which category are you under?

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
“Nineteenth-century democracy needs no more complete vindication for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white race the best portions of the new world’s surface.” -Teddy Roosevelt
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
"negroid peoples, the so-called "hamitic," and bastard semitic, races of eastern middle Africa were ‘not fit’ to compete with whites and it would take ‘many thousands years” before the Black became even “as intellectual as the [ancient] Athenian." -Teddy Roosevelt
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
"The expansion of the peoples of white, or European, blood during the past four centuries which should never be lost sight of, especially by those who denounce such expansion on moral grounds. On the whole, the movement has been fraught with lasting benefit to most of the peoples already dwelling in the lands over which the expansion took place." Teddy Roosevelt (classical liberal)
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
"It was out of the question to expect Texans to submit to the mastery of the weaker race." -Teddy Roosevelt
Click to expand...
abandonconflict said:
“Nineteenth-century democracy needs no more complete vindication for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white race the best portions of the new world’s surface.” -Teddy Roosevelt
Click to expand...
abandonconflict said:
"negroid peoples, the so-called "hamitic," and bastard semitic, races of eastern middle Africa were ‘not fit’ to compete with whites and it would take ‘many thousands years” before the Black became even “as intellectual as the [ancient] Athenian." -Teddy Roosevelt
Click to expand...
abandonconflict said:
"It was out of the question to expect Texans to submit to the mastery of the weaker race." -Teddy Roosevelt
Click to expand...
ZOMG!! you mean he was the product of 19th century social mores and education??

OH NOES!!!!

the scales have fallen from my eyes and i now recognize the true genius of anarcho-collectivist, totally not Marxist, totally not Anarchy, totally not oxymoronic "Libertarian Socialism" because a dude who lived in the 19th century was a little bit prejudiced against people who didnt look like him!

i wanna join your chapter of the Cult of Chompsky. where do i go to get my head shaved and receive my saffron robes?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Yes, your hero Teddy Roosevelt the classical liberal was shockingly racist.


  • REAL Conservatism in the US is dedicated to preserving Classical Liberalism (the wellspring from which the Constitution flows)



    ​




 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Doer said:
Well, being wrong doesn't hurt. Could you imagine being right all the time? Boring. Happened to me, once. But, finally, the streak broke. I thought I was wrong about something, but I was mistaken about that. :)

clearly defined terminology, not quantifiable, hardly any highly controlled experimental conditions, very little reproducibility and, finally, only mild predictability and testability.

Untrue on the face of it. It has, all that, you say it does not. The problem is not that science cannot define the word, people in this world cannot define it except for themselves and badly, as I will show.
-----------------
The 2012 World Happiness Report[SUP][3][/SUP] stated that in subjective well-being measures, the primary distinction is between cognitive life evaluations and emotional reports. (Emotional reports can be distinguished as of positive or negative affect. Many but not all commentators regard positive and negative affect as carrying different information, and needing to be separately measured and analyzed). Happiness is used in both life evaluation, as in “How happy are you with your life as a whole?”, and in emotional reports, as in “How happy are you now?,” and people seem able to use happiness as appropriate in these verbal contexts.

---------------

I happen to know, for myself, that happiness is not an externally caused emotion. In fact, I do not see it as an emotion, but more of a baseline of Being. We are born ready to be happy, and it does not take much and a new born remains in a happy state, big grin, etc. They can just as easily be upset, not by words, but by the local lack of food, shelter, and clean pants.

Here is where it goes wrong, where we all get mixed up before we can do anything about it. And it is hell to figure it out later. That is what I call hell. Not having figured out this simple riddle of happiness.

We get it all wrong from the beginning, because the base physical situation can make us very un-happy... cutting teeth, ear ache, got milk???, poopy pants, etc. No matter what, we learn very early, in few days, the wrong message.

We learn, (in our baby brain, before we have thought) that the physical can disrupt our baseline, happiness. So we use that mammal survival instinct to learn, wrongly, at about 3 days old, happiness also comes "from" the physical environment. And then, as kids, we get the heads up, that we are to peruse happiness. (but, we don't get the heads up, we can never catch it that way, by pursuit.) "Maya, the Illusion, runs away, as we chase it." That is the way it is said in ancient language of Sanskrit.

Happiness is not a, come and go thing. Really it is the pure joy of existence, inside, that gets attributed to outside causes, and seems fade in and out.

It does not. We fade in and out, of our appreciation, of Joy.

Happiness runs in a circular motion with the breath.

Oh, and don' cha worry, now, BE happy.
Click to expand...
I don't think "predictability" is the right word. I suggest "predictivity". A scientific theory has two hallmarks: 1) it accounts for all the facts available, and 2) it has definite predictive value.

This is why i have issue saying that there are economic and psychological theories. Nobody agrees what will happen if premises xxxx are satisfied. There are competing, contradictory models that rely heavily upon the forgiving power of statistics, which places these disciplines in their infancies.

Finding statistical correlations is of only limited value. Until a model can be tested to the point of earning the label theory (for which it needs to make substantive and falsifiable predictions) it is hypothesis.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
He has a few valid points but his conclusion is that psychology is not science. Psychology is a scientific academic discipline with empirical methods and valid conclusions. I don't have to humor it to figure out where he went wrong. I'm dismissing and moving on.

No, I would not call Dr Phil a scientist. However a peer reviewed psychology study is science.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict said:
He has a few valid points but his conclusion is that psychology is not science. Psychology is a scientific academic discipline with empirical methods and valid conclusions. I don't have to humor it to figure out where he went wrong. I'm dismissing and moving on.

No, I would not call Dr Phil a scientist. However a peer reviewed psychology study is science.
Click to expand...
I am curious though to what earns the title of theory, without which a discipline is not a science despite its self-promotion. What properly predictive claims does psychology make that can be tested? Remember back 240 years ago when biology and zoology were entirely taxonomic, the drawing up of lists? They were not yet sciences.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
It is quite clear that if psychology discovers something conservatives don't like, they will impugn the value of the entire discipline.

That much is obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top