Government monitoring Twitter

[Vincent Butler]

Has anybody seen the story that is out now about the federal government in
America creating a database to track down political smears, false and misleading information, and such like, aka hate speech? So much for the freedom of speech.

[Montmorency]

So much for the freedom of speech.

Um...lol?

[Vincent Butler]

So much for the freedom of speech.
Correct, that was sarcasm. Yet one more right our government is attempting to trample on.

[HoreTore]

Yes, because someone listening to what you say is apparently removing your right to say stuff.

[Greyblades]

...It's freaking twitter. If you didnt want the government reading something, why the hell are you putting it on twitter?

[Husar]

Oh really?

Now that really bothers me given that the NSA is collecting all my information and I don't even have a Twitter account.
You should be happy that America is better than China because that is really the only other option.

[Vincent Butler]

I don't mind them seeing what is on stuff like Facebook or Twitter, though I am not on either one of those. The Org is as close as I come to social media. If you put it on social media, don't complain when the government reads it. It is their monitoring what people say, and keeping a database of it, that I object to. I fully believe that they will try to use it to wrest more freedoms away. Look, they have been spying on Brazil, Germany, and other countries, they have been tapping phones illegally in this country, keeping a database of phone calls, they have been using the IRS to pressure the opposition into irrelevance. They have been calling professional sports stars before Congress, even though those matters are outside of Congress's jurisdiction. As Jefferson predicted, liberty is yielding, government is gaining ground. Contrary to what many people seem to think (I'm not saying people on this forum are thinking this way), government is not all-powerful and does not have the right to do whatever it wants.

[Pannonian]

site:twitter.com "david cameron" "idiot"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Has anybody seen the story that is out now about the federal government in
America creating a database to track down political smears, false and misleading information, and such like, aka hate speech? So much for the freedom of speech.

Errr....any tweet you make that is made as a public tweet is collected by the Library of Congress in an open and searchable database....a condition you have agreed to in your EULA.

[HoreTore]

I don't mind them seeing what is on stuff like Facebook or Twitter, though I am not on either one of those. The Org is as close as I come to social media. If you put it on social media, don't complain when the government reads it. It is their monitoring what people say, and keeping a database of it, that I object to. I fully believe that they will try to use it to wrest more freedoms away. Look, they have been spying on Brazil, Germany, and other countries, they have been tapping phones illegally in this country, keeping a database of phone calls, they have been using the IRS to pressure the opposition into irrelevance. They have been calling professional sports stars before Congress, even though those matters are outside of Congress's jurisdiction. As Jefferson predicted, liberty is yielding, government is gaining ground. Contrary to what many people seem to think (I'm not saying people on this forum are thinking this way), government is not all-powerful and does not have the right to do whatever it wants.

You need to be more specific than "they will take away our freedumz!!!11"

What right, specifically, do you fear the government is planning to take away? And why do you believe that keeping a twitter database is the ultimate way to achieve that goal?

....And how has the taxman been abused...? Do you believe that politicians are not skimping on taxes like everyone else?

[Kadagar_AV]

Twitter can be read by anyone, so why be bothered by the state tracking you?

Unless of course you have a anonymous twitter account, and the government actually tracks who the person behind it is. Now that I would deem problematic.

Keep the internet free and anonymous :yes:

[Vincent Butler]

What right, specifically, do you fear the government is planning to take away? And why do you believe that keeping a twitter database is the ultimate way to achieve that goal?
I am concerned about them taking away any freedom. To name a few freedoms lost, look at the private bakery owners who have been ordered to bake cakes for homosexual weddings. Freedom of religion lost. Most states require a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Freedom to bear arms infringed. Pennsylvania now says their cops don't need a warrant to search private vehicles. Freedom to be secure in our effects lost. Now maybe you don't mind your government controlling freedoms that much, but I do. All three instances I mentioned are acknowledged rights in our Constitution.

And why do you believe that keeping a twitter database is the ultimate way to achieve that goal?
That is where it starts, or is continuing, if you ask me. They will crack down on what they deem offensive. Nobody has the right to not be offended. And look, nobody cares if Christians are offended. Removal of Ten Commandments and nativity scenes, same-sex marriage being voted against by the people and then upheld by the courts, mind-altering drugs being legalized...yeah, how bright is that? Do you see my point? They preach tolerance, but they are only tolerant of like-minded views, and totally intolerant of Christianity.

[HoreTore]

Quite the stretch from Nazi Germany.

As for not being tolerant of Christian views and the supposed crackdown on religious freedom: the Westboro Baptist Church is still going strong. As long as they are running with few restrictions, claiming that religious freedom in general, and christian freedom specifically, is in any danger is ridiculous.

Hate speech is restricted, as it should be. As the WBC is not affected by that, the US treshold for what constitutes hate speech is ridiculously low.

The few things you mentioned are all issues where your religious freedom brushes against the freedoms of others. I see no reason why religious freedom for Christians should trump the rights of others, like the right to recognition of a partnership.

[Hax]

They preach tolerance, but they are only tolerant of like-minded views, and totally intolerant of Christianity.

wait who are "they"? Are we still talking about the government? Are you suggesting that the American government is intolerant of Christianity?

[HoreTore]

wait who are "they"? Are we still talking about the government? Are you suggesting that the American government is intolerant of Christianity?

Playing the victim (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Persecution_complex) is mandatory in the looniesphere.

[Vincent Butler]

Are you suggesting that the American government is intolerant of Christianity?
I hope the italics are sarcasm, because, yes, I am, can you say ACLU. Well, I guess I shouldn't say they government itself is intolerant of Christianity, but there is an anti-Christian faction in our government.

the Westboro Baptist Church is still going strongNow I disagree with what they are doing. Yes, they are not restricted, and thankfully we are not at that level of restriction.

Hate speech is restricted, as it should be. As the WBC is not affected by that, the US threshold for what constitutes hate speech is ridiculously low.

The few things you mentioned are all issues where your religious freedom brushes against the freedoms of others. I see no reason why religious freedom for Christians should trump the rights of others, like the right to recognition of a partnership.
Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. As our founding fathers were executing homosexuals, I doubt they were interested in protecting their right to do whatever. And I have a right to refuse service to somebody if I disagree with them. There were other bakeries that would have done the cakes, but no, they sued to force their lifestyle on somebody else.
The hate speech issue, um…who determines what is hate speech? The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't say, and what opinions I have to hold. I have the right to voice my opinions, even if I am wrong. When the government tells me what I can say, and they punish me if I say what they don't like, then we are getting closer to the USSR, where the KGB would arrest you for voicing the wrong opinion.

[HoreTore]

The right to refuse service is not as black and white as you think it is, see segregation. Refusing service because of traits people are born with(gender, race, sexuality) is in almost all cases ruled to be opposed by your constitution.

Regarding homosexual marriage, the US courts have denied the attempts of the majority to deny the rights of a minority. A clear sign of a civilized and democratic society.

As for what constitutes hate speech: I am in no way claiming to be an expert at US law, but I believe the US courts draw the line at incitement to violence. And yes, the US courts do have a right to tell you what you may or may not do. That's their job. You are free to disagree of course, but any refusal to act according to their will means prison.

[Pannonian]

I hope the italics are sarcasm, because, yes, I am, can you say ACLU. Well, I guess I shouldn't say they government itself is intolerant of Christianity, but there is an anti-Christian faction in our government.
Now I disagree with what they are doing. Yes, they are not restricted, and thankfully we are not at that level of restriction.

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. As our founding fathers were executing homosexuals, I doubt they were interested in protecting their right to do whatever. And I have a right to refuse service to somebody if I disagree with them. There were other bakeries that would have done the cakes, but no, they sued to force their lifestyle on somebody else.
The hate speech issue, um…who determines what is hate speech? The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't say, and what opinions I have to hold. I have the right to voice my opinions, even if I am wrong. When the government tells me what I can say, and they punish me if I say what they don't like, then we are getting closer to the USSR, where the KGB would arrest you for voicing the wrong opinion.

Don't US private businesses have a freedom to refuse service to anyone they like, or is this on a state by state basis? I know there's a restaurant somewhere in redneck land that serves whites only, and refuses service to blacks and other coloureds, gays, and other non-Aryan acceptable groups. I know that it's not the case in the UK since the Constantine case, where a hotel owner was ruled to be in the wrong for trying to turn away a black would-be customer.

[Hax]

I hope the italics are sarcasm, because, yes, I am, can you say ACLU. Well, I guess I shouldn't say they government itself is intolerant of Christianity, but there is an anti-Christian faction in our government

Not so much sarcasm, it was kinda..incredulous really.

In any case, are we still talking about the same country, the one of which the president got into no trouble whatsoever because some people thought he might not be a Christian?

[Vincent Butler]

The courts are there to interpret law, not make law. The law tells me what I can do. For refusing homosexuals, homosexuality is a choice. Even if somebody is attracted to the same sex, it is still a choice to commit sodomy. My race, gender, I cannot help. Sexual orientation, yes, I can. I don't know about the incitement to violence thing.

the US courts have denied the attempts of the majority to deny the rights of a minority
A very small minority with a very big voice, helps having the media on your side. Less than 3% of the US population identifies as homosexual. The courts overrode the will of the people. That sounds like a government no longer of the people, by the people, for the people.

[HoreTore]

The courts are indeed there to interpret law. You do not have the right to interpret law. The US courts have ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is against the constitution.

Democracy does not equal a tyranny of the majority, and the people refers to all people, not just a majority of the people. As homosexuals are a part of 'the people', the government did indeed rule in favour of the people and against the majority oppressing a minority. A proper democracy stops any and all attempts to dictate the lives of minorities when the rights of the majority is not affected. Gay marriage does not affect non-homosexuals in any way whatsoever, and so restricting the rights of the homosexuals is not something a democratic society can do.

Accepting that people live differently from yourself when your own life is not affected by their decisions is a fundamental feature of a free society.

You wish to dictate how other people live their lives, and that's authoritarian.

[Pannonian]

The courts are there to interpret law, not make law. The law tells me what I can do. For refusing homosexuals, homosexuality is a choice. Even if somebody is attracted to the same sex, it is still a choice to commit sodomy. My race, gender, I cannot help. Sexual orientation, yes, I can. I don't know about the incitement to violence thing.

A very small minority with a very big voice, helps having the media on your side. Less than 3% of the US population identifies as homosexual. The courts overrode the will of the people. That sounds like a government no longer of the people, by the people, for the people.

Why are you complaining about the courts making law, then complaining that the government is no longer for the people? Aren't the courts and the government separate and kept separate?

[Vincent Butler]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide. Again, our founding fathers executed homosexuals, so their rights were not in consideration. And supporting same-sex (not gay) marriage violates a tenet of the Christian religion that America was founded on.

You wish to dictate how other people live their lives, and that's authoritarian.
I am stating my opinion of a particular way of life. You have a different opinion. Does not mean we have to agree. And overall, yes, I think people should live their lives how they want. In this case, it is a direct assault on an institution that has been part of every single culture throughout history, and one that traditionally has been scorned and punished. Only now is it actually gaining any support, and still not that much. Telling somebody that they are wrong, and why they are wrong, is not dictating their life. They are welcome to ignore me, or show me why I am wrong. Again, and let's not start this again, it all comes down to "what do you base your beliefs on". The Morality thread has my statements, I will not respond to anything of that sort on this thread.

By the way, your English is good, are you actually Norwegian, or and English-speaker who happens to be in Norway?

[Pannonian]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide. Again, our founding fathers executed homosexuals, so their rights were not in consideration. And supporting same-sex (not gay) marriage violates a tenet of the Christian religion that America was founded on.

I am stating my opinion of a particular way of life. You have a different opinion. Does not mean we have to agree. And overall, yes, I think people should live their lives how they want. In this case, it is a direct assault on an institution that has been part of every single culture throughout history, and one that traditionally has been scorned and punished. Only now is it actually gaining any support, and still not that much. Telling somebody that they are wrong, and why they are wrong, is not dictating their life. They are welcome to ignore me, or show me why I am wrong. Again, and let's not start this again, it all comes down to "what do you base your beliefs on". The Morality thread has my statements, I will not respond to anything of that sort on this thread.

By the way, your English is good, are you actually Norwegian, or and English-speaker who happens to be in Norway?

I don't think it's too controversial a statement to say that the founding fathers were rather more militant about separation of powers, which you seem to miss, than they were about homosexuality. You argue that the courts interpret law and not make them, then complain that the government is no longer for the people. The implication is that, for the government to be for the people to your satisfaction, it should have stopped the courts from making this ruling. I believe this view is exactly the definition of tyranny as the founders would have seen it, where one of the arms of the republic overrides another.

Horetore has done military service in the Norwegian army, and is a reservist.

[Major Robert Dump]

The funny thing about Twitter is that users ultimately end up with brain damage and cognitive dysfunction, so all those government agents who listen will suffer the same fate

[Kadagar_AV]

Pannonian, please don't mistake conscript service for military service.

A conscript can spend most of his day fidgeting himself, whereas one doing military service is like in any other professional army. Only arguably tougher and smarter than other armys average training and experience of the personnel.

Heck, to do actually military service in the north, you are on comparable level with "elite" forces around the globe.



ON TOPIC: The only people I know using Twitter are mainly idiots anyway ::creep:

[Husar]

The courts are there to interpret law, not make law. The law tells me what I can do. For refusing homosexuals, homosexuality is a choice. Even if somebody is attracted to the same sex, it is still a choice to commit sodomy.

And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?


My race, gender, I cannot help.

You say that as though gender were always a clear-cut thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

[Kadagar_AV]

And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?



You say that as though gender were always a clear-cut thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

You say that as if gender wasn't a clear cut thing.

There is a extremely small amount of persons with bodily dysfunctions, some even get caught in the middle phase. But by and large, men know they are men and women know they are women.

So to be even more precise, gender indeed is a clear cut thing, but genetics makes mistakes at times. That does not, however, change the basic premises of genders?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Has anybody seen the story that is out now about the federal government in
America creating a database to track down political smears, false and misleading information, and such like, aka hate speech? So much for the freedom of speech.

Sources, man

[Vincent Butler]

Sources, man
I know it will draw ire mentioning I saw it on Fox News.

founding fathers were rather more militant about separation of powers, which you seem to miss, than they were about homosexuality. You argue that the courts interpret law and not make them, then complain that the government is no longer for the people. The implication is that, for the government to be for the people to your satisfaction, it should have stopped the courts from making this ruling
Just about everybody was against homosexuality, so there was no need to mention opposition to it. In what culture other than now has it been tolerated? The Constitution defines how the government is to be there for the people. The court should not have made that ruling because the issue is not addressed in the Constitution. If the people had voted it for same-sex marriage, and the court struck that down, that too would be a ruling contrary to the Constitution. That is an issue left for the states to decide.

You say that as though gender were always a clear-cut thing:
Um…yeah. You are either a male or female. Or a freak, if there is such a thing as a human hermaphrodite. What are we, Hutts?


And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?
Well, everybody is a sinner (including myself), so if I looked at sin, I could't serve anybody. Now if they wanted a cake, in this example, for say a graduation or birthday party, no problem, provided it's not a homosexually-themed product. But a same-sex wedding, forget it. And they could go somewhere else. Live and let live, right? I don't have to support their lifestyle, they don't have to support my business.

[drone]

With social media, the government is always your friend. ~;)


I hope the italics are sarcasm, because, yes, I am, can you say ACLU. Well, I guess I shouldn't say they government itself is intolerant of Christianity, but there is an anti-Christian faction in our government.
Since when is the ACLU a faction of the government? They spend most of their time fighting government actions.


As for not being tolerant of Christian views and the supposed crackdown on religious freedom: the Westboro Baptist Church is still going strong. As long as they are running with few restrictions, claiming that religious freedom in general, and christian freedom specifically, is in any danger is ridiculous.
The WBC is not a church, it is a group of professional lawyers/trolls making a living off of people incapable of controlling their temper. They push their legal rights to the limit and then sue anyone who assaults them for cold hard cash. Ignore them and they will starve.


Telling somebody that they are wrong, and why they are wrong, is not dictating their life. They are welcome to ignore me, or show me why I am wrong. Again, and let's not start this again, it all comes down to "what do you base your beliefs on". The Morality thread has my statements, I will not respond to anything of that sort on this thread.
Your statements in that thread were basically, "I'm right because some dudes a thousand+ years ago claimed to be channeling God when they wrote some books". Why did you choose Christianity over Islam or Mormonism then?

It's like Navaros, but without the compelling arguments...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The right to refuse service is not as black and white as you think it is, see segregation. Refusing service because of traits people are born with(gender, race, sexuality) ....

So far, we do not have definitive research that suggests that sexuality is genetically determined. Prima facie, I tend to agree with you -- it strikes me as vanishingly unlikely that there would not be a genetic component/predisposition (why would people choose social ostracism etc. over the centuries if it was truly a "choice?"), but we lack that final study that confirms it.

So far, same sex marriage has been successfully in the courts by asserting that the government should have no role in limiting who I choose to marry unless some form of clear and scientifically confirmable danger (e.g. incest between close relatives) exists. It has also been argued that offering "civil unions" smacks of the separate but equal hogwash associated with Jim Crow laws.

[HoreTore]

So far, we do not have definitive research that suggests that sexuality is genetically determined. Prima facie, I tend to agree with you -- it strikes me as vanishingly unlikely that there would not be a genetic component/predisposition (why would people choose social ostracism etc. over the centuries if it was truly a "choice?"), but we lack that final study that confirms it.

It is my understanding that the US legal system treats sexuality as equal to gender and race(because of, basically, 'born this way'). I didn't attempt to start a scientific debate, I only wanted to state what it is in the eyes of the law.

[HoreTore]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide. Again, our founding fathers executed homosexuals, so their rights were not in consideration. And supporting same-sex (not gay) marriage violates a tenet of the Christian religion that America was founded on.

SCOTUS decisions suggest otherwise.

As for the 'founding fathers'(who are quite irrelevant), they also had slaves. According to your logic, this means slavery must be legal in the US.


They are welcome to ignore me

No, they are not. They cannot ignore you if you create a law saying they cannot act against your opinion. I have no problems if you want to scream at the top of your lungs that doing it in the buttocks is a sin, but you should not be able to convert your opinion into laws restricting the freedom of those who do enjoy doing it in the buttocks.


By the way, your English is good, are you actually Norwegian, or and English-speaker who happens to be in Norway?

I'm fully inbred Norwegian, and my English (as well as my Norwegian) is crap.

English is taught from an early age in Scandinavia.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?

I don't think anybody here is advocating refusing to serve homosexuals in general, I think Vincent was referring to a specific case where a baker was asked to bake a cake with a message on it celebrating a homosexual wedding.

To run with your analogy, this would be like asking a baker to bake a cake with icing on it to say, "Happy Divorce!", or "To my lovely mistress, you are so much nicer than my wife!".

[Husar]

You say that as if gender wasn't a clear cut thing.

There is a extremely small amount of persons with bodily dysfunctions, some even get caught in the middle phase. But by and large, men know they are men and women know they are women.

So to be even more precise, gender indeed is a clear cut thing, but genetics makes mistakes at times. That does not, however, change the basic premises of genders?

So the baker would happily bake a cake for two straight transgenders who are going to marry?
Maybe my assumption that he probably wouldn't was wrong, it's not like some christians would call them freaks after all...


Um…yeah. You are either a male or female. Or a freak, if there is such a thing as a human hermaphrodite. What are we, Hutts?

Oh, woops...

Oh and Facebook and a few others disagree with there being only two genders: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_25134487/here-are-facebooks-56-gender-identity-options


Well, everybody is a sinner (including myself), so if I looked at sin, I could't serve anybody. Now if they wanted a cake, in this example, for say a graduation or birthday party, no problem, provided it's not a homosexually-themed product. But a same-sex wedding, forget it. And they could go somewhere else. Live and let live, right? I don't have to support their lifestyle, they don't have to support my business.

So if a single mother who was never married wanted to buy a station wagon from you, would you also refuse that because you do not want to support her lifestyle?


I don't think anybody here is advocating refusing to serve homosexuals in general, I think Vincent was referring to a specific case where a baker was asked to bake a cake with a message on it celebrating a homosexual wedding.

To run with your analogy, this would be like asking a baker to bake a cake with icing on it to say, "Happy Divorce!", or "To my lovely mistress, you are so much nicer than my wife!".

Yes, and he could put a chick tract into the box that explains how homosexuals end up in hell, I'm not quite sure why writing that text is somehow a big problem for him. I could see the point if someone wanted to buy a weapon but a text on a cake is pretty harmless and plenty of other things people buy are used for sinful activities, like the guy who buys cupcakes to eat them from the belly of his mistress. Just because there is not an obvious text there is no reason to think it's not going to be used in sinful ways. If the customer is honest about it he can say that he disagrees with what the customer is going to do, it's probably a more helpful approach and more in the spirit of evangelizing than to repel and alienate the customer. And maybe the customers would then leave on their own if they don't want to hear about that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know it will draw ire mentioning I saw it on Fox News.
.

I do not accept fox news as a legitimate source any more than WND, MSNBC, and their ilk. Find better sources for your life.

[Hooahguy]

Just about everybody was against homosexuality, so there was no need to mention opposition to it. In what culture other than now has it been tolerated?


Well, the Romans and Greeks were clearly not against it. In fact to my knowledge, most cultures in the Antiquity tolerated it. It was the spread of Christianity which changed all that.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide.

Apparently the 14th amendment is not part of the Constitution. See when the only text you read is the Bible, you kind of come across as stupid.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I know it will draw ire mentioning I saw it on Fox News.

Actually, Fox news -- just the news broadcast -- has a good reputation. Fox and friends, Hannity, O'Reilly etc. airing on the Fox News channel draw a lot more flack.


Um…yeah. You are either a male or female. Or a freak, if there is such a thing as a human hermaphrodite. What are we, Hutts?

You are confusing sex and gender.

Sex is one's biological equipage and is determined, for the most part, by the hormonal influences enacted by the 23rd chromosome (X or Y) pairing. The vast majority of persons are either male or female, though rare intersex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex) (newer term for hermaphroditism and other analogous genetic conditions) individuals are born.

Gender is one's psychological orientation -- your own mental outlook -- on how you enact and express yourself with others. As with any psychological orientation, it draws some of its "roots" from hard-coded genetic information but is far more malleable and influenced by culture, creed, and the influence of significant persons in our lives.

Most people, of course, conceive of themselves as men or women and enact their gender in a fashion that is largely parallel to the traditional notions of gender associated with biological sex.

It should be noted, however, that this "enacted gender" is inevitably idiosyncratic. Everybody is different. It is fairly common, for example, for women to have a communication style that is stereotypically 'male' -- forceful and direct, little effort to focus on underlying feelings/motivations and to preference action -- while being no less stereotypically 'female' on a host of other issues such as child nurture, risk aversion, etc.

Sex is fairly "clear cut," but gender is not.

[Montmorency]

From some gender studies book whose introduction I once skimmed: 'Masculinity is not "what men do".'

Indeed, it is simply 'what men should do that is also somehow uniquely or intrinsically a male action'. Now you should begin to see the problem, or at least the limitations.

[Husar]

Apparently the 14th amendment is not part of the Constitution. See when the only text you read is the Bible*, you kind of come across as stupid.

*and the Art of War

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/laTc782.png


This one is more related to how sexism affects males, which is interesting as it shows you the difference between gender and sex in a way too, I'll post it in spoiler.
https://i.imgur.com/aHMtCKJ.jpg

[rory_20_uk]

In mammals and especially primates the rate limiting step in having more primates is the females. They can carry only a few at a time and that is for a long time. The young are very delicate.

So, every female that is lost has a significant impact on the reproductive rate of the group. Keeping them safe especially when pregnant and vunerable.

Males, on the other hand, are close to expendible - one male can fertilise a large group of females at almost no cost to themselves.

So assuming at the world isn't all nice and fluffy, men are required to undertake three roles: ensure that all fertile women are pregnant (suckling is birth control, as soon as they're on solids, time for another one), provide food and kill any threat whether perceived or real.

Women are good with empathy and reading body language in others - seeing and reading the group dynamic. Massive muscles aren't really helpful and so are not present - save the protien for the next generation, eh? Oh, and looking fertile helps, too since men can pick up on the phenotype which is a surrogate marker for sexual maturity, not the chronological age of a female.

Males then have evolved to be highly interested in sex, a low threshold for the phenotype partners (as long as fertile) and with a high demand for situations that provide excitement / aggression. The need for "empathy" is mainly linked to enjoying the screwing of the former and the killing of the latter - introspection along the lines of "but how do I make the external threat feel" is not something that leads to many descendants, whereas "good, it's dead - now what else can I kill or screw" is more likely to get both - and is almost the thought process that goes on at weekends outside many clubs in the UK.

That is of course changing, but unsurprisingly children especially have not had millions of years of programming taken out of them and so will instinctively pick on those who display traits that were not linked to success.

Many cultures are adapting to this new world, but the pace of change that is required is great. Cultures take longer to alter, and are doing so at different rates - ranging from acceptance through illegality to state sanctioned murder.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Instinctively?

Do humans have instincts?

[Greyblades]

None strong enough to excuse being an offensive dolt.

[HoreTore]

None

Correct.

We have reflexes and we have drives, but we do not have instincts. We use our brains instead, and we do make decisions.

[rory_20_uk]

A vast amount of published, peer reviewed literature disagrees with you.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

A vast amount of published, peer reviewed literature disagrees with you.

~:smoking:

Yes, pre-70's published, peer reviewed literature.

After the 70's tough, instinct has been abandoned as a meaningful term in psychology.

EDIT: You will still find the term used in other branches of science though, but that's just sloppy use of terminology, like the butchering of physics terms common in social science.

[rory_20_uk]

One from 2014 (http://esciencecentral.org/journals/psychological-disorders-and-social-distress-affecting-todays-youth-in-italy-the-new-face-of-adolescent-problems-16571-2329-9525-3-114.pdf)

Lots and lots in all sorts of fields in google scholar. Clearly not such a passe term.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

One from 2014 (http://esciencecentral.org/journals/psychological-disorders-and-social-distress-affecting-todays-youth-in-italy-the-new-face-of-adolescent-problems-16571-2329-9525-3-114.pdf)

Lots and lots in all sorts of fields in google scholar. Clearly not such a passe term.

~:smoking:

Uhm....

Where does that paper argue for the existence of human instinct...? It mentions the "instinct for improvement"... Human development is most certainly something one can tamper with(like the desire to run away when panicking). An instinct cannot be tampered with. Clearly a sloppy use of the term.

[Kadagar_AV]

One from 2014 (http://esciencecentral.org/journals/psychological-disorders-and-social-distress-affecting-todays-youth-in-italy-the-new-face-of-adolescent-problems-16571-2329-9525-3-114.pdf)

Lots and lots in all sorts of fields in google scholar. Clearly not such a passe term.

~:smoking:

Humans have instincts, of course. Protecting a baby as an example, is an instinct.

Instincts can be changed though. I just have to look at my dog - when he sees a rabbit his instincts kicks in and he goes into hunter mode. On a command from me his training kicks in and he stands down.

Might be that some psychologists have changed the terms, but without a degree in psychology one are quite safe to talk about instincts.

[HoreTore]

Humans have instincts, of course. Protecting a baby as an example, is an instinct.

Instincts can be changed though. I just have to look at my dog - when he sees a rabbit his instincts kicks in and he goes into hunter mode. On a command from me his training kicks in and he stands down.

You're talking about strong drives.

The psychological definition of instints is behaviour that cannot be changed. Anything that can be changed is a drive. Humans have evolved beyond instincts, and we have a thought process(conscious or unconscious) before we do the things you believe to be an instinct. Protecting an infant definitely involve a decision to be made, and we often make the decision not to protect said infant. This would not have happened if it was an instinct.

EDIT: Basically, the more complex a creatures neural system is, the less instinctive behavior it will have. The reason is evolutional, it is clearly preferable not to have instincts, as these force actions. Being able to make a decision means you can adapt your actions, and the advanced neural system allows you to make a decision. Humans, having developed an extremely complex neural system, has evolved away from instincts.

[rory_20_uk]

OK... let's choose a simple ones:

Babies suckling when their cheek is brushed.
Babies grasping when something is placed into their hand.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

OK... let's choose a simple ones:

Babies suckling when their cheek is brushed.
Babies grasping when something is placed into their hand.

~:smoking:

That's called a primitive reflex.

A baby turtle heading for the sea as soon as it's born is an instinct.


Babies start searching when their cheek is brushed btw, they start suckling when their mouth is touched.

[Montmorency]

By the same token, there's no need to call adaptive motor-planning "decision-making", as the concept denoted is a hallmark of outdated mentalism, and it consists of some sort of ethereal discontinuity within the process that simply does not exist.

[Husar]

You're talking about strong drives.

The psychological definition of instints is behaviour that cannot be changed. Anything that can be changed is a drive. Humans have evolved beyond instincts, and we have a thought process(conscious or unconscious) before we do the things you believe to be an instinct. Protecting an infant definitely involve a decision to be made, and we often make the decision not to protect said infant. This would not have happened if it was an instinct.

EDIT: Basically, the more complex a creatures neural system is, the less instinctive behavior it will have. The reason is evolutional, it is clearly preferable not to have instincts, as these force actions. Being able to make a decision means you can adapt your actions, and the advanced neural system allows you to make a decision. Humans, having developed an extremely complex neural system, has evolved away from instincts.

Decisions are myth anyway, you should upgrade you knowledge on that subject and read Montmorency's thread about the Blind Brain Theory, which explains that decisions are just our TTBS fooling itself to think it could change anything about the inevitable output that is merely a predetermined result of the input we got.

Edit: I see Monty himself was faster. ~D

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well spank my butt and call me Sally. You all is PHEE-losso-fizin'!!!!!

[Brenus]

“Sexual orientation, yes, I can” So why don’t you have a go? If you don’t mind the idea of kissing a man, having sex with a man, as it is a choice, why don’t you try?

“Again, our founding fathers executed homosexuals” Wow, and I thought they were nice people, enlightened people… Hey, the Roman Emperors were given Christians to the lions (allegedly), so can we carry on doing it? Or put them on a cross?

“In what culture other than now has it been tolerated”: Ancient Rome (i.e. Julius Caesar being the man of all women and woman of all men), Greece (i.e. Theban Holly Battalion), Monsieur Frere du Roi, Louis the XIV’s brother being openly gay, Henry the III, King of France, openly gay, etc…

[rory_20_uk]

That's called a primitive reflex.

A baby turtle heading for the sea as soon as it's born is an instinct.


Babies start searching when their cheek is brushed btw, they start suckling when their mouth is touched.

Now this has entered the world of semantics.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

By the same token, there's no need to call adaptive motor-planning "decision-making", as the concept denoted is a hallmark of outdated mentalism, and it consists of some sort of ethereal discontinuity within the process that simply does not exist.

But again, that is quite distinct from the concept of instinct.

[HoreTore]

Now this has entered the world of semantics.

~:smoking:

No.

I took your use of "instinctinvely" to signify something which cannot be changed, ie. "genetically programmed". The action you described is not of that category.

Primitive reflexes are distinct from instincts because they are lost after a certain period of time, btw. If adults also suckled whenever something grazed their mouths, we would have had instincts.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Now this has entered the world of semantics.

~:smoking:

You say that as though semiology and ontogeny aren't engaged in the same inquiry.

[Kadagar_AV]

So... I heard the government is monitoring Twitter?

Like, wazup wiv dat?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So... I heard the government is monitoring Twitter?

Like, wazup wiv dat?

Sorry, but US political correctness monitors will have to fine you for your poor communication choice. Speech characterizable as urban African-American dialect is not permissible to Austro-Swedes. You will simple have to continue to endure the unbearable being of whiteness.

[Kadagar_AV]

LOL!!

That was just my way of :focus:

[Vincent Butler]

Still not sure why anyone would care if the government is monitoring twitter. Its a website based around the concept of attention-whoring. Come on, man. :2thumbsup:

Not like they would gain any information, right? Just make them go brain-dead that much faster. But no, the fear is that if the government goes totalitarian (and some are trying, now for a new uproar), they will take those who have posted what they call insurrection and put them away. Or what they call racism, or hate speech, or you name it. That is the fear, and it is not totally groundless.

[HoreTore]

But no, the fear is that if the government goes totalitarian

Indeed, there are several loonies in the US who wants to rule by the bible, which is the first example of totalitarian rule in the world(the Anabaptist in a german town I can't remember the name of right now).

[HoreTore]

....not to mention that in the minds of these 'champions of free speech', being rightly called a racist hick is the same as living in North Korea.