ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Capitalist Pig wrote:you havn't disproved that your beliefs can be influenced by the genetics of your ancestors.
It is not up to us to disprove that view. It's up to those who advance it to do produce the evidence for it, e.g which particular gene or combinations of genes govern beliefs and where they are situated on the chromosome. In view of what biology knows about genes and what sociology and culture know about ideas we can say that the view "our beliefs can be influenced by the genetics of our ancestors" is pretty implausible. More on this in our pamphlets Are We Prisoners of Our Genes? It doesn't contain any adverts so should be easy to read. Here's an extract:
Quote:… there is no argument about the principle that genes govern the physical anatomy of an organism via the instructions they transmit to the cells of which all living things are composed. An organism's basic structure and the way it is maintained is inherited even if the precise way it is expressed can vary depending on the environment. For instance, if a plant gets more of what is required for growth it will grow bigger than one, other things being equal, that gets less.All organisms react to stimuli they receive from their environment—this, in fact, is what "behaviour" means in the biological sense. This is not always an automatic, reflex or knee-jerk reaction. It is in plants, insects and bacteria and in some of the behaviour of all animals. However, those animals that have a more developed nervous system including a brain have the capacity to react—to behave—in the light of their previous experience. Such behaviour cannot be said to be governed by their genes; what is gene-governed in such cases is the capacity to react from previous experience, not the reaction itself.The extent of such non-gene-governed behaviour in a particular species depends on the level of development of its nervous system and brain. The less developed this is, the less the scope that the organisms of the species have for such behaviour. On the other hand, the more developed the brain—the more space it has for storing and retrieving experiences as memory—the greater is the scope for non-gene governed, or "acquired", behaviour.Of all animals humans have the most developed brains, which means that we have a greater capacity—a far greater capacity, in fact—for acquired behaviour than any other animal; which in turn means that human behaviour, as the reaction of members of our species to the environments in which they find themselves having to live, is able to be much more versatile than that of all other animals. This capacity of humans for adapting their behaviour to the environment that they happened to have been brought up in is what distinguishes us as an animal species—this biologically-inherited capacity must, in fact, be a key feature of any adequate definition of the term "human nature".That members of our species are able to adapt to different environments does indeed have a biological basis, in our biologically evolved and inherited brains. What genes determine in humans are the physical characteristics and mode of functioning of this brain, but not the actual behaviour and behaviour patterns these brains enable us to engage in and which we actually do engage in.This applies even more so to the ideas we hold which have varied immensely over the time humans have existed.
That didn't take long to get rid of him.It's only a week since the demonstrations began.Don't forget the meeting this Sunday on "The Fall of Tsarsm" to hear more about the background:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/talk-head-office-3pm-2
No, Pig, that's just the sociological fact that's the "study" is trying to explain. It's the "explanation" they come up with that is the junk science. They are claiming that there are genes both for a belief in god(s) and for atheism and that because those who have the supposed gene for religion are outbreeding those who have the supposed gene for atheism it is atheism that will eventually die out.
Quote:Atheism is as natural as religion, study suggestsIt may seem obvious that how you’re brought up will influence your worldview, but it turns out there’s a genetic base too.Those with a higher capacity to believe in a god have certain genes.The researchers of the study explain that before the 19th century, there was probably little difference in reproduction rates regardless of whether you had the genes or not.However this then changed: “By the mid-19th century, scientific discoveries had moved to a point that human reproduction was sufficiently well understood that fertility rates began to be impacted, especially in the emerging industrial countries,” the scientists explain.And just as the discovery of evolution was made, the genes that make someone more likely to be religious “gained a reproductive advantage – and were better able to spread through the population,” The Times reports.It's all based on the presupposition that there are genes for religion and for atheism. But this is absurd. People's ideas are not what genes govern (its anatomy and physiology). These are influenced by society and culture.If I'd been the supervisors of these "researchers" I'd have sent them away for regurgitating arguments that went out, as Dave B has pointed out, with the eugenicists and told them to start again.
The presentations and discussion at that panel meeting they held on the same subject in Chicago last year was dire, with the ghost of Lenin ever present:https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Tz2gERLo9S4J:https://platypus1917.org/2016/07/1With Jack Conrad of the Weekly Worker (originally “The Leninist”) and now as the tba Mark Osborn of the "Alliance for Workers Liberty" as well, Lenin, with his distortion of what socialism means, is going to be hovering around at this meeting too. Fortunately, this time we'll be there.
This is clearer (at least on my browser):http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP110I don't suppose the media will be that interested in our "Leadership" election at Conference when we select a new one by lot.
Haven't you any relatives in Co Donegal or Co Monaghan? Resuming the family business is a done deal there.
Vin wrote:Perhaps we should seek more independent advice.No. Let's not make the same mistake a second time of asking a question when we don't want to know the answer. Let's just leave things as they are. Quieta non movere, as Gnome might put it.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the difference with these is these are reposting of BBC clips, which the bbc seems happy to allow on social media, however to edit and insert into our own work is a different matter (that's a derivitive work).That sounds sensible. So, in practice, we wouldn't have to take down or re-edit any of the videos on our site(s) since I don't think there are any which have inserted extracts from interviews. The BBC ruling only applies to the video about which the question was asked. Storm (in a teacup) over.
Vin wrote:Do you consider this decision sound and has the EC acted wisely in this case?I. for one, think, yes. For all sorts of reasons. First, it wasn't urgent. Second, if we go by that reply from the BBC they wouldn't give (sell) us permission to use the interviews even if we did "re-edit" them. Third, the BBC are not going to pursue us anyway, any more than they are going to pursue all the other parties that are re- using their political interviews.
Gnome wrote:BBC Motion Gallery wrote:"If you can prove that the footage you wish to use will be unidentifiable as deriving from a BBC programme (i.e. it will be a close up shot of the interviewee only speaking to camera with no identifiable studio background in vision) and that this interview will not be used in any way to promote or endorse your organisation then we may be able to license this content to you.If you have access to this material currently please feel free to put together a rough edit of how this footage would feature in your introductory video and we can take a final view on whether we could license this content to you.However, the BBC has a very strict editorial policy whereby it does not allow individuals or organisations to use its recorded material to endorse or promote any product service or organisation and so it is highly unlikely that the BBC would allow the reuse of your interview on social media or internet platforms."Emphasis added
That's just the sort of answer I'd expect them to give if you asked them direct. Anyway, presumably, this is in answer to a question from a private individual in a specific context?It's more a question of "don't ask the question if you don't want to know the answer" than of looking a gift horse in the mouth as you seem to want to do. Luckily it wasn't us that asked the question and let's accept the gift horse of the interviews.
Vin wrote:I have to admit that I think the BBC would look ridiculous taking political parties to court for sharing their own political interviews. I think it would be equally ridiculous regarding the use of short clips of interviews.' BBC sues political party for using clips of their own interviews' Yeah, right.I agree entirely. I'd even say "bring it on". Of course they'd first tell us to take it down before going to Court, so there's a failsafe anyway.
If there is a copyright issue over using TV political interviews (which I doubt) I would have thought that "re-editing" them to take out references to the source would make matters worse. In any event, no convincing evidence has yet been produced that using these interviews on our site, as other parties do on theirs, would be a breach of copyright. All we seem to have had is an interpretation of an email reply which we have not seen in full or in context. Frankly, I don't believe there is a "ban" on using them without copyright permission.
gnome wrote:As a result of misinformation and ignorance a perfectly good in-house video was ordered to be taken down off the internet by the 2016 Executive Committee,That's what I was afraid it is all about — getting back at those EC members and branches who opposed that video. A classic case of "cutting off your nose to spite your face", defined by wikipedia as:
Quote:an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one's anger.It is petty and childish and has no place in Party decision-making. Let's hope that the decision of the March EC not to go down this road is the end of the matter.
I can't see anything wrong with the use of extracts from interviews and statements by Party members. I don't know about the other images but I assume they raised no copyright issues. Maybe some members thought they might. But there's no point in raking over the past and raising the copyright issue with regard to our political interviews. That's just cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Latest news: SWP deserts the sinking TUSC ship:https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/uk-far-left-splits-swp-leaves-trade-unionist-and-socialist-coalition-tusc/#
