incentives for people to control their behavior that weren’t present some 60 years ago! People respond to incentives. And when you change the incentives you see a change in human social and individual behavior. But this in itself does not imply that people have free will nor does it imply that the blank slate theory is valid.
@CassandraSays
True that. It’s just that it’s one of the funniest bits of trolling since Owly’s Chicken Little impressions.
So your response to me pointing out that you don’t understand chaos theory . . . is to completely misunderstand chaos theory.
Right.
As I already said, chaos theory still holds true in deterministic systems. Chaos theory does not mean randomness.
Before you start expounding on a topic, can you at least have the decency to, I don’t know, google the subject or glance at a wikipedia article on it at the very least?