Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[CFLarsen]

I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps she could be prosecuted under fraud laws?

If there are loopholes in the laws, maybe they need to be tightened.

But banning something isn't always the best answer. Religious freedom is one of the most cherished ideals in America. I am an atheist, and to me religions seem like a kind of scam.

In this case it is likely that most of Sylvia's victims will fight tooth and nail to protect her, just as the followers of a cult will fight for its leader. Occasionally a few will wake up, but most will go on thinking that they are getting a good deal, and I am reluctant to tell people what they can or cannot spend their own money on.

This may be similar to the prohibition of drugs. The cure could be worse than the disease. Woo-woo and drug abuse may be social diseases, but it doesn't follow that a ban is necessarily the best solution.

Nobody is saying we have to legislate against religion, and we don't even have to, to get psychics like Sylvia Browne to stop scamming people. Let her have her Novus Spiritus all she wants. But Sylvia also does a lot of other things that would stop, with just a slight modified legislation, or just an enforced one.

Often, the law is already there. Take the disclaimer that John Edward had to put up after all his tapings of Crossing Over - that is a clear attempt of circumventing the spirit(!) of the law. Just enforce the law a bit tighter, and no more televised fame for John Edward. You think he would have become as famous as he is today, without his show? Uh-uh.

Likewise with Sylvia. Her psychic readings are indistinguishable from what Ms. Cleo did. She also dispenses medical advice. Just two things that, if legislators were brave enough, could vanish. Where would Sylvia be without them?

 

[Puppycow]

Already did!

Without prejudice?

 

[dann]

No, of course not! I’m prejudiced like hell!
Now, that's a question that only a true believer would ask anybody, but that's OK. It tells me a lot, actually. Primarily that you are a true believer! Even scientologists have asked me to read L. Ron "unprejudiced" since they seem to think that only other people's prejudice prevents them from seeing the light.
I'm not saying that your ideology is a religion, but the need for hyperbole, for instance, is obvious, when you start out by taking yourself as the example of the blessings of a market economy, which is why I'm grateful for your two sweatshop articles: At least they tell us that you are well aware of the reality of the market economy in other places in the world - and you don't have to go to China to find those. You can find them in the USA as well.
So what can you learn from this?
There are a lot of people in this world who are so destitute that spending all their waking hours in a sweatshop seems like the better alternative. And a lot of people are willing to take advantage of them and do so. Like you said about poverty:

Taking advantage of other people's superstitions can be profitable. Being superstitious yourself, usually less so.

Taking advantage of other people’s poverty can be very profitable. Being poor yourself, usually less so …
Let’s take a look at your first, rather idealized, presentation of your market economy:

If you want to produce something all by yourself, you can do that, and you will own it. I choose to sell my time to a company in exchange for money. I do part of the processing of the products that my company produces. I am very good at one part of the process and can add more value that way than if I tried to do every step myself, including sales. The result is that I make a lot of money doing something pretty easy, Going into business for myself would be harder and probably less lucrative in my case. All the tools and space I use are provided by the company. All I have to do is learn my job and do it to the best of my ability.

1. Sometimes, very often, actually, you cannot choose to produce, you cannot go into business for yourself and own your own product since you haven’t got the means to do so: All the tools and space you need is owned by somebody else, the company.
2. The result is that you don’t have an income, a subsistence, unless the company is willing to pay for your services.
3. And the result of this situation is that you do not make a lot of money doing something pretty easy. Instead you lead a life that in many respects seems even worse than no life at all – which, of course, it never is, but …
You depend 100 per cent on the owner of the means of production and therefore have to accept any conditions as far as pay and working hours are concerned.
All you have to do is put yourself into a situation where you totally depend on the willingness of other people’s, the owners’ of the means of production, interests in hiring you. And very often that simply means: be born to parents who aren't owners of private property.
If the owners won’t hire you, you have no income. And that sometimes happens in even the most successful and liberal of market economies too, for instance when they decide that the services they buy from you can be had more cheaply elsewhere, or when there is a crisis, and the production of their particular product is no longer profitable.
And sometimes that happens even to the owners of sweatshops …
Edited to add this.

 

[dann]

Q: Isn't the low-wage employment offered by sweatshops better than not being employed at all? Don't sweatshops help poor people climb out of poverty?
A: No. Sweatshop workers and child laborers are trapped in a cycle of exploitation that rarely improves their economic situation. Since multinational corporations are constantly pressuring suppliers for cost-cutting measures, workers most often find conditions getting worse instead of better.
Consider the example cited in a 2003 National Labor Committee report on a Honduran worker sewing clothing for Wal-Mart at a rate of 43 cents an hour. After spending money on daily meals and transportation to work, the average worker is left with around 80 cents per day for rent, bills, childcare, school costs, medicines, emergencies, and other expenses. Not surprisingly, many workers are forced to take out loans at high interest rates and can't even think about saving money to improve their lives as they struggle to meet their daily needs.
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/sweatshops/whattoknow.cfm

No wonder!

 

[Slimething]

Are you going to define what you mean by "poverty"? Fixing on a definition might disallow your predilection to move the goal post, but I doubt it. Is that what you're afraid of?

 

[dann]

No internet but, otherwise, a paradise or so he says.

Yes, of course I'm going to define poverty for you, Slimething, just as soon as you provide us with the quotation where I say that Cuba is a paradise.
A quotation would prove that you are not just a liar who is capable of inventing just about any accusation because you rely on lies for the ad hominems that you tend to use as a poor substitute for the arguments you don't have.

 

[Slimething]

Cuba is a paradise.

Believe me, I know how to define poverty quantitatively. I even offered you several such definitions last year but you wouldn't accept any of them. That's when I caught on to your game.

You like to cry and whine about poverty buy you won't define it. Once you define it, we can prove that it's not causal to your lamentation.

Define poverty.

 

[dann]

Ahhh, the poor little Thing! He cannot back up his accusations, he cannot keep his promises. What is he good for - except lies? Absolutely nothing!

In conclusion, I'm not going to waste my time on this imbecile any longer. This is my final post in this thread and I delightedly give dann the floor ad infinitum. Small people love having the last word.

 

[Puppycow]

No, of course not! I’m prejudiced like hell!
Now, that's a question that only a true believer would ask anybody, but that's OK. It tells me a lot, actually. Primarily that you are a true believer! Even scientologists have asked me to read L. Ron "unprejudiced" since they seem to think that only other people's prejudice prevents them from seeing the light.

Well, at least you recognize your own prejudice. You too are a "true believer" aren't you. Hence I'm realizing that this is a probably waste of time. I'm afraid your belief system is every bit as dogmatic and almost as irrational as Scientology. The Soviet Union collapsed. China introduced market reforms and has begun to prosper. North Korea and Cuba remain communist but extremely poor. I don't have time now to say more.

 

[Puppycow]

I've read much of your article, dann, and offer the following critique:

It does not appear to contain many falsifiable (testable, objectively verifiable) statements.
Many of the statements are very confusing and vague. As such, it's relationship with reality is hard to judge, and it seems to have little practical use.

The Kristof/Dunn article for example contained this:

The truth is, those grim factories in Dongguan and the rest of southern China contributed to a remarkable explosion of wealth. In the years since our first conversations there, we've returned many times to Dongguan and the surrounding towns and seen the transformation. Wages have risen from about $50 a month to $250 a month or more today. Factory conditions have improved as businesses have scrambled to attract and keep the best laborers. A private housing market has emerged, and video arcades and computer schools have opened to cater to workers with rising incomes. A hint of a middle class has appeared -- as has China's closest thing to a Western-style independent newspaper, Southern Weekend.

All of that could be independently verified by someone willing to travel to the region and do so.
In contrast, here is an arbitrary excerpt from "Work and Wealth":

Wage earners, at least the vast majority of them, are quick to make acquaintance with the other side, too: once their sum of money is used up, they no longer have access to the wealth of society. The desired and needed goods are still there; they are just not available. Money’s potential to satisfy all needs is then by no means a real possibility to satisfy even a single one of them.

Well, if I understand that last sentence correctly, I guess that it could be construed as a falsifiable statement. And I can assure you that I have indeed satisfied more than "a single one of my needs" with money. Where it is not unfalsifiable, it is obviously false.

This difference between what money promises and what it delivers has its quantitative aspect and a principle. The former asserts itself in the limitedness of the sum of money earned, so that in practice all problems boil down to just one: earning more. This overriding and general necessity of life in a market economy reveals the absurd nature of this mode of production: everything a person needs, though produced, is not available; property separates products from those who need them.

Actually, a market economy identifies those who need a product by the fact that they are willing to pay the price for it. If a product was available for free or less than its cost, then even if my marginal utility from that product is less than the cost of producing it, I have no reason not to consume it anyway. This is why a market is efficient: it gets products to the people whose marginal utility is at least equal to the cost of production. (The problem of people who would get that marginal utility but cannot afford it can be addressed by some kind of income redistribution without getting rid of the market principle).

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, at least you recognize your own prejudice. You too are a "true believer" aren't you. Hence I'm realizing that this is a probably waste of time.

Do you recognize your own prejudice?

I've read much of your article, dann, and offer the following critique:

Speaking of a waste of time: Why bother reading your critique, if you haven't even bothered to finish the article?

 

[Puppycow]

Do you recognize your own prejudice?

Yes.

Speaking of a waste of time: Why bother reading your critique, if you haven't even bothered to finish the article?

Try reading it. I think you will see why.

 

[dann]

I've read much of your article, dann, and offer the following critique:

It does not appear to contain many falsifiable (testable, objectively verifiable) statements.
Many of the statements are very confusing and vague. As such, it's relationship with reality is hard to judge, and it seems to have little practical use.

The Kristof/Dunn article for example contained this:

The truth is, those grim factories in Dongguan and the rest of southern China contributed to a remarkable explosion of wealth. In the years since our first conversations there, we've returned many times to Dongguan and the surrounding towns and seen the transformation. Wages have risen from about $50 a month to $250 a month or more today. Factory conditions have improved as businesses have scrambled to attract and keep the best laborers. A private housing market has emerged, and video arcades and computer schools have opened to cater to workers with rising incomes. A hint of a middle class has appeared -- as has China's closest thing to a Western-style independent newspaper, Southern Weekend.

All of that could be independently verified by someone willing to travel to the region and do so.

Spoken like a true cherry picker pretending that he is being scientific, i.e. using all the right words!
You look for success stories, find them and present them as if they were the truth about globalized capitalism! In the meantime you can ignore all the examples of poverty and miserable conditions it produces - or pretend that they are just necessary stages on the way to hog heaven.

In contrast, here is an arbitrary excerpt from "Work and Wealth":

Wage earners, at least the vast majority of them, are quick to make acquaintance with the other side, too: once their sum of money is used up, they no longer have access to the wealth of society. The desired and needed goods are still there; they are just not available. Money’s potential to satisfy all needs is then by no means a real possibility to satisfy even a single one of them.

Well, if I understand that last sentence correctly, I guess that it could be construed as a falsifiable statement. And I can assure you that I have indeed satisfied more than "a single one of my needs" with money. Where it is not unfalsifiable, it is obviously false.

Again the self-important pretence of a wannnabe social scientist: No, an unfalsifable statement is an unfalisfiable statement! It does not have to be false. Unfalsifiable means just that: It cannot be falsified, so it might be true ... and it might not!
But you don't even read this very short quotation correctly! You may be a little slow, but read it again, please!
What it says is that once wage earners have used up their wages, they cannot buy anything else! It is not a question of the goods not being available at all, it is a question of the limited amounts of money that they have earned. The goods come equipped with a price tag (private property, remember?), which means that you do not have access to them if you cannot pay! You counter this obvious fact with the very stupid argument that “I can assure you that I have indeed satisfied more than "a single one of my needs" with money.” Yes, you have, and that is the point exactly! With money, not without money!
And this is supposed to be your unbiased, unprejudiced reading of the article? Come on, Poppy! You read something that is obviously true – and, by the way, very much falsifiable too! – and reach the conclusion that it is false!

This difference between what money promises and what it delivers has its quantitative aspect and a principle. The former asserts itself in the limitedness of the sum of money earned, so that in practice all problems boil down to just one: earning more. This overriding and general necessity of life in a market economy reveals the absurd nature of this mode of production: everything a person needs, though produced, is not available; property separates products from those who need them.

Actually, a market economy identifies those who need a product by the fact that they are willing to pay the price for it.

No, it does not! A market economy gives a **** about who needs a product. It produces to sell, and if you have not got the money to buy, you don’t eat! It’s as simple as that! (and “falsifiable” too, by the way!)

If a product was available for free or less than its cost, then even if my marginal utility from that product is less than the cost of producing it, I have no reason not to consume it anyway. This is why a market is efficient: it gets products to the people whose marginal utility is at least equal to the cost of production.

Wrong again! It gets the products to the people who have enogh money to buy. If you haven’t got enough money to buy a loaf of bread, the marginal utility is called starvation.

(The problem of people who would get that marginal utility but cannot afford it can be addressed by some kind of income redistribution without getting rid of the market principle).

Yes, it can be (and sometimes it is), but tell that to the starving masses in third-world countries – and to the millions who go to bed hungry in the First World as well …

 

[dann]

Speaking of a waste of time: Why bother reading your critique, if you haven't even bothered to finish the article?

Try reading it. I think you will see why.

Now I have read your comments, and I've reached the conclusion ('falsifiable' or not) that your reading of the article was sloppy, biased, pretentious and prejudiced. I think that you will see why!

 

[dann]

So why don’t you start reading it again from the beginning?
“Jobs” — “Globalization” — “Competitiveness” …
Some remarks about the capitalistic relation between Work and Wealth
You are the one who proposed the deal, right?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes.

Is it fair to say to you: "You too are a "true believer" aren't you. Hence I'm realizing that this is a probably waste of time."

?

Try reading it. I think you will see why.

It isn't a question of whether you think it is hard to read or not. The moment you give a critique, you have already read and understood it.

Otherwise, you are simply blabbering about something you have no idea what is.

 

[Puppycow]

Again the self-important pretence of a wannnabe social scientist: No, an unfalsifable statement is an unfalisfiable statement! It does not have to be false. Unfalsifiable means just that: It cannot be falsified, so it might be true ... and it might not!
But you don't even read this very short quotation correctly! You may be a little slow, but read it again, please!

An ambiguous sentence can be interpreted in more than one way. This article could use a lot more Strunk & White so that slow folks like me can understand it.

What it says is that once wage earners have used up their wages, they cannot buy anything else!

But then it is as banal as saying that water cannot quench your thirst if you don't have any water.

 

[dann]

Your excuse is pathetic, Poppy. There is nothing ambiguous about the sentence. Nor about your interpretation. You misunderstand a very simple, unambiguous sentence, that's all there is to it.
The banality is the banality of capitalism, which does not cater to people's needs, it caters only to the needs of people with money! This is the truth about capitalism, which you prefer to deny, since you intend to idealize it!

 

[Slimething]

A market economy gives a **** about who needs a product. It produces to sell, and if you have not got the money to buy, you don’t eat!

May FSM be kind to you, dann. Not only have you no clear notion of econimics but now you believe that competitors in a free market can put out whatever they want at any price and consumers MUST buy.

You live in a free market state. Is that the way you live? If so, I have this automobile for which I expect payment from you. Or you don't eat.

There ya go. Falsified.

So, care to take a crack at defining not only poverty but also market economy and competition?

ETA: So why don't you move to Cuba?

 

[dann]

Your way of drawing conclusions is amazing! You have probably made up so many strawmen that you can no longer tell the difference between these inventions of yours and reality.
No, I neither say nor imply "that competitors in a free market can put out whatever (!) they want at any (!) price and consumers MUST (!) buy."
I think you owe it to us to quote me on that one too! What I actually said was that competitors don't compete about filling stomachs or solving people's transportation problems. They compete about earnings, selling for a profit, and a lot of the junk (not just food!) they sell is hardly suitable for human consumption for this exact same reason. (We have had several examples of this in idyllic Denmark in recent years.
And some people don't even have enough money to buy that unsavoury stuff ...

Slimething: "I have this automobile for which I expect payment from you."
My point exactly! Confirmed! Not "falsified"!

Slimething: "ETA: So why don't you move to Cuba?"
Well, I guess that's as close as you can come to admitting that I never said that Cuba is a paradise! And I already answered you! I already live in the happiest country in the world! (I cannot link directly to the page, so go down to: Web Extras --> Map: Happiness levels of countries.)

 

[Slimething]

Already quoted you saying that; I know where you live; and you can't define any of the words you use. Next.

 

[dann]

Brilliant! Probably the most consistent example of denial since the black knight!

 

[Puppycow]

I've finished the article now. What can I say? I don't agree with it. It is a critique of pure capitalism (which exists nowhere that I'm aware of) but I don't think that means that pure socialism would be any better. Central planning produces what central planners think people should want, but a market economy allows people to vote with their wallets. Markets are not perfect and work better for some goods than others (for example even in the most capitalistic country most roads are produced as a public good for all). In the US, the market has failed to provide a good system for providing healthcare. A better system, which achieves better health outcomes for less money per capita, is possible (because pretty much every other developed nation has a better system than the US). Most developed countries also provide education as a public good.

But certainly for non-necessary goods like toys, books, music, art, computers, MP3 players, etc. a market system is the best solution. As long as there is human creativity, there will never be a shortage of jobs.

 

[dann]

Well, I don't know what you can say about the article, but I can see what you choose to say (write): You don't like it, because you are a fan of what the article criticizes: the market economy, which "allows people to vote with their wallets", meaning that the people with the big wallets get the big vote, i.e. the good, high-class articles, the tasty, healthy food, the products of high-quality workmanship, whereas those with small or no wallets get to go to bed hungry, malnourished and - if they also buy into the ideology that in this system everyone is the architect of his own fortune - disgruntled with themselves rather than with the economy that treats them in this misanthropic way.
And they even have to consider themselves lucky if they are allowed the privilege of spending their entire lives working for a meagre income for the guys with wallets big enough to buy their services. It is difficult to get more cynical than that!

 

[Slimething]

So why aren't people sneaking into socialist countries? I really, really wish you would. Would we ever hear from you again? No creo!

 

[dann]

The black knight is sneaking back? Never could keep a promise that one!

 

[CFLarsen]

I've finished the article now. What can I say? I don't agree with it. It is a critique of pure capitalism (which exists nowhere that I'm aware of) but I don't think that means that pure socialism would be any better.

Where do you find a country with pure socialism?

Central planning produces what central planners think people should want, but a market economy allows people to vote with their wallets. Markets are not perfect and work better for some goods than others (for example even in the most capitalistic country most roads are produced as a public good for all). In the US, the market has failed to provide a good system for providing healthcare. A better system, which achieves better health outcomes for less money per capita, is possible (because pretty much every other developed nation has a better system than the US). Most developed countries also provide education as a public good.

But certainly for non-necessary goods like toys, books, music, art, computers, MP3 players, etc. a market system is the best solution. As long as there is human creativity, there will never be a shortage of jobs.

So, unemployed people are just lazy, sucking the government tit?

Since you recognize your own prejudice, is it fair to say to you: "You too are a "true believer" aren't you. Hence I'm realizing that this is a probably waste of time." ?

 

[Slimething]

Well, no answers here. But we have learned that there are adults who still believe this stuff. Go figure!

Puppycow, you can keep these guys fed if you want to. I'm gonna give this thread a rest.

 

[articulett]

Well, no answers here. But we have learned that there are adults who still believe this stuff. Go figure!

Puppycow, you can keep these guys fed if you want to. I'm gonna give this thread a rest.

You were a brave dude for re-entering this Twilight Zone drama of the past--

Some people imagine themselves having expertise in subjects no one else seems to consider themselves experts on. These people seem to be having entirely different conversations than the majority. Rather, they are endlessly winning points in some imaginary battle. It has a name.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome
In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.


Those with the syndrome seem unable to realize that they have the syndrome-- it's part of the syndrome. I'm not sure it's curable. It' like a loop... engage them for verbal exercise and repartee only. Warn others. (Those with the syndrome aren't even playing the same game as each other when they are the same threads--they need outside prodding or the conversation dies... I appreciate you stoking it momentarily for our entertainment purposes.)

 

[dann]

The irony is that except for you and Slimething most people are able to see the irony!
That goes for your sig line too, by the way ...

 

[Prometheus]

I dunno, seems obvious to me: no Utopian society has ever existed on Earth, therefore no social system that's been tried has led to Utopia, therefore everyone ought to stop arguing about which failed system (capitalism, communism, socialism, several hybrids of the above, etc) is better than the others and work out a new plan.

 

[articulett]

The irony is that except for you and Slimething most people are able to see the irony!
That goes for your sig line too, by the way ...

You and the voices in your head? Ah... you and Gurdur. Tsk. You got me there.

 

[dann]

I dunno, seems obvious to me: no Utopian society has ever existed on Earth, therefore no social system that's been tried has led to Utopia, therefore everyone ought to stop arguing about which failed system (capitalism, communism, socialism, several hybrids of the above, etc) is better than the others and work out a new plan.

It is self-evident that "no Utopian society has ever existed on Earth". Wiki says: "Utopia (from Greek: οὐ, "not", and τόπος, "place" [hence, "no place" or "place that does not exist"]".
I don't think that I have discussed "which failed system (...) is better than the others". So far I have criticized capitalism, and that's it. I'm not the one who idealizes sweatshops - or anything else, for that matter. Notice that Slimething couldn't back up his accusations in this respect with a single quotation. All he found was a sentence where I said the exact opposite.

You and the voices in your head? Ah... you and Gurdur. Tsk. You got me there.

Go back and read this thread from the beginning, articulett. But I guess that you'll think that the other people telling you that you were wrong were also 'voices in my head' since you don't appear to be able to remember them. It's called denial! I also think that you might benefit from reading your own paranoid, delusional contributions all over again.
That you feel most confident in your abilities, however, is obvious!

 

[SirPhilip]

I am not quite sure, but it appears to me that skeptics sometimes tend to ignore quite obvious truths when looking at reality, something they appear to have in common with Christian Scientists in this case and with many others: ”superstitions (!) breed homeless people”

Intelligence is a double bladed sword, one is empiricism, the other is weighing one thing against another to determine probability. This is a discipline few are skilled at, as it requires an awareness of how emotional prejudices influence judgment. Randi isn't above it, here he is associating a prejudice as a primary cause. Poverty of course, is obviously primarily influenced by environment and education and common sense. Many people have children they cannot support - this is why giving aid to places like Africa is futile.

 

[CFLarsen]

Intelligence is a double bladed sword, one is empiricism, the other is weighing one thing against another to determine probability. This is a discipline few are skilled at, as it requires an awareness of how emotional prejudices influence judgment. Randi isn't above it, here he is associating a prejudice as a primary cause. Poverty of course, is obviously primarily influenced by environment and education and common sense. Many people have children they cannot support - this is why giving aid to places like Africa is futile.

You think giving aid to Africa is futile because black people are stupid and they breed too much?

 

[dann]

Intelligence is a double bladed sword, one is empiricism, the other is weighing one thing against another to determine probability. This is a discipline few are skilled at, as it requires an awareness of how emotional prejudices influence judgment.

True.

Randi isn't above it, here he is associating a prejudice as a primary cause.

True.

Poverty of course (??? dann), is obviously (??? dann) primarily influenced by environment and education and common sense.

I suppose that this is not an attempt at proving your first point by using yourself as an example, but I could be wrong. As you are probably very well aware, over the years a lot of people, also educated ones, have used their common common sense supplemented with the advice of experts and bought stocks in first the booming business of software development and later in Enron, thus ruining themselves.
Since the "environment" as a concept is so vague and universal that it encompasses almost everything except the individual itself, it is very hard to argue against that as a primary influence.

Many people have children they cannot support - this is why giving aid to places like Africa is futile.

A beautiful example of "of how emotional prejudices influence judgment." Since many (poor) people have children that they cannot support, you choose to blame procreation instead of blaming poverty as if poverty were the result of procreation. So any attempt at helping the destitute Africans raise their children is declared "futile". I guess that you are completely unaware of the causes of impoverishment of people in Africa - and don't really care.

 

[SirPhilip]

You think giving aid to Africa is futile because black people are stupid and they breed too much?

I just love the way you frame questions. Like the Middle East, the situation in Africa is a self-perpetuating vicious cycle, whether genetic differences determine intelligence I doubt, stronger instincts play a role in priorities, and clear general behavioral differences exist between ethnicities. Why this occurs hasn't been studied properly, but it is certainly recognized by everyone.

 

[CFLarsen]

I just love the way you frame questions.

I don't "frame" questions. I go with what you said:

Poverty of course, is obviously primarily influenced by environment and education and common sense. Many people have children they cannot support - this is why giving aid to places like Africa is futile.

You linked environment, education and common sense to over-breeding in Africa, and gave the latter as a reason why aid to Africa was futile.

So, do you think that giving aid to Africa is futile because black people are stupid and they breed too much?

Like the Middle East, the situation in Africa is a self-perpetuating vicious cycle, whether genetic differences determine intelligence I doubt, stronger instincts play a role in priorities, and clear general behavioral differences exist between ethnicities. Why this occurs hasn't been studied properly, but it is certainly recognized by everyone.

What "stronger instincts" and "behavioral differences" between ethnicities are you talking about in Africa and the Middle East that are particular to these areas?

 

[dann]

I just love the way you frame questions. Like the Middle East, the situation in Africa is a self-perpetuating vicious cycle, whether genetic differences determine intelligence I doubt, stronger instincts play a role in priorities, and clear general behavioral differences exist between ethnicities. Why this occurs hasn't been studied properly, but it is certainly recognized by everyone.

Nothing but pompous balderdash!
Neither in the Middle East nor in Africa is "the situation" in any way "a self-perpetuating vicious cycle". The massive support from abroad, finance and military, makes it clear that it is by no means self-perpetuating.
"stronger instincts play a role in priorities". What the hell is that supposed to mean?!
"general behavioral differences exist between ethnicities". They do? Which ones? Africans play the drums and the Chinese eat rice?
"Why this (?) occurs hasn't been studied properly, but it is certainly (!) recognized by everyone (!)." (my (!) and (?), dann) No, I don't think that it is. It isn't recognized by me, for instance. If you move people of one 'ethnicity' from one part of the world to another, their "clear general behavioral differences" tend to change immensely. This also is not recognized by everyone, a lot of people actually tend to deny it, which does not make it any less true.

 

[Puppycow]

Well, no answers here. But we have learned that there are adults who still believe this stuff. Go figure!

Puppycow, you can keep these guys fed if you want to. I'm gonna give this thread a rest.

Yeah, I have nothing more to say on this subject either.

I concur with articulett's diagnoses.