Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Warwick Hunt says “ Britain to turn Ukraine into radioactive hell-hole.”
😂😂😂
You do know what depleted uranium is, don’t you?Don’t want to excuse the Warmongers and profiteers of the British capitalist class, but “radioactive hell hole”????
I guess we can add physics and chemistry to the very long list of things that True Nazi knows fuck all about.
🤣🤣🤣True Nazi (aka Warwick Hunt) said “How do you figure? Mine was a statement of fact. Nothing more.”
Still confusing fact and opinion, True Nazi??😂😂😂
Don’t worry though, I don’t care what care what they say, I still think your posts are funny. More laugh at than laugh with, but funny all the same.
Nothing like a bit of casual racism to demonstrate your stupidity, are you a tory councillor, by chance.
Other than the genuine moments of unconscious comedy that True Nazi postings provide, one other benefit to society is that he is occupied spending his time on this forum.
This means that when he is on this forum he will have less time to develop the kinds of coersive and controlling personal relationships he will inevitably be try to develop.
This means that he will have less time to gaslight, demean and abuse any intimate relationship partners he might have (if he has any). Be less available to intimidate, stunt, overwhelm and frighten any children he has (if he has any), overcontrol, cower and misuse any dog he might have (if he has one) and bully, terrorise, threaten, intimidate, oppress and browbeat any colleagues he works with (if he has any).
For him it’s a night out, for his family its a night off!!
True Nazi “now who wrote about that, Lenin I think”
🤣🤣 TN wants us to believe he’s read anything by Lenin. 😂😂
He does keep me amused.
To be honest Alan, I was quite tempted to trawl through True Nazi’s postings and pull all of his fabulously stupid comments into a one bumper issue, covering all of his ill informed, joyously imbecilic and frankly Pythonesque prose.
I know it would be a big piece of work, but it would be a genuine labour of love.
A kind of “greatest hits” of his stupidity, preserved in a single archive.
Perhaps the Arts Council might be willing to give me some kind of grant. Who knows we could even get as far as Broadway. True Nazi could sing “Springtime for Putin and Russia” you and I could reprise the Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder roles. Do you fancy it?
I meant to say True Nazi, I was out for a few pints with a couple of mates of mine who are old time Trotskyists and was showing them through your posts and they were absolutely pissing themselves reading your stuff.
They’ve actually found your stuff so funny they’ve started “following” our forum, just to laugh at the stuff you write.
Honestly son, you’re building up a real following. Don’t ever change, they said they think you’re a complete cult. At least I think that’s what they said.
🤣😂🤣😂True Nazi said “ Bojo’s Brains, fuck you’re dumb. Lol”
Thing is, if I’m “dumb”, I’m also the the dumb fucker who hoodwinked you into support statements by Hitler!!
What really cracks me up is that every time you state that I’m stupid, you by implication are stating that you are even stupider, but the beautiful irony is, that your too stupid to even realise how stupid you’re making yourself sound. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Sunday evenings waiting to start work again is always a pain in the arse, but honestly your post tonight really cheered me up.
Seriously don’t ever stop posting your “thoughts” on here. It’s absolute comedy gold.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂True Nazi ” I swear you must be the most credulous cretin on the crust of the earth.”
I can think of a better candidate, and I have the proof to show it!
Still got your neat little armband, True Nazi??
The point I was trying to make, perhaps not clearly, is that “human nature” in the form of instinctual behaviours and brain stucture are a sizeable componant of our repertiore of behaviours.
They form the bedrock of our ongoing development and learning, and how we learn and what we learnt is varied but is biologically dependent.
However these instincts and brain structure of humans (and to all mammals to a larger or lesser extent) are strongly linked (through evolution) to cooperation, mutual aid, nurture and care for other members of our species and to care for other species (that’s why we have pets and why most of these pets are mammals, you don’t get much affectional back from a tarantula)
I think you have missed the point that I was trying to make.
The point is, is that the way that experience shapes/adapts our brain to survive in its environment is based on not only the experience itself but on the options for development set by the biology of the brain for it to develop in the first place.
You say “ That the way an individual behaves shapes the physical brain, in the ways you point out, again shows that the genetic structure a human has at birth has even less influence on their behaviour”.
I didnt say that the “way the individual BEHAVES” I said it is the biologically evolved ways the organism responds to the experiences the organism encounters, that influences the ways in which the brain develops.
So in the example I have of the higher levels of cortisol that are produced in regularly anxiety provoking experiences, (especially in infants and young children) the cortisol inhibits growth in areas such as long term memory, strategic planning and relaxation. It also increases the level of arousal, vigilance and short term reactivity. These responses are not conscious but occur as part of a “pre programmed” useful survival response and changes occur because of our evolutionary inheritance.
The process is far more complex than a simple learned behaviour.
This is why personality typology is linked to experiences, psychopaths personalities for example are not generally born but are generally results of many factors, including their early experiences.
If in the example given, the process of being psychopathic was a simple learned behaviour based on what the “genetic structure a human had at birth” it would be a simple process to support the individual to unlearn their behaviour, unfortunately that is not the way it works out in practice.
ALB – “what is determined by these (genes) is the capacity to learn behaviour, a fairly wide range in the case of humans”
Without being overly critical, I think it is too simplistic to state that our genes set us up as some kind of learning computer which then takes in information and then learns behaviour from the experiences it encounters.
Similarly those who criticise the classic Behaviourist Theories of people like Skinner, which state that behaviours are learned from the environment, that innate or inherited factors have very little influence on behaviour, do not state that learning from the environment does not exist, but rather that behaviour, personality, etc are a more complex interplay of instinct, functionality and experience.
For example Alan has described the caring and empathetic behaviour of some animals with regards to the young of other species (this can also be observed with some animals caring for the young of its own species, even though they are not their own offspring).
What is important to note is that when we see this kind of nurturing and empathetic behaviour, it is behaviour which is seen by animals which are mammals (very occasionally it might be seen by birds, but this is on a much less develop way and is much, much less common).
This behaviour has not been learned through some form of operant conditioning, if that was the case what would be the “tangible reward” of giving up your “survival energy” in order to care for another creature which does not aid the survival of the nurturing animal or its offspring and nor does it reward it in any tangible way.
Nurture, cooperation, mutual aid is part of the evolutionary inheritance of all mammals. For animals such as insects, amphibians, reptiles, testudines, etc. the survival conundrum is solved by number. For example a frog produce thousands of tadpoles and only need two to survive to breeding in order to maintain the species. The adult frog provides no protection.
For Mammals the production of milk and the associated nurture of the vulnerable infant increases the survival chances. Through a process of natural selection, which began from the emergence of the first mammals, those mammal mothers who were instinctively most nurturing and supportive were more likely to survive, similarly those infants that sought out nurture were also more likely to survive.
More complex mammals have longer periods of infant vulnerability. This is because the brains of more complex animals are bigger and therefore need to be born earlier in development. If the brain develops too far before birth the birth canal is too small to cope with the large brain. These mammals also produce fewer numbers of offspring, therefore the survival of the individual infant is more important to the survival of the species.
Human babies are born at a very early stage of development; if you compare the skills and behaviour of a new born lamb and a new born human child you can see the difference in terms of development. A new born lamb can walk and suckle independently within the first day of life.
Because of this the impact of infant care giver attachment relationships are more complex in mammals who are born in earlier stages of development, because they experience a greater time period where they are dependent and vulnerable. The formative experience is based on their instinctive response to nurture and the instinctive nurturing of the mother animal.
The imporance of nurture as opposed to food, as a determinent of attachment was clearly demonstrated by the harrowing experiments of monkeys undertaken by Harlow and Harlow.
This is a mix of not just instinct and learned behaviour but we also need to take into account the level of brain development that takes place during those experiences. A new born human baby’s brain is not the same as a 2 year old baby’s brain. A simple example of this is the use of internal language. A new born baby has no external language, but it also does not have any internal language, the internal speech we have which is also known as the interpsychic conversation. As the baby has no speech, the way they process experience is different from the way that the verbal child or human processes experience.
Vulnerability and safety have a profound impact not just in terms of learning and understanding the world but also in terms of the developing brain. For example high levels of cortisol (which is produced when we experience anxiety) reduce brain growth in more logical areas of the brain which leads to an increase in neural connections in the reactive limbic system, this is seen most clearly in scans of the brains of infants who have experienced poor early years care or have experienced abuse and or neglect. The brains of these infants are differently shaped compared to those who have experienced good early years care.
This is part of the process of the brain adapting to the most successful way of surviving in what has become a dangerous and an often life threatening situation. A reactive response with high levels of monitoring, high levels of anxiety and low levels of relaxation are more successful in this situation, than having a more thoughtful reflective response, which might end up with you being killed or maimed. Statistically the most likely people to kill you in infancy are your family.
Therefore the computer based analogy of hardware (instinct and genes) software (learning and experience) interaction is not really correct. The interplay of experience actually alters the physical hardware, these physical changes are changes that have been determined by the experiences we face but the ways in which the changes take place are preset because of our physiology, which has developed as a part of our evolutionary and therefore genetic inheritance.
Alan said “TS prefers to believe the Russian account”
To be fair to True Nazi he doesn’t just believe only Russian accounts, he was more than happy to believe a whole load of bullshit from Hitler that I fed him.
It seems he’s not too picky, he’ll believe anything he thinks comes from Putin, regardless of what it says and regardless if it actually came from Putin.
The irony is that if this easily fooled, gormless git was living in 1930s – 1940s Germany, he’d be first in the queue for the Nuremberg Rallies and would be in his element smashing up Jewish shops.
He’s already demonstrated that he finds the concept of turning human beings into fertiliser. I’ve no doubt he’d make a first class Nazi concentration camp guard.
Then he’d be able to live out his macabre fantasies without any real physical risk to himself, which would suit him as he clearly demonstrated that he’s a physical coward as well as an intellectual coward.
