Stevie says...

[manc-mag 1]

Leazes, remember your blood pressure.

 

There are basically two types of poster on here; the one that can have a laugh and the one that can't. You and Fop take these things way too seriously and get genuinely wound up to the point you both end up a frenzied, obsessive mess (I see Fop has another addition to his sig btw).

 

Obviously you've been here before, having left the forum previously vowing never to return amidst a tirade of c-words, a complete seething ball of resentment. I wondered at first why anyone who got so palpably upset would bother coming back to post again being as they didn't have to, but then it became obvious you were still pursuing Renton with your rabid agenda. With that level of obsession it's no wonder you eventually ended up allying yourself ever so tragically with Fop.

 

I can't think of a single reason to post here other than I get a laugh out of it and that's been the case for about seven years now. I genuinely laugh when I read the posts in this thread (and others like it) but I suspect you and Fop have a fundementally different reaction and thereafter, reason for posting.

[Renton 18045]

Leazes, remember your blood pressure.

 

There are basically two types of poster on here; the one that can have a laugh and the one that can't. You and Fop take these things way too seriously and get genuinely wound up to the point you both end up a frenzied, obsessive mess (I see Fop has another addition to his sig btw).

 

Obviously you've been here before, having left the forum previously vowing never to return amidst a tirade of c-words, a complete seething ball of resentment. I wondered at first why anyone who got so palpably upset would bother coming back to post again being as they didn't have to, but then it became obvious you were still pursuing Renton with your rabid agenda. With that level of obsession it's no wonder you eventually ended up allying yourself ever so tragically with Fop.

 

I can't think of a single reason to post here other than I get a laugh out of it and that's been the case for about seven years now. I genuinely laugh when I read the posts in this thread (and others like it) but I suspect you and Fop have a fundementally different reaction and thereafter, reason for posting.

 

Ouch!

[manc-mag 1]

Oh Lordy dear, LM if you cannot work out what Manc Mag means how can you possibly be expected to understand that when Fop posts in most threads and usually endeavours to turn those threads into a show and tell of psychological illness, when he does this he creates for himself a little world that spins around him, hanging on his every word.

 

Honestly it's like he logs into the board like other people with his psyche log in to computer games and the like. We don't exist outside of this forum and when he's in here he truly believes that he's different to the rest of us. He maintains this delusion by never disclosing anything revealing about himself, his actual beliefs or his life off the board.

 

Of course he's clearly a clever lad, unfortunately his manner and... quirks means that in an arena that didn't afford him anonymity he'd be dismissed instantly. You've stuck his colours to your mast because your enemies enemy is your friend. It's as sycophantic as it is transparent.

 

Of course you'll both now reply with dismissal and/or ridicule, you with base vocabulary and Fop with insane ramblings, but that's OK.

 

Rubbish. He just argues his corner and often makes fair points.

 

 

Aye but the 'fair points' are all copy/pasted from the bbc website and he then argues himself into the corner that he ends up fighting. Badly.

[bobbyshinton 59]

Fop man just fuck off, I don't understand what your purpose in life or on here is.

 

Renty's argument buddy?

 

Renton hates me you idiot. Right you're gone.

 

I don't hate you Stevie. Fwiw I think you're one of the most entertaining posters on here, and one of the bet posters regarding football. I don't think you're racist either, even if I do think you come up with some suspect posts.

 

I'll go one further. Stevie along with Alex are the best football posters.

 

no fucking hope. Alex

[Park Life 71]

Fop man just fuck off, I don't understand what your purpose in life or on here is.

 

Renty's argument buddy?

 

Renton hates me you idiot. Right you're gone.

 

I don't hate you Stevie. Fwiw I think you're one of the most entertaining posters on here, and one of the bet posters regarding football. I don't think you're racist either, even if I do think you come up with some suspect posts.

 

I'll go one further. Stevie along with Alex are the best football posters.

 

no fucking hope. Alex

[ChezGiven 0]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

[Park Life 71]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

[ChezGiven 0]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

Plants and insects use colour to discriminate in their behaviour and we come from them.

[Park Life 71]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

Plants and insects use colour to discriminate in their behaviour and we come from them.

 

But they don't look at the stars and wonder.

[Renton 18045]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

Plants and insects use colour to discriminate in their behaviour and we come from them.

 

That's a bit of a tenuous link Chez.

 

The thing is, research into genetics, and in particular how genes interact with their environment, is really in its infancy. It's going to turn out to be mind-boggling complex I reckon. But from the evidence I see, I just don't accept that fear of different races is hardwired into our DNA. People are a product of their environment, first and foremost, tbh I think that is blindingly obvious even reading the various posting styles and opinions on toontastic if you get to know a bit about the posters' real life background.

[Guest Stevie]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

Shame no one told George Galloway.

[Guest Stevie]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

Plants and insects use colour to discriminate in their behaviour and we come from them.

 

That's a bit of a tenuous link Chez.

 

The thing is, research into genetics, and in particular how genes interact with their environment, is really in its infancy. It's going to turn out to be mind-boggling complex I reckon. But from the evidence I see, I just don't accept that fear of different races is hardwired into our DNA. People are a product of their environment, first and foremost, tbh I think that is blindingly obvious even reading the various posting styles and opinions on toontastic if you get to know a bit about the posters' real life background.

I can't remember exactly what it is, but there was a documentary on ages ago, it might've been on a town or city in Russia that was largely isolated. Some major man made or environmental catastrophe happened, which some scientists claim recoded the genetics of the people there, as if the incident became part of the genetics, it was fascinating, I'm being very vague, I wish I could remember what it was.

[ChezGiven 0]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

Plants and insects use colour to discriminate in their behaviour and we come from them.

 

That's a bit of a tenuous link Chez.

 

The thing is, research into genetics, and in particular how genes interact with their environment, is really in its infancy. It's going to turn out to be mind-boggling complex I reckon. But from the evidence I see, I just don't accept that fear of different races is hardwired into our DNA. People are a product of their environment, first and foremost, tbh I think that is blindingly obvious even reading the various posting styles and opinions on toontastic if you get to know a bit about the posters' real life background.

 

Well first of all i'd say it was 'vague' not tenuous. It would be tenuous if i had not made the case for patterns of learnt behaviour that help a species survive being the same for plants, animals and humans, which i thought i did. The plant / insect example is similar in its nature to more complex human thought processes.

 

Secondly, we are the products of millions of years of genetic learning, therefore the majority of what we are is nature not nurture. (Popper outlines it best - have a taste http://radio.weblogs.com/0135950/categorie...2004/03/20.html )

 

Thirdly, racism may be an environmental manifestation (via nurture) of something more fundamental which is encoded in our genes. I dont think i'm racist but i've lost count of the times i've muttered 'french cunt' under my breath.

[manc-mag 1]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

 

 

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

[Fop 1]

Leazes, remember your blood pressure.

 

There are basically two types of poster on here; the one that can have a laugh and the one that can't. You and Fop take these things way too seriously and get genuinely wound up to the point you both end up a frenzied, obsessive mess (I see Fop has another addition to his sig btw).

 

Again the unintended irony is most amusing.

 

With Renty and manc-foplite not winding themselves into a huff after trying to argue a daft point before realising how completely silly they look and slinking off to lick their wound and pretend it didn't happen, it just wouldn't be Toontastic.

[snakehips 0]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

Plants and insects use colour to discriminate in their behaviour and we come from them.

 

That's a bit of a tenuous link Chez.

 

The thing is, research into genetics, and in particular how genes interact with their environment, is really in its infancy. It's going to turn out to be mind-boggling complex I reckon. But from the evidence I see, I just don't accept that fear of different races is hardwired into our DNA. People are a product of their environment, first and foremost, tbh I think that is blindingly obvious even reading the various posting styles and opinions on toontastic if you get to know a bit about the posters' real life background.

 

Well first of all i'd say it was 'vague' not tenuous. It would be tenuous if i had not made the case for patterns of learnt behaviour that help a species survive being the same for plants, animals and humans, which i thought i did. The plant / insect example is similar in its nature to more complex human thought processes.

 

Secondly, we are the products of millions of years of genetic learning, therefore the majority of what we are is nature not nurture. (Popper outlines it best - have a taste http://radio.weblogs.com/0135950/categorie...2004/03/20.html )

 

Thirdly, racism may be an environmental manifestation (via nurture) of something more fundamental which is encoded in our genes. I dont think i'm racist but i've lost count of the times i've muttered 'french cunt' under my breath.

 

Which reiterates the point I made about, oh, a hundred pages back! Having those sentiments does not make you a racist; but the pc tossers' description of being racist would make you one by using such language. Surely we always wish to use the most immediately obvious description of someone who offends us e.g. Ginger twat, Fat twat, Lanky twat etc etc until the obvious French twat.

[Renton 18045]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

 

 

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

Thank fuck for writing that. You put the point across better than I could have.

 

This has turned out to be one hell of a thread. Normally stating something like that kills it cold but I've a feeling this one may run a bit longer.

[Renton 18045]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

Plants and insects use colour to discriminate in their behaviour and we come from them.

 

That's a bit of a tenuous link Chez.

 

The thing is, research into genetics, and in particular how genes interact with their environment, is really in its infancy. It's going to turn out to be mind-boggling complex I reckon. But from the evidence I see, I just don't accept that fear of different races is hardwired into our DNA. People are a product of their environment, first and foremost, tbh I think that is blindingly obvious even reading the various posting styles and opinions on toontastic if you get to know a bit about the posters' real life background.

 

Well first of all i'd say it was 'vague' not tenuous. It would be tenuous if i had not made the case for patterns of learnt behaviour that help a species survive being the same for plants, animals and humans, which i thought i did. The plant / insect example is similar in its nature to more complex human thought processes.

 

Secondly, we are the products of millions of years of genetic learning, therefore the majority of what we are is nature not nurture. (Popper outlines it best - have a taste http://radio.weblogs.com/0135950/categorie...2004/03/20.html )

 

Thirdly, racism may be an environmental manifestation (via nurture) of something more fundamental which is encoded in our genes. I dont think i'm racist but i've lost count of the times i've muttered 'french cunt' under my breath.

 

Which reiterates the point I made about, oh, a hundred pages back! Having those sentiments does not make you a racist; but the pc tossers' description of being racist would make you one by using such language. Surely we always wish to use the most immediately obvious description of someone who offends us e.g. Ginger twat, Fat twat, Lanky twat etc etc until the obvious French twat.

 

In Chez's case, it sounds like a logical and commendable reaction to his environment to me.

[The Fish 9233]

Park Life, Fop can make valid and well constructed points. Like I said he's clearly a clever lad, but all too often he'll turn a discussion into a points winning exercise, where he alone appears to be keeping score.

 

Fop, which dog do you pay more attention to, the one plodding along happily or the one chasing his tail in a blur of froth and fang?

 

 

 

 

As an aside, could it be suggested that Racism is an ugly mutation of the pack mentality? Prides of Lions chase off "others", so do Elephants etc.

 

so Racism per se isn't genetic, but is predecessor is?

 

I don't know, was just a thought.

[snakehips 0]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

Plants and insects use colour to discriminate in their behaviour and we come from them.

 

That's a bit of a tenuous link Chez.

 

The thing is, research into genetics, and in particular how genes interact with their environment, is really in its infancy. It's going to turn out to be mind-boggling complex I reckon. But from the evidence I see, I just don't accept that fear of different races is hardwired into our DNA. People are a product of their environment, first and foremost, tbh I think that is blindingly obvious even reading the various posting styles and opinions on toontastic if you get to know a bit about the posters' real life background.

 

Well first of all i'd say it was 'vague' not tenuous. It would be tenuous if i had not made the case for patterns of learnt behaviour that help a species survive being the same for plants, animals and humans, which i thought i did. The plant / insect example is similar in its nature to more complex human thought processes.

 

Secondly, we are the products of millions of years of genetic learning, therefore the majority of what we are is nature not nurture. (Popper outlines it best - have a taste http://radio.weblogs.com/0135950/categorie...2004/03/20.html )

 

Thirdly, racism may be an environmental manifestation (via nurture) of something more fundamental which is encoded in our genes. I dont think i'm racist but i've lost count of the times i've muttered 'french cunt' under my breath.

 

Which reiterates the point I made about, oh, a hundred pages back! Having those sentiments does not make you a racist; but the pc tossers' description of being racist would make you one by using such language. Surely we always wish to use the most immediately obvious description of someone who offends us e.g. Ginger twat, Fat twat, Lanky twat etc etc until the obvious French twat.

 

In Chez's case, it sounds like a logical and commendable reaction to his environment to me.

 

Couldn't agree more, old bean.

[Fop 1]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

As Fop said there's just too much of a rush to argue with Fop, that results in many making themselves look like complete twits and/or reinventing genetics (The Rention of the Species ) by arguing things that they clearly have little to no understanding about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously there is no "tribe" gene (as there is no "racist" gene), but of course genes that favour behaviour to build social bonds and to look on outsiders with suspicion may well have had (and possibly still do have) positive evolutionary advantages (and so of course will be passed on and thrive).

 

(Like Fop said earlier depression is almost certainly an example of this, just in today's society/world only the negatives are really felt not the positive side to it. As is "God", again going back to community instincts and it favouring those communities to thrive).

 

It's really rather interesting once you get away from the Rention of the issue.

[ChezGiven 0]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

 

 

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

There is actually a lot of truth in that. Apparently when choosing our sexual partners we can 'smell' their immune system and choose partners with different ones, ensuring that the offspring's immune system benefits from the broadest genetic experience.

 

In a system as complex as human biology, not everything works in unison in the same direction. The fear of 'others' would have dominated the life of our genes for thousands if not millions of years before we had language. On the other hand the ability to smell and identify a compatible immune system was probably more dominant in our behaviour in the past than it is in the modern world.

[manc-mag 1]

Leazes, remember your blood pressure.

 

There are basically two types of poster on here; the one that can have a laugh and the one that can't. You and Fop take these things way too seriously and get genuinely wound up to the point you both end up a frenzied, obsessive mess (I see Fop has another addition to his sig btw).

 

Again the unintended irony is most amusing.

 

With Renty and manc-foplite not winding themselves into a huff after trying to argue a daft point before realising how completely silly they look and slinking off to lick their wound and pretend it didn't happen, it just wouldn't be Toontastic.

 

You had to do 'funny' if you were going to make a meaningful counter to my point there, otherwise it would just look like an obsessed, compulsive, involuntary response. Which of course it was.

 

tbh.

[Fop 1]

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

Still looking at it far too simply.

 

What's the evolutionary advantage in others coming into your gene population to you and your genes? Not a lot (in the end genes are "selfish", there can be altruism in genetic behaviour, but in the end there's always some positive to the passing on of genes in that).

 

Now the advantage of you spreading your genes into others gene population? Quite a lot.

 

 

 

So while you might be up for dipping your wick (or sneakily spreading your legs) in (or for) some other groups DNA, that doesn't therefore mean you'd welcome them (and their friends) into your own group with open arms (or legs).

[Renton 18045]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

 

 

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

There is actually a lot of truth in that. Apparently when choosing our sexual partners we can 'smell' their immune system and choose partners with different ones, ensuring that the offspring's immune system benefits from the broadest genetic experience.

 

In a system as complex as human biology, not everything works in unison in the same direction. The fear of 'others' would have dominated the life of our genes for thousands if not millions of years before we had language. On the other hand the ability to smell and identify a compatible immune system was probably more dominant in our behaviour in the past than it is in the modern world.

 

Not wanting to side track the issue, but does anyone remember last year (I think) the case of the twin brother and sister who were adopted seperately, met each other, fell in love and got married, without knowing they were related? Iirc at the time the experts said that it is common for siblings to be mutually attracted to each other outside the context of the family. Now this would suggest two things: firstly that the immunology theory is untrue; and secondly that not fucking your sister is learnt behaviour rather than genetic hard wiring. Of course it's only a theory based on anecdote, but perhaps highlights the complex interplay of genes and the environment.