ElBurro-
This is one of the strangest posts I've read in years...
^The reason why the blank slate theory is important is because if it is not true
(and there is a lot a scientific evidence that it isn't) then you can never
realistically expect equality of outcome whatever you do.^
That's nice, but what does that have to do with this conversation? Since when
did the topic change to equality of outcome?
^It seems that you ttosca, accept this on an intellectual level, but have difficulty on an
emotional level as it ties in with your political beliefs.^
What on are earth are you talking about?
^In your last answer (as in the previous one) you both accept that the theory is untrue and also say
that it has not been proved to be untrue.^
No, what I said was that contemporary theories about the nature/nuture argument
have evolved. The 'blank slate' theory was important at the time, since it opened
the ground for the realisation that we are (also) shaped a great deal by our
environment.
^Most know intuitively that the blank slate theory is incorrect anyway,
we all know people who are innately good at certain things despite being in
the same environment as others who are not so good.^
People 'intuitively' knew a whole lot of garbage, such as black people and women
not being equal to white men, and that the sun revolved around the earth, and
that the earth was flat. It's 'intuitively' obvious.
^As for being out of date I would suggest that it is you who is not keeping
up. Your attempts to link what I have put to a racist agenda, which is
essentially a smear and about 100 years out of date, is as fatuous as me linking
you to Stalin's death camps because you have left wing views.^
100 Years ago it was commonplace to link genes with criminality. Now, not so
much. Yet there are still fringe opinions from various nutcases that try to
link genes with criminality and laziness.
^As I have said previously, I really have no political axe to grind, the only
thing that I think is that social policy should be informed by scientific
knowledge about what it is to be a human being (rather than political dogma).^
That's precisely what you're not doing. You're doing the opposite. The latest
scientific theories show that we are a complex mixture of nature and nuture.
There is no general acceptance of biological determinism. Therefore, how we
shape our society, bring up our children, and the values we promote will have
a large or substantial effect on the way they act.
^We are in a position where this knowledge can be gained and expanded (because of
genetic technologies and the types of experiments that can be done now) and the
nature / nuture question can be seriously addressed.^
I think you should do more reading.
^Finally I would like to comment on what you call your analysis. You have a
preexisting agenda^
What are you talking about? What's my 'pre-existing agenda'? Equality of outcome?
Where did I ever say this?
If you mean that I have come to the table with ideas about society, politics,
poverty and civil unrest, then you'd be absolutely right. I don't try to hide
this, and I am not afraid to admit it.
I strongly believe that society can be shaped for better or for worse. It can
be more or less fair, and more or less just. No society is perfect, of course,
but we can choose the type of society we want to live in.
I also believe that poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunities, lack of
jobs, and inequality all create conditions where crime, anger, resentment, drug
abuse, broken families, and civil unrest foment. This is a pretty standard
sociological analysis. Most equal and well-off socities don't have anything
like the social problems that unequal and poor societies do.
^and all you do is send us links to articles that support your
opinions.^
Bizarre! Are you in the habit of posting articles which don't support your
assertions? That's the job of the opposition to make the case.
^That is not analysis because the answer is, in your mind, already
known. I don't really want to get into the detail of your arguements but in one
statement you simplistically correlate the looted areas with a social index of
poverty - as if the poverty / disaffection was a cause or justification.^
No. And this is your problem. Until you realise there is a difference between
understanding and justifying, then your analysis will get you no where. If you
have the belief that to understand is to justify, then you're intellectually
paralised, because morally you don't want to (in your mind) justify riots.
^According to the BBC, over 70% of those arrested were from different postcodes
to the one that they were arrested in and many of those arrested are in
employment.
So? Is there a rule that people rioting can only riot within their own postcode?
This is meaningless. And yes, many of those arrested were in employment, and
many weren't. However, on the whole (in general), theose who rioted came from
poor backgrounds, had poor education, and either were unemployed or were in
shitty low-paid jobs with no future. You'll notice that rich well-to-do people
from Richmond don't tell to riot. Why is that? Is it in their genes? Of course not.
^Unsurprisingly, you did not link to this article as it did not suit
your agenda.^
I didn't even see the article. You are completely paranoid.