Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,952
- 82,702
Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why
- Thread starter caramon13_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Evil juju spirits invade your skis and make you a robot, your boner is a figment of collective imagination because society and commodities have convinced you your inauthentic skiing incident is real, when its not.
You can thank me by joining my violent revolution later.
You can thank me by joining my violent revolution later.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Think that chart mixes up psychologist with psychiatrist, psychologists get a doctorate in psychology, whereas psychiatrists are doctors of medicine.Pfft, biology
The difference being that psychology is far less reliant on biology and physiology and chemical imbalances and the like, and more emphasizing clinical counseling and the like.
Most places psychologists can't prescribe drugs, which pretty much says they don't know enough biology and physiology to be allowed to prescribe drugs.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
Quoting Marx doesn't answer any questions. I think we have already firmly established that you know how to quote better men than yourself.
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 14,762
- 2,645
FWIW, I know this thread is about Marxism now, but the Freakonomics podcast re-aired a pretty good episode about suicide this week:
Freakonomics Radio Podcast: "The Suicide Paradox"
Freakonomics Radio Podcast: "The Suicide Paradox"
No. You're also confounding all areas of psychology as being essentially the same (e.g. evolutionary, counseling, clinical, neuro, and quantitative). Each area, and within each area, there's varying degrees of purity. That said, the purity chart is amazing. I've been looking for something like that for a long time.
This will be long and hopefully beautifully broken up, as the past few pages have spewed all over the place, from biology, to crime shows, to dogs, to questions about my climb, and, although sadly very little, to reflecting upon the statement I requested be reflected upon. The original inquiry of pondering suicide as a rational choice, and through the exploration of that choice, understanding modern social realityas ishas lost all focus in favor of not just asides that aren't useful or relevant to that debate, but so many of them that it drowns out any meaningful furthering of it.
Disregarding the fact that I've been asked for citations, provided them (or 'appeals to authority') with analyses of modern society through the lenses of those statements, and then oddly getting admittance to social science not being a hard science in the first place, I'll refrain from using any additional so as to not further provide more ammo for post after post of zealot name-calling by the monkeys here slamming their keyboards. It's too bad, as many modern and past social philosophers provide much insight (next up was David Harvey, one of the most renowned anthropologists in academia and one hodj likely doesn't know but should - maybe if his gpa was higher). As Tanoomba alluded to, the few idiots are a detriment to all.
Firstly, on human beings and human nature:
What does thebeingpart represent in a human being? What is the nature in human nature? Is it malleable? Is it static? Does it change with evolution or with culture? What influences change, if any? Contrary to all the evidence, hodj's or khalid's brains are biophysiologically and psychosocially different than that of an ant. This is obvious. And it's in this contrasting difference where the questions above start to beg.
The first answer to that difference is beyond one of sentience to one of consciousness: we are a part of the animal world, yet separate at the same time. Understanding this separateness is the beginning of trying to understand what human natureis, as opposed to ant or dog nature.
We arenotconcerned with the biophysical processes of consciousness or the evolution of them. Again for the bazillionth time, the whys, hows, of the biological apparatuses that provide the ability of conscious thought or self-awareness is not important here. If you point your misguided finger into biology, then so too must that finger be pointed at neurophysiology and further into biophysics, then into chemistry and finally into the quantum physics of the subatomic behavior itself. Whatisimportant for us is conscious thoughtafter the facilitation is in place: what can we point to that determinesa type of consciousness, or in other words, certain habits of thought or patterns of thinking. Why certain thoughts arise in conscious thought, not what facilitates the conscious.
That is where we begin our journey in my next post.
Disregarding the fact that I've been asked for citations, provided them (or 'appeals to authority') with analyses of modern society through the lenses of those statements, and then oddly getting admittance to social science not being a hard science in the first place, I'll refrain from using any additional so as to not further provide more ammo for post after post of zealot name-calling by the monkeys here slamming their keyboards. It's too bad, as many modern and past social philosophers provide much insight (next up was David Harvey, one of the most renowned anthropologists in academia and one hodj likely doesn't know but should - maybe if his gpa was higher). As Tanoomba alluded to, the few idiots are a detriment to all.
Firstly, on human beings and human nature:
What does thebeingpart represent in a human being? What is the nature in human nature? Is it malleable? Is it static? Does it change with evolution or with culture? What influences change, if any? Contrary to all the evidence, hodj's or khalid's brains are biophysiologically and psychosocially different than that of an ant. This is obvious. And it's in this contrasting difference where the questions above start to beg.
The first answer to that difference is beyond one of sentience to one of consciousness: we are a part of the animal world, yet separate at the same time. Understanding this separateness is the beginning of trying to understand what human natureis, as opposed to ant or dog nature.
We arenotconcerned with the biophysical processes of consciousness or the evolution of them. Again for the bazillionth time, the whys, hows, of the biological apparatuses that provide the ability of conscious thought or self-awareness is not important here. If you point your misguided finger into biology, then so too must that finger be pointed at neurophysiology and further into biophysics, then into chemistry and finally into the quantum physics of the subatomic behavior itself. Whatisimportant for us is conscious thoughtafter the facilitation is in place: what can we point to that determinesa type of consciousness, or in other words, certain habits of thought or patterns of thinking. Why certain thoughts arise in conscious thought, not what facilitates the conscious.
That is where we begin our journey in my next post.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 20,625
- 14,372
You're trying really hard to make yourself sound smart, and it all sounds kind of comical to me. That's the longest post about absolutely nothing I think I've ever read.
If I wasn't at work I'd link that Billy Madison intellectual decathlon clip. You know, that one about incoherent babbling.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Quoting Fromm is not appeal to authority? Why are you separating what is animal and what is human?
Why? Sounds like to me your starting point of thesis is the very begging the question you seem to despise.
I'm not masturbating (well, I'd like to be). I'm telling you where I'm starting, which is not in bone marrow studies or CSI episodes.
Don't leave.
More to come later!
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Ad naseum fallacy.
Still waiting on that hard data to show that material objects reduce capacity for emotional connection to others.
Right of the bat, you mystify the conversation, by implying that the state of being a human is fundamentally more or different from that of any other animal. Simple observation of our closest cousins shows that capacity for culture is not unique to humans.
There is nothing magic about our existence, nothing special. Nothing outside of nature, nothing apart from it. The premise that we are, which is the paradigm within which your argument is framed, is an assertion with no validity.
The very premise that we're separate from nature is false, again, we do not say because ants can build massive ant hills the size of small villages in Africa that they are outside of nature. You fail to grasp my point when you make this statement
Whether we are the same or different in terms of biology and physiology (for every difference between humans and ants you can point to, especially biologically, there are overarching similarities that can also be pointed to, which undermines your argument from a biology standpoint anyway) is irrelevant. What is relevant is that our impact on our surroundings is no different. They alter their environment radically to make their lives as comfortable as possible and so do we.
Right, so basically, "you" as in radical socialists don't care about science, or facts, or how the human species actually functions, what matters is your ideological preconceptions, any evidence which is contrary to is to be disregarded outright. Just like I said.
This is a whole bunch of nothing nonsense. You cannot grasp the complexity of human existence without considering the holistic unity of all human existence. As you say, you outright ignore that. You're only concerned with a tiny sliver which you think justifies your world view and that's it.
Marx is not and was never a valid source material. He never conducted research. His treatise is a political statement, not a scientific one.
It doesn't reduce butreplacesit. In the meantime before my next post, you've got class:
Reading Marx's Capital with David Harvey
I might cut you some slack with the homework, but pay attention, as he's one of the world's leading anthropologists and top cited academics in the humanities. Isn't it interesting he would create a whole video lecture series on that book? What were you studying again, hodj?
edit PS: Next post hopefully tomorrow, for those who are so thoughtfully tuned in.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
So, what you're saying is that you don't have any actual peer reviewed research to justify your views, so you've fallen back on citing Marx again?
Cool story bro.
Let me add that your linking to David Harvey's reading of Das Kapital is both another appeal to authority, and another ad naseum fallacy. What in that diatribe is relevant to this discussion? Nothing. Marx never conducted research on the topic of the correlation between mental well being and material wealth. His work is not a valid primary source. It is a treatise and a political statement, it is not a reseach paper. It is proof of exactly jack and fucking squat except for verification of my statement that you just fall back on regurgitating radical socialist authors as a way to get out of having to frame a real argument and rebuttal to the debate.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
I can see no other interpretation of Dumar's argument than to find a contradiction in that he says ants are different from humans, and yet, they alter their environments as radically as we do. So their lives must be false because they manufacture them as well. So ants thusly are, in fact, like humans, emotionless zombies living manufactured existences. Or all this manufactured environment leads to a false existence stuff is just pseudo intellectual semi religious nonsense.
You guys can decide.
In fact, because ants are essentially controlled by pheromones exuded from the queen and others, spread throughout the colony, you could say that their lives are even MORE manufactured experiences than ours are. So ants must be, by Dumar's logic, living an even more false existence than our own.
You guys can decide.
In fact, because ants are essentially controlled by pheromones exuded from the queen and others, spread throughout the colony, you could say that their lives are even MORE manufactured experiences than ours are. So ants must be, by Dumar's logic, living an even more false existence than our own.