tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post890501193127895001..comments2024-03-29T06:22:47.638-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Eavesdropping, Surveillance and Looking BackDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82348310927749856242012-03-16T12:24:46.745-07:002012-03-16T12:24:46.745-07:00@RandyB wrote:
"...People who've read Ja...@RandyB wrote:<br /><br /><i>"...People who've read Jane Mayer's work in the New Yorker learned some interesting stuff, but it's a distorted view."</i><br /><br />That might be relevant ... how?<br /><br />Oh, nevermind.<br /><br />Onward!rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84247028532306796962012-03-16T00:44:22.133-07:002012-03-16T00:44:22.133-07:00onwardonwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26978047878081998402012-03-15T22:10:39.296-07:002012-03-15T22:10:39.296-07:00BTW, it's not just overstretching the military...BTW, it's not just overstretching the military. It was the utter betrayal of the US Army reserves, calling up nearly all of those men and women from their jobs and lives and immediately treating them as front line troops on and on and on, in a non-emergency war of choice.<br /><br />And so much more. Rumsfeld bullying everybody and meddling in a million details he knew nothing about. If a democrat did that you'd scream bloody murder, but Clinton & Obama did the opposite, treating their advisors with respect.<br /><br />outsourcing to privatized companies who then bully the soldiers WHILE IN THE FIELD. Claiming to justify Blackwater and Haliburton by citing "savings" only later to learn they cost ten times as much, all of it going to Bushite pals. <br /><br />Relentless hatred of intellect. Ridicule or scholarship or any sense of history. Plus a deep and boiling spite toward science. All important traits of today's Officer Corps.<br /><br />I'm just getting started. Oh, Bush & co. gave the flag officers lots of reasons. Above all, a terror that these bozos actually were in charge of nuclear weapons. <br /><br />And don't you dare imagine that today's GOP is any better, just because none of the top guys are called Rumsefeld, Cheney or Bush.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31870816375588542112012-03-15T21:15:04.235-07:002012-03-15T21:15:04.235-07:00Larry,
"I think Dr Brin's point was that...Larry,<br /><br /><i>"I think Dr Brin's point was that not that they leaned Democrat, but that even staunch Republican generals were horrified by the things that George W Bush (in particular) did to the armed forces."</i><br /><br />Fair enough. But I thought David was talking more about interrogation.<br /><br />From what I've read, most of the generals and admirals who've criticized the Bush administration were concerned primarily about not sufficiently expanding the military while fighting two wars. There's no doubt that we were overstretched.<br /><br />But that is different, and do take the point.<br /><br /><br /><br />Rewinn,<br /><br /><i>"... is pure non sequitur and admitted ignorance of the facts. In the future, try not to make an argument founded on saying you don't know something, k?"</i><br /><br />I've been through SERE myself, and, naturally, I have friends who've been through SERE, too. People who've read Jane Mayer's work in the New Yorker learned some interesting stuff, but it's a distorted view.<br /><br /><br /><br />David,<br /><br />It's good to have a list.<br /><br />I'll make this my homework assignment.RandyBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31447663519436294012012-03-15T12:33:20.853-07:002012-03-15T12:33:20.853-07:004b) that in fact the CIA has not been HARMED in it...4b) that in fact the CIA has not been HARMED in its ability to do these things rarely, covertly, by all the attention that has been brought to this matter by the outrageous over-use of such tactics.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37690830662900402302012-03-15T12:31:09.112-07:002012-03-15T12:31:09.112-07:00RandyB you continue to avert your gaze from the co...RandyB you continue to avert your gaze from the core issues by raising side minutia, which is a major modern "ostrich" technique.<br /><br />Let me reiterate. <br /><br />Anyone demanding that the US federal government be empowered with new powers to secretly seize human beings and abuse them, contravening both international treaties and the Constitution, out of some kind of "urgent necessity" bears a burden of proof:<br /><br />1) that we face an existential crisis requiring such "pragmatism" to overcome "idealistic" rules of universal rights.<br /><br />2) that the measures like rendition, secret-endless detention and torture truly are "pragmatic" and deliver benefits vastly outweighing the costs.<br /><br />3) that those costs won't include devastation to our international reputation, the boosting of enemy recruitment, and getting the federal government used to Big Brother type behaviors.<br /><br />4) that such pragmatic exceptions to our ideals weren't already being handled, discreetly, carefully and effectively by the skilled "James Bond types," allowing us to get occasional glimpses into dark places without damaging our overall pride in being - at the wide-open and general level - the 'good guys."<br /><br />5) that such a dive into rationalizing excuses for cowboy bullying and "24" tactics is not, in itself, profoundly impractical. Or that the "idealists" aren't - indeed - the practical adults in the room.<br /><br />Guys like you bear a steep burden of absolute proof of each and every one of these, before we let you off the hook on the hypocrisy and proclaiming that to disdain federal power... except expanding it where it is by far the MOST DANGEROUS!<br /><br />In fact, every single one of these points was not only never proved... they have all been actively DISproved.<br /><br />So stop quibbling over slaps across the face and whether bad music is "torture." It's all just rationalization and diving into minutia to evade the core points. Your side has justified the tearing down of barriers that protected us all. PROVE all five of those assertions! <br /><br />Prove them or stop trying to rationalize the indefensible and proclaiming the benefits of insanity.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70981554553937219422012-03-15T12:16:57.586-07:002012-03-15T12:16:57.586-07:00Re the US military Officer Corps, there are severa...Re the US military Officer Corps, there are several trends to note. 1) The Officer Corps - when you get above the rank of Major - constitutes one of the best-educated clades in modern American life. At colonel (naval captain) and above, the average is the equivalent of several masters degrees or a doctorate. This puts the generals and admirals just behind university professors and medical doctors. <br /><br />And we all ought to be very very glad that such men and women - who control nuclear weapons - have intellects and knowledge to match the gravity of their obligations. <br /><br />2) My conversations with flag officers have been ongoing and enlightening, though admittedly a mere sampling and anecdotal. With that admission, let me assert that many of the senior officers I've met informally and discreetly made evident that they consider George W. Bush to have been the worst U.S. president - by far - in living memory. They are deeply aware of the grievous harm that Bush - and his entire party - have done to the nation, our prestige, influence, economy, science... and especially to the armed services. (Just what Bush did to the US Army Reserves, alone, was in my opinion grounds for treason.)<br /><br /> 3) They were jubilant when Donald Rumsfeld gave way to the non-partisan "adult" Gates and some hint strongly that the senior officer corps had exerted substantial "suasion" to pry Bush's hands off the military, two years before the 2008 elections. Given the insanity going on, I consider that to have been an act of heroism, possibly saving the United States of America.<br /><br /> 4) Given that a lot of recruitment into the military comes from southern or "red" America, it is not surprising that the GOP has a voter registration advantage there. But this has been declining rapidly, especially among junior officers. The decline among senior officers has been (as with scientists) a plummet. With the possible exception of the Air Force. <br /><br /> To be clear (a) this has been a departure from the GOP, not a scurry to the democrats. (b) much of this is (again) anecdotal. But learning about this privately is one of the major factors that drove me from mild partisanship in the early 2000s to concluding that Culture War had become Civil War.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63674363326838255772012-03-15T12:11:25.048-07:002012-03-15T12:11:25.048-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20162841481004871192012-03-15T12:11:24.797-07:002012-03-15T12:11:24.797-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-466229602150921212012-03-15T11:18:33.452-07:002012-03-15T11:18:33.452-07:00If you're dumb enough to download it . . .
Ha...If you're dumb enough to download it . . .<br /><br /><a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Anonymous-Ubuntu-Hactivist-operating-system-Tor-browser,15024.html" rel="nofollow">Hacktivist group Anonymous releases their own Linux-based operating system</a>sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27243629162669663592012-03-15T11:01:46.905-07:002012-03-15T11:01:46.905-07:00One sphere of effects on human consciousness - &qu...One sphere of effects on human consciousness - "nature or nurture" - is what happens in utero. Hormonal anomalies, or normalities, can affect things.<br /><br />That's separate from both DNA and culture.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44918326325037847072012-03-15T08:52:56.795-07:002012-03-15T08:52:56.795-07:00Paul Krugman, channeling me:
If this is right (an...Paul Krugman, channeling me:<br /><i><br />If this is right (and I think it is), austerity-loving pundits and policy makers really are like medieval doctors who believed in treating illness by bleeding their patients, making the patients even sicker, leading to more bleeding.<br /></i><br /><br />Amen, brother!LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64052430769391233482012-03-15T08:40:23.191-07:002012-03-15T08:40:23.191-07:00duncan cairncross:
As a fairly left wing lefty I ...duncan cairncross:<br /><i><br />As a fairly left wing lefty I was convinced that most of the difference between the sexes was "social upbringing"<br />Then I had a family!<br /></i><br /><br />I also found that having an actual live nuclear family of my own has put the lie to many presumptions of both left and right.<br /><br />In other forums, I have been lectured to about how having a wife and daugter will force me to be a screming lefty feminist "hand puppet", and how being responsible for an actual wife and child will force me to lean conservative. That these "truisms" contradict themselves is mildly amusing. That they are asserted confidently by people who have no intention of marrying and procreating themselves is more so.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24807960123687618642012-03-15T08:33:49.344-07:002012-03-15T08:33:49.344-07:00RandyB:
But this guy would seem to disagree with ...RandyB:<br /><i><br />But this guy would seem to disagree with you:<br />"Officers tend to be not only more partisan, but also more Republican, with <b>GOP affinity strongest among the highest ranks.<br /></b>..." <br /></i><br /><br />I think Dr Brin's point was that not that they leaned Democrat, but that even staunch Republican generals were horrified by the things that George W Bush (in particular) did to the armed forces.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2205903456086520972012-03-15T08:23:31.296-07:002012-03-15T08:23:31.296-07:00@Randyb wrote:
"That's only an insult...@Randyb wrote:<br /><br /> <i>"That's only an insult if you're right, which you don't have a very good record on."</i><br /><br />And with that, @RandyB has gone over the line from disagreeing, to being disagreeable. Thank you!<br /><br />As to the facts, was responding to the following:<br /><br />@David Brin wrote:<br /><i>"<br />...while enraging the intelligence and military officers who used to do such things judiciously, sparingly, only when needed and out of sight."</i><br /><br />To which @RandyB replied<br /><br /><i>"...I don't know what percentage of military officers felt that way, but even if it's a majority, I doubt it's that big of one."</i><br /><br />... which I reasonably interpreted to be an assertion that that a large proportion (although perhaps not a majority) of our military officers are not enraged by prisoner abuse.<br /><br />No reasonable person could conclude that such a statement is not an insult against our Officer Corps. Even if it were true, it is still insulting. <br />And it's not true, as anyone with current knowledge of our military should know. <br />Our military has the normal range of human behaviors and types, and there are individual members who are sadists (...I could name a few ...) or who systematically violate the UCMJ. <br /><br />But the Officer Corps tries to weed these out (...not always successfully; few human endeavours are always successful)<br />They may also be bloggers who advocate that. Not for nothing is it called "The Net Of A Million Lies".<br /><br /><i>"I was already well aware of Charlie Swift. He's probably very popular with lawyers but he isn't popular with the military."</i><br /><br />Since you don't have contact with the military, and I do, your comments on Swift and SERE are understandably wrong on the facts.<br /><br />This part ...<br /><br /><i>"Training to resist torture doesn't necessarily require torture. But even if it did, if you've seen the restrictions I linked earlier, they were put in by lawyers to ensure it doesn't legally become torture. <br />But, as you noted, SERE is voluntary. They could legally exceed those limits if they wanted to. (But they probably don't.)"</i><br /><br />... is pure non sequitur and admitted ignorance of the facts. In the future, try not to make an argument founded on saying you don't know something, k?<br /><br />Your argument about the 8th Amendment is also pretty radical: you're saying our Constitution doesn't limit government power, it merely grants rights to citizens. That simply wrong and not very conservative.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87101365571178421202012-03-14T23:48:16.519-07:002012-03-14T23:48:16.519-07:00I am interested in your observations about senior ...I am interested in your observations about senior officers,<br />(Admirals, Generals)<br />I have not encountered such creatures myself!<br />In the world of private business I have encountered Vice Presidents and other senior executives.<br />In my experience engineers, senior engineers, middle managers and the like tend to be very "Task Focused"<br />Senior Executives and Vice Presidents tend to be very "Me" centered.<br />I am glad that that pattern does not extend to the military<br /><br />Lefties and sexual assumptions<br /><br />As a fairly left wing lefty I was convinced that most of the difference between the sexes was "social upbringing"<br />Then I had a family!<br />On the basis of a far from significant sample I now believe that a large amount of the differences are biological<br />Boys and Girls think differently! - from an incredibly early ageduncan cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66616638128603290462012-03-14T22:04:27.505-07:002012-03-14T22:04:27.505-07:00David,
I'll have to take your word on general...David,<br /><br />I'll have to take your word on generals and admirals. When I was in the Navy, my contact with admirals was almost entirely limited to bringing them coffee when they went flying with us (I was a P-3 aircrewman).<br /><br />For the military as a whole, President Obama is <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/147839/Military-Personnel-Veterans-Give-Obama-Lower-Marks.aspx" rel="nofollow">polling worse than the average American</a>.<br /><br />But <a href="http://andrewgelman.com/2009/05/how_soldiers_re/" rel="nofollow">this guy</a> would seem to disagree with you:<br /><i>"Officers tend to be not only more partisan, but also more Republican, with <b>GOP affinity strongest among the highest ranks</b>. While I [Dempsey] was unable to fully parse the reason for this, the evidence strongly suggests the pattern is generational. Today’s senior officers entered the Army during the late 1970s and 1980s, a time when the Republican Party had a strong advantage on issues of national defense and the Democratic Party was seen as antiwar if not anti-military. <b>By contrast, junior officers who joined the Army after 2001 are almost as likely to be Democrats as they are Republicans, foreshadowing a possible shift in officer attitudes....</b>"</i><br /><br />That said, that guy probably didn't interview flag officers. I know that generals and admirals are a completely different group. Of the officers I knew, the only one who I'd later learned had gone on to become an admiral was probably as non-partisan as one could get.RandyBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70753009079718700612012-03-14T20:58:44.535-07:002012-03-14T20:58:44.535-07:00RandyB I can tell you from my frequent conferences...RandyB I can tell you from my frequent conferences back east that the officer corps went anti Bush in ever higher percentages the higher you went, in rank. The generals and admirals despised him to a degree that one told me was "unp[recedented in the last century." The threatened work action or mass resignation that forced Bush to fire Rumsfeld was extremely serious business.<br /><br />Let me make it plain. W was actively loathed and despised by the generals and admirals. You have it from me only anecdotally, but that is one helluva lot better based than "but even if it's a majority, I doubt it's that big of one."<br /><br />The near total destruction of the US Army reserves is just the top of dozens of reasons and it is to the everlasting shame of the supposedly "pro military" conservative movement that it doesn't give a crap.<br /><br />===<br />Hypnos: "I understand rape as a power play rather than a sexual drive, so I would put it more in the social sphere."<br /><br />Yes that is dogma on the left and nature is very inconvenient there, since when it occurs in the wild babies result who add to the perpetrator's "score" in repro-success. So the burden of proof is on those making that claim. I don't actually disagree that much. Most human rapists are sickies and power DOES play a big role. But the 99% who don't rape will tell you that it's not a simple matter of being completely pure inside, without faint echoes of distant, unsavory impulses throbbing down obsolete neurons.<br /><br />Re homosexuality, I also am willing to go along with the left-dogma because it does more good in the world than its opposite. But I know there are "borderline" guys who have felt PC compelled to swing 100% gay, when they might have done instead the opposite. <br /><br />Yes, it's hard on them either way. But I know many who have said they'd have gone for wife, kids family if they felt it possible, if not for the truism that says it is not possible. <br /><br />Why proclaim that it's not? Why not let them try? The all-or-nothing proclamation is... in its own way... somewhat evil.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13003071182913129942012-03-14T20:41:30.576-07:002012-03-14T20:41:30.576-07:00Rewinn,
"I speak with officers frequently, a...Rewinn,<br /><br /><i>"I speak with officers frequently, and based on my experience you're wrong on the facts. And you're insulting our entire Officer Corps."</i><br /><br />That's only an insult if you're right, which you don't have a very good record on.<br /><br />I haven't personally spoken with officers in years, but I've conversed online often enough. Those I've met online don't feel the way you describe. There are also some officers' blogs I frequent, but they may be a different group than you see.<br /><br />I was already well aware of Charlie Swift. He's probably very popular with lawyers but he isn't popular with the military.<br /><br /><br /><i>"SERE training includes voluntary submission to torture, such as waterboarding."</i><br /><br />Training to resist torture doesn't necessarily require torture. But even if it did, if you've seen the restrictions I linked earlier, they were put in by lawyers to ensure it doesn't legally become torture. But, as you noted, SERE is voluntary. They could legally exceed those limits if they wanted to. (But they probably don't.)<br /><br /><br /><i>"Our Constitution is grant of limited power to the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights puts limits on what the government can do. Not "MAY" do but "CAN" do."</i><br /><br />Yes, but that's what it can and can't do to us.<br /><br />Non-citizens outside the U.S. do not get the same rights:<br />"<a href="http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Constitutional-Rights-for-Non-Citizens" rel="nofollow">Aliens in the U.S. have essentially the same rights as citizens for many purposes because of the 5th and 14th Amendments' language, but aliens do not have constitutional rights against the U.S. government outside its territory.</a>"<br /><br />If it were otherwise, they might not have bothered moving the detainees to GTMO.RandyBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51717174305896482052012-03-14T20:37:33.754-07:002012-03-14T20:37:33.754-07:00On an entirely different subject ... perhaps relat...On an entirely different subject ... perhaps relatable to the EON Project mentioned in OP ... the Center for Computer Aided Legal Instruction (CALI) is doing a 9-week Massively Open Online Class (MOOC) entitled <a href="http://tdlp.classcaster.net/" rel="nofollow">"Topics in Digital Law Practice"</a> with a subversively useful structure: <br />a series of expert webcasts, including Q+A for the realtime participants, each of which comes with publicly viewable wiki'd homework assignments. <br /><br />Does this sounds unexceptional? the technology required is available to any smart middleschooler today. But the homework element makes it just plain better than just about any other continuing ed class I've taken. Who wants to craft the best solution to the homework problem? Why I do of course ... and so do enough other participants to make it fun.<br /><br />And if the homework assignments are well-chosen to result in a useful compendium of knowledge ...<br /> <br />For example, Class #5 was about free legal research online, during which a major issue raised was the efficient sifting through the overly large mound of potentially useful sources of law. The <a href="http://tdlp.classcaster.net/homework-assignment-5/" rel="nofollow">homework assignment</a> is to <br />(A) locate the most authoritative sources of law (statutory & case law) for one state and (B) add that to a <a href="http://tdlp.wikispaces.com/Primary+Legal+Research+Sources+by+State" rel="nofollow">Primary Legal Research Sources by State page</a>. This is quite a useful compendium for CALI ... and the results are free for all comers!<br /><br />There isn't any scoring; each student who produces satisfactory homework is rewarded with <a href="http://tdlp.wikispaces.com/" rel="nofollow">a badges</a> plus the pleasure of creation and the bragging rights for a Job Well Done. <br /><br />This model could be used in a number of fields.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34853638270313764022012-03-14T18:34:23.715-07:002012-03-14T18:34:23.715-07:00Next time you want to just get away from it all, w...Next time you want to just get away from it all, watch this video of ... <a href="http://t.co/YCiyUavG" rel="nofollow">Monkeez i-in Spa-a-ce</a>! (really!)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66798265513380608362012-03-14T17:37:13.857-07:002012-03-14T17:37:13.857-07:00@RandyB wrote:
"...the Bill of Rights covers...@RandyB wrote:<br /><br /><i>"...the Bill of Rights covers people within the U.S...."</i><br /><br />No. Absolutely not.<br /><br />This is a fundamental misunderstanding of our American Constitution.<br /><br />Our Constitution is grant of limited power to the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights puts limits on what the government can do. Not "MAY" do but "CAN" do.<br /><br />Anything the Government does in violation of the Constitution is by definition unConstitutional. Whether the Government does it to citizens or to Russians on the Moon doesn't matter to the Constitutionality of the act.<br /><br />Often people are confused by this because our Supreme Court sometimes limits access to our courts, using terms such as "political question" or "standing" or "case and controversy" and so forth. What this means is that sometimes the Government acts unconstitutionally but the court system will not take the matter up. To the extent that our Supreme Court passively permits our Government to violate the Constitution so long as the victims are outside the United States, it fails to do its duty.<br /><br />In particular, the 8th Amendment does not limit its application; it applies to all Government actions, everywhere. Not one word in the Constitution limits the 8th Amendment to persons on our territory.<br /><br />Conservatives such as Goldwater and Eisenhower would understand this; heck even Ron Paul understands this.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8651193470396097872012-03-14T17:23:03.481-07:002012-03-14T17:23:03.481-07:00@RandyB wrote:
"...
I don't know what per...@RandyB wrote:<br /><i>"...<br />I don't know what percentage of military officers felt that way, but even if it's a majority, I doubt it's that big of one.<br />..."</i><br /><br />You're right on one thing - you don't know what you're talking about.<br /><br />I speak with officers frequently, and based on my experience you're wrong on the facts. And you're insulting our entire Officer Corps.<br /><br />A while back, I suggested you look up Charlie Swift's record. Did you?<br /><br /><i>"I didn't bring up special forces training. If I had, I'd have said it helps to make my case that the treatment isn't torture. Assuming you meant SERE, the connection is overblown."</i><br /><br />LOLWUT?<br /><br />SERE training includes voluntary submission to torture, such as waterboarding. That doesn't mean it's not torture; to the contrary: it's evidence that waterboarding *is* torture.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69393655676377259222012-03-14T16:40:59.642-07:002012-03-14T16:40:59.642-07:00It is of course worth noting that much of what the...It is of course worth noting that much of what the UK government did in Northern, Ireland in the 70's was wrong and innefective, and I'm pretty sure we can count the five techniques linked to by RandyB as one set of wrong actions.<br /><br />Which aught to at least set people wondering why such emphasis on nastiness was made for no real reason at all, in the last decade of the war on terror.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25920326750597124652012-03-14T15:00:14.846-07:002012-03-14T15:00:14.846-07:00David,
no, I don't think we have a sufficient...David,<br /><br />no, I don't think we have a sufficient level of knowledge to ascribe 100% of the effect to any single cause, so my view is certainly more nuanced than that. Also, it is based on a limited understanding of the biological and cultural elements, so I'd be willing to reconsider my position based upon evidence from experts.<br /><br />I'm not able to put exact percentages on it, so I'd say that sex is majority biological, minority cultural, and social roles, including gender, are the opposite.<br /><br />Rape and infanticide are interesting cases. I understand rape as a power play rather than a sexual drive, so I would put it more in the social sphere. But I see the inconsistency here, and there's probably a lot of biology in it as well. Infanticide is in my opinion an effective form of population control which is certainly natural. I remember reading an article arguing that infanticide by mothers was in fact much more widespread, even in modern societies, than previously thought, and it is connected to a basic instinct of a mother increasing the chances of her other children to survive by eliminating the excess one(s) who she would not be able to feed. I don't see a problem with considering infanticide a natural process (barring psychopathic cases which are more related to mental illnesses).<br /><br />I'd also put pedophilia in the natural category. Our society has decided that an adult having sex with a 13 years old is an horrible crime, but that is actually the age of fertility, so it is perfectly natural. Now modern society has de-sexualized that age, so the experience becomes traumatic, but that does not make it any less natural. Going below the age of fertility probably falls in the category of mental illnesses (and for the record, I don't know how much is natural and how much is nurture in mental illnesses - I'll cop out with a 50-50).<br /><br />To conclude, I also recognize a major role of nurture in primarily nature behaviours as well. I think the Kinsey scale is perhaps the best description of homosexuality, a range rather than a binary state. We're all a bit homosexual, some just more than others, and creating fixed binary roles is detrimental (a bisexual friend tells me she was the subject of discrimination from homosexuals calling her "undecided").<br /><br />And yes, dogmatism is wrong in any field, time and debate. I try to refrain from it to the best of my capabilities, and always endorse or refute theories based on my knowledge of the facts, rather than beliefs (which is why I hate the classical survey question "do you believe in evolution" - wrong question! It should be "do you accept evolution as the current best explanation for...").Hypnoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01409179274970587232noreply@blogger.com