Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Capitalist Pig wrote:ALB wrote:Alan, I think you've misunderstood the reason for continuing to argue with critics like Pig. It's not to convince them (some of them are pretty pig-headed) but to deal with the arguments and prejudices they put forward as these are held by others who might be more amenable, as well of course to inform ourselves and hone our arguments.Anyway, to return to the subject.Capitalist Pig wrote:it is supported within the scientific community that our actions and our thought patterns can turn on and off certain genes. Its called neurplactisity.
Are you sure that this is what "neoplasticity" means? As far as I can see, it actually argues the opposite of the view that we are prisoners of our genes. The clue is in the name itself: neuroplasticity. which would suggest that the brain is "plastic", i.e. not "hardwired". Take this passage from the wikipedia article on it:
Quote:The adult brain is not entirely "hard-wired" with fixed neuronal circuits. There are many instances of cortical and subcortical rewiring of neuronal circuits in response to training as well as in response to injury.In any event, this is the opposite of your original claim that genes influence what we think. "Turning on and off" genes (if that's what happens) would not alter the fact that what genes govern is our anatomy and physiology, in this case that of the brain, not what sort of ideas we hold..
the actions and thoughts of a person can change the way genes are expressed making the appearance of a religious gene. I'm not a neuroscientist but this is pretty easy to understand.
Didn't think it was possible for one person to get so much wrong and destroy his own argument in so few words. Well done CP, you deserve some kind of award for this feat.Neuroplasticity is the ability of the nerves and brain to alter and replace functions in response to environmental factors. For instance it has been noted that in people who have sufffered head injury or stroke that areas of the brain that have been damaged or lost may have their functions taken over by areas of the brain that previously provide other functions. A similar process has been noted around the work done with infants with cerebal palsy through a process that became known as conductive education. What this means is effectively the precise opposite of the argument you are attempting to support., i.e.. that the brain is somehow hard wired to perfom in a particular "genetically predetrmined" way. This would mean that individuals and their brains would not be influenced by external factors such as the ideas of others, the development of its own understanding of the world, its own thought processes, etc.I will try and keep this simple for you.The argument you are putting forwrd is that some "genetic" predisposition exists which exists which makes it more likely that children born to (and not necessarily brought up by) religious parents, will be predisposed to religious thoughts. As these religious people are more fecund (which is debateable in itself) they will out reproduce athiests (who are claimed to be less fecund)The contra argument (which you are putting ironically through your mis use of the concept of neuroplasticity) is that this detreminist "we are controlled by our genes" approach is not iin keeping with reality.What might be called the "Central Dogma" of simple molecular biology, (which is more or less the crude view taken in the bad science article quoted}, states that biological information is transferred sequentially and only in one direction (from DNA to RNA to proteins). The logical consequence of this approach is that it leads to belief in absolute determinism, which leaves you utterly powerless to do anything about the health of your body, your thought processes, your behavious, etc. it's all driven by your genetic code, which you were born with.However, scientistific research has completely shattered the base premis of this argument, it appears we actually have control over how your genetic traits are expressed (and this is the key word here) this may range from how you think, how the environment and experience influence what you think, to what you eat and the environment you live in.The Human Genome Project set out to map out all human genes and their interactions, which would (acording to the central dogma of simple molecular biology) than serve as the basis for curing virtually any disease, including diseases of the mind. however, not only did they discovered that the human body consists of far fewer genes than previously believed, they also discovered that these genes do not operate as the central dogma would have predicted.A simple example of the way that environmental factors can impact on the expressino of genes is the experiment carried out by John Cairns, a British molecular biologist which produced evidence that our responses to our environment determine the expression of our genes. Cairns took bacteria whose genes did not allow them to produce lactase, the enzyme needed to digest milk sugar, and placed them in petri dishes where the only food present was lactase. Much to his astonishment, within a few days, all of the petri dishes had been colonized by the bacteria and they were eating lactose. The bacterial DNA had changed in response to its environment. So, information flows in both directions, from DNA to proteins and from proteins to DNA, contradicting the "central dogma."Not only that, the central argument of the article is also very questionable. In many deprived areas of the UK the level of child birth is extremely high, but the level of religious observance is virtually zero. In Northern Ireland, the level of reproduction in the catholic population has been outstripping that of the protestant population for many years, however the level of religious observence is falling drastically in both communities. if we are genetically pre ordained to have religious beliefs by our ancestors, how is it that levels of religious belief of falling in many parts of the world?
He most probably has it, but if he's from Glasgow a copy of "No Mean City" is a must, although it's a novel, it does give a very clear social history of Glagow between the wars.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I should have done a direct link, ALB, rather than a c and p. so thanks for thatOur new leader will be blogged by ourselves (is he going to be photoed…the case is the face ) and just maybe someone will pick up on it. I will remind Libcom discussion list of the outcome to perhaps spark some exchanges….(BTW, Is my name going to be included? Party Leader Johnstone has a nice ring…or maybe just simply Fuhrer Johnstone will suffice, i'm sure Matt has already called me that at a branch meeting)But really this is another event that the Media Committee should make the most of with a press release to all the news outlets with a background explanation of our democracy and no leader principle. They have the email list so it is simply drafting the statement and clicking send. Perhaps the "lucky" winner can be carried down Clapham High Street on a "throne" or "litter" or "sedan chair". A bit of street theatre of the "Heid-yin" riding on the backs of his party slaves with devotees following in the procession…a video made and posted on You Tube and Facebook…Didn't someone say we lacked humour in our publicity?So only males are allowed to be in the lottery then?
ALB wrote:Haven't you any relatives in Co Donegal or Co Monaghan? Resuming the family business is a done deal there.i can see my future as smuggling pease pudding, stottie cake and broon ale going north and bringing truck loads of illicit irn bru, Edinburgh rock and scotch pies back the other way.
An aspect of Scottish independence not so far discussed is that if Scotland is independent as part of the EU presumably that would require the resumption of a hard border between the EU (Scotland) and the remainder of the UK. I don't know if you still have the family steel bonnets, Alan, but there might be reviving for us to do.During the lawless periods on the border whisky was distilled and smuggled across the border both ways, (Black Rory was a famous smuggler of illicit hooch out of Rothbury). Northumbrian whisky died out after the Act of Union but I might have to get the whisky still boiling again! (All profits to the party)I wondered why there was a set of spurs on my dinner plate tonight Alan, with a little note from my beloved saying long live Kinmont Willie!
alanjjohnstone wrote:I would have thought the news of the 2nd Indy Ref ould have provokes some interest in our fellow members but it may well be correct that the tongue-in-cheek reference on another thread to the Socialist Party of the Home Counties or Socialist Party of London is truer then we believehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/kent-and-sussex-regional-branch-maidstone?page=19#comment-38685Perhaps, it is the realisation of the very weak state of the Party in Scotland that it might be better to ignore developments there. However, i thought my slightly heretical suggestion that we combine publicity with other political parties and groups and share a platform with those who share moreorless our political conclusion on independence for Scotland would have resulted in some sort of accusation of breaking our hostility clause.Although it is not viewed a likely prospect ..May refusing the referendum or insisting it is on her own time-table, we may well face a Catalonian-like unauthorised referendum, with certain political sanctions upon the Scottish Government and the SNP.,…perhaps a recipe for UDI.But i did onder about members who individually favoured a vote stay in the EU referendum on the grounds of unity with migrant workers yet a Vote No in the 2014 Scottish Referendum because it divided UK and Scottish workers if their position has changed on the 2 nd referendum.As for the Scottish claim on Northumbria and vice versa…As a Border family i refer you to my SS articlehttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2014/no-1318-june-2014/scottish-english-who-caresSome dates954 Edinburgh is lost to Scottish king Indulf.1018 Lothian is lost to the King of Scots Malcolm II.1139 Matilda grants Northumberland north of the Tees to David I of Scotland.1157 Henry II reclaims Northumberland from ScotlandAnother habit of the border familes was to give the first born son his mother's maiden name as a first name. hence the use of first names like Graham, Elliot, Ridley, Robson, Percy, Charlton, etc. as first names. I came across one or two guys with the first name Johnstone when I worked in Tynedale.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Sturgeon opts for a late 2018/early 2019 independence referendum so to stay in the EU once Brexit details are known.I think i mentioned on another thread that our gut feeling as to oppose independence because it divided workers…Now i think that case is weakened since it is Brexit which will divide workers.We will no doubt advocate our spoiled vote policy as we did previously and suffer the same insignificant and negligible result being utterly side-lined in the debate. This time i hope we can raise the profile and should consider joint discussion forums with those who will either share our tactic or go for abstention. I think we have to join together for a much louder voice on the issue of nationalism, either British, Scottish, or European.Hi Alan, undoubtedly our position is unchanged, however we can use this referendum to highlight the ridiculous oportunistic shennanigans of the leftists. The Militant line, for example, was to support Scottish independence and support Brexit. Are they now going to support Scottish independence because they want continued EU membership for the Scots?As to your question on another thread, there has been one or two comments in the regional press and TV about joining in with out kilted cousins in the north. I suppose at least it would mean we could join a football league we had a chance of winning! The one thing I am not looking forward to is ignorant London based journalists going on about what happens north of Hadrian's Wall, ignoring the fact that it is oveer 70 miles from Wallsend to the Scottish border and that most of the county of Northumberland, a good chunk of Cumbria and the majority of the city of Newcastle is also "north of Hadrian's Wall"
alanjjohnstone wrote:To bring your argument on Occupied Northumberland up to date, i noticed that many try to get their medications free from north of the border and perhaps if Scotland does get independence there will be a move for the border to move southwards and restore the Carlise/Newcastle frontier-line. Radge and radgee too is a word used in Edinburgh. I recall a weegie co-worker surprised that we use the ord chum as a verb…to chum you (accompany) to the shops, for instance. And i remeber him explaining the dispute he had with a shop when he asked for ginger and got told they didn't have any…a weegie generic term for any flavour for what we call ijuice…Shottie or shot can also be used for can i have a shottie of your mobile to make a callI'll reply on the Scottish Indepence thread
Gadgee is a definite Romany/Geordie loan word, very commonly used in the North East, as is radgee (mad) hence radgee gadgee. We also use chore "A'hm ganin oot on the chore" which translates as "darling I'm going out to collect my share dividend" , However we keep toot, not shottie. Barr for a pound (another Romany word) is common, as in that cost us twenty barr, an item of value can therefore be barrey. We use Charva (another Romany word) which I think has been corrupted on a national scale to "chav".There is, of course, a big Romany tradition in the Cheviots, the King of the Gypsies used to be crowned at Kirk Yetholm and I think a lot of the old shepherds and drovers had Romany links.Also lots of similarities between what could be broadly termed Northumbrian dialect and lowland Scots as Lowland Scots is a dialect derivative of Old Northumbrian.The old saying is that a Geordie's just a Scotsman with his brains kicked out. However some of us still consider Edinburgh and the Lothians to really be Scottish occupied Northumbria!
John Pozzi wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote;"Socialists are interested in the abolition of the wages system!"That's perfect Tim! Then conscious socialists' will love the Global Resource Bank alternative world exchange system that abolition's capitalist imposed fiat-money wage-slavery. ;o), jperrr, apart from the fact that it doesn't abolish the wages system:Basicaly you have not answered any of the following questions:Even if you allocate a certain value to the GBR bank, no one else values it in the same wayLeaving the means of production in the hands of the few, continues wage slaveryLeaving the state in the hands of the minority class means that the power of the minority class continuesEven if all of the workers bought into your hair brained scheme, big capital will notNatural resources do not provide wealth on their own they need the application of labourDemocracy is more than owning a share in a bank
John Pozzi wrote:The basis of economics, i.e., the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth is the product of nature – not labour. If money values natural resources people are free to play. Machines can labour.Try telling your fairy story to the tea planation workers in India mentioned in this story.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37936349Your inability to examine the world outside of your miniscule frame of reference is actually quite nauseating. We have you pontificating about your ridiculous daydream, whilst your fellow workers are starved to death while watching their children being prepared to be fed into the same meat grinder of capitalism. If you have any intellectual credibility, question the ridiculous nonsense you are propagating and find out about the real case for socialism. Tell them the machines can do the work and they can just play,
John Pozzi wrote:The fallacy in both Adam Smith's and Karl Marx's theories of economics is the product of labor is not the basis of our economy, the product of nature is. Machine can replace labor and Global Resource Bank shareholder income let's everyone enjoy the good life now, i.e., do what they like. – http://www.grb.netThere's only one problem with what you've written, and that problem is, that your completely wrong. Other than that, it's fine
twc wrote:Tim, I don’t think the Socialist Party has to “solve” all the world’s problems in a capitalist parliament—no matter how dire the capitalist predicament.A capitalist parliament supposedly acts in the interests of its electors.If Socialists hold steadfast to their conviction that they can’t solve capitalism’s problems in capitalism, it’s downright dishonest—as well as political poison—for them to curry favour with an electorate in order to solve a problem that they advocate can’t be solved.That’s what will kill a Socialist Party stone cold motherless dead, just as it did every other party that allowed itself to succumb to reformist tactics on the urgent grounds of:just as an exception—a special case because of [pop in your exceptional circumstances here].just this time—even though we are about to establish a reformist precedent.A Socialist Party can survive the ignorant wrath of liberal humanist voters who see our stance as their betrayal.But a Socialist Party can’t hope to survive its tactical capitulation to liberal humanist fantasies. Remember, they are our, avowedly labour, political enemies. We only defeat them by opposing them.As you rightly fear, we may be kicked out of parliament on such perceived urgent (exceptional) special issues. So what? We pick ourselves up, and dust ourselves off to fight another day. Like love, the path to socialism won’t run smoothly, but it must run true to its Socialist cause, or not at all.In parliamentary confrontation over Socialism, he who bends loses. It is the electorate that must bend before Socialism.It’s no counter argument for anyone to fret that we may [shock!] be rebuffed by that humiliated product of capitalist exploitation, the electorate! What, by the prescient electorate that gave us xxx, yyy, zzz, [who shall remain nameless]!The unconscious cowardice expressed by all advocates of exceptional future reformism—apparently on case-by-case merit—is timidity over being rebuffed by the electorate.For crying out loud, of course we may be rebuffed along the way. One has every reason to think that a century of constant rebuf might have steeled us somewhat.Steadfast holding to Socialism is the only reliable, theoretically justifiable, Socialist course. And that implies: No compromise to reformism — Socialism before reformism.The point I am making, twc is that in a situation such as the one I outlined, if we decide to abstain where we have the deciding vote, we are in effect actually making a choice of one over the other.It is not as much a case of supporting a reform if we vote for it, as supporting a reform if we abstain, in this case a reform that would hurt, even in the short term, the working class and, in the example I gave, the prospects of a Socialist revolution, by in effect, supporting the supression of free speech.
The focus on illegal Mexican immigrants by Donald Trump and his supporteers, is a little ironic on a number of levels. To start with I would think that most Native Americans have a view on teh impact of unchecked immigration (Trump himslef is the son of an immigrant).That aside most of the immigration from Mexico is into states such as New Mexico, California and Texas, states that were taken from independent Mexico following large scale immigration of white settlers into those states from the USA.It could be argued that the Texan revolution came because of unchecked, illegal white immigration, supported by the hope of re-establishing slavery in Texas.
