which category are you under?

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
The basics are quite predicable. A boot camp. A police stop. I have done a lot of mammal training including here and at work. :) And I am ruthless on, yours truly. Ram Das, used to say, "if the body wants shade, sit in the sun."

The Theory of Human Behavior is all that is practiced for power. It is all that is needed.

I really don't know what you mean here. If you set up conditions mammals, including humans will responds almost identically.

In a police stop people will respond almost identically to various ploys they teach.

Now, I will hear you say, not all motivators of human behavior are known, not all are tested.

I think they are all known and tested by greed, protection, sacrifice betrayal, and conquest from the beginning. This is all meant to exclude pop psychology and goofy, I thought, that they thought, so I shouda said, stuff.

It is also meant to exclude psycho-analysis as anything but part of the problem. I already said the only problem as far as that goes, for day to day. We never get to a reasoning mind before, in a few days, we are fooled into thinking happiness is a construct of the environment.

This can take years of practice to remember all the time, while the babble-mind messes it up, but the enlightenment takes but an instant.

I will have to add, that when you read about this, you might find a lot of controversy. Is it science or even scientific if you are not allowed to experiment on human subjects.

I say, that is so recent, it is hardly necessary. Plenty of evidence on these experiments in the history of oppression of fellow humans.

BTW, I just say a very interesting movie. Out of the Ashes. About a Jewish Doctor that was forced to assist Dr. Joe.
The entire Nazi record is a study in the Theory.
Interesting. And, not having a counterargument, I concede.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
The difference between junk science and peer reviewed study is vast.
I am mentioning peer-reviewed junk science. There is a lot of it, and not only in the social sciences&disciplines. I refute this claim: they are not only coterminous but they overlap. No vast difference. Peers have agendas, and they are harder to contain and control ... let alone identify ... in the more descriptive and less theoretical fields.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I am mentioning peer-reviewed junk science. There is a lot of it, and not only in the social sciences&disciplines. I refute this claim: they are not only coterminous but they overlap. No vast difference. Peers have agendas, and they are harder to contain and control ... let alone identify ... in the more descriptive and less theoretical fields.
The peer-reviewed paper that made a conclusion about guns with which you disagree and label junk science, I do not. I don't have the luxury of choosing to disregard the findings accepted by peer-review while professing to extoll science itself. The peer-review has not lost my confidence.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
The peer-reviewed paper that made a conclusion about guns with which you disagree and label junk science, I do not. I don't have the luxury of choosing to disregard the findings accepted by peer-review while professing to extoll science itself. The peer-review has not lost my confidence.
One of the most respected gun grabbers in America, and darling of the left, now utterly disgraced. Completely falsified the data to show that America was not into guns at all at its founding.

It is guys like Bellisiles who did the "research" that "proves" that conservatives are "dumb and crazy".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America

"
Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture is a discredited 2000 book by Michael A. Bellesiles on American gun culture. The book is an expansion of a 1996 Journal of American History article by Bellesiles, and argues that guns were uncommon during peacetime in early United States, and that a culture of gun ownership arose only much later. It initially won the prestigious Bancroft Prize, but later became the first book in that prize's history to have its award rescinded. The revocation occurred after Columbia University's Board of Trustees decided that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."[SUP][1]"[/SUP]
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
One of the most respected gun grabbers in America, and darling of the left, now utterly disgraced. Completely falsified the data to show that America was not into guns at all at its founding.

It is guys like Bellisiles who did the "research" that "proves" that conservatives are "dumb and crazy".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America

"
Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture is a discredited 2000 book by Michael A. Bellesiles on American gun culture. The book is an expansion of a 1996 Journal of American History article by Bellesiles, and argues that guns were uncommon during peacetime in early United States, and that a culture of gun ownership arose only much later. It initially won the prestigious Bancroft Prize, but later became the first book in that prize's history to have its award rescinded. The revocation occurred after Columbia University's Board of Trustees decided that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."[SUP][1]"[/SUP]
We were talking about scientific research though.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
And you do not have to be a scientist, a psychologist or even a dentist from Detroit to part of the anti-gun Agenda.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
One of the most respected gun grabbers in America, and darling of the left, now utterly disgraced. Completely falsified the data to show that America was not into guns at all at its founding.

It is guys like Bellisiles who did the "research" that "proves" that conservatives are "dumb and crazy".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America

"
Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture is a discredited 2000 book by Michael A. Bellesiles on American gun culture. The book is an expansion of a 1996 Journal of American History article by Bellesiles, and argues that guns were uncommon during peacetime in early United States, and that a culture of gun ownership arose only much later. It initially won the prestigious Bancroft Prize, but later became the first book in that prize's history to have its award rescinded. The revocation occurred after Columbia University's Board of Trustees decided that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."[SUP][1]"[/SUP]
it is key to the lefty mindset and their groupthink.

academic fraud, fabricated data, and all manner of bullshit wrapped up in the robes of academia is the primary method for pushing their agenda through.

silent spring, the population bomb, the ddt ban, the great garbage crisis, the coming iceage then global warming then "climate change", 20 year old gangbangers getting shot by cops in the commission of violent crimes being labeled "child victims of gun violence" etc etc etc.

it doesnt matter that the facts are faked, it doesnt matter that the conclusions are absurd, alarmist or proven wrong, what matters is the importance of "The Message", and if they have to lie, twist the language into a knot, fabricate evidence or just make the whole thing up, well, it's all in a good cause.

It's For The Greater Good!
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Are we quite sure that chattel and cattle are two different things? And are slaves cattle? Can cattle own chattel?

I always wondered about that.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Are we quite sure that chattel and cattle are two different things? And are slaves cattle? Can cattle own chattel?

I always wondered about that.
actually cattle ARE chattel.

chattel is any moveable property, things which you can take with you when you sell you property, which excludes serfs since they are as much a part of the real estate as an outhouse or a barn.

this of course did not make them "volunteers" but AC cannot argue that any more.

now he just repeats the o non-sequitur "serfs were not chattel" as if that proves something.

serfs were not teakettles either. that didnt make them any less slaves.

he is just in denial.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
actually cattle ARE chattel.

chattel is any moveable property, things which you can take with you when you sell you property, which excludes serfs since they are as much a part of the real estate as an outhouse or a barn.

this of course did not make them "volunteers" but AC cannot argue that any more.

now he just repeats the o non-sequitur "serfs were not chattel" as if that proves something.

serfs were not teakettles either. that didnt make them any less slaves.

he is just in denial.
now that you break it down for me like that, i think abandon is right and you are just trying to impose your own unique definition on things.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Whats Mine is Mine, and whats Yours Is Yours
The federal government should concern itself with national and international concerns and let state and local concerns be handled by the state and local government
The government should intrude on my personal life as little as possible
It's my house, i can paint it any colour i like, and maybe i like Purple! the city cannot force me to change it.
My private business is no concern of the government, as long as i pay my taxes and aint engaged in criminal acts they should leave me alone as much as possible.
America is the most important country on earth because THATS WHERE I LIVE! other country's problems are THEIR problems
If somebody stumbles and falls, we should give em a hand up, but we shouldnt have to carry them around on our backs for the next 20-30 years.
The government should concern itself with the economy of AMERICA, not the rest of the world's bullshit. let china worry about china's economy.
Before we make a radical change to our society, you should convince me with proof that your new idea is better than what we currently have.

if you agree with these statements, sorry bro, youre a conservative.

sorry bro.
while i agree with some (not all) of your statement here doc, it sort of all falls apart anyway in the light of day where one day a one world gov is the likely outcome and your/our corpsgov is not just cognizant of such but is in a continuous effort to bring such about...the world you reference simply does not and will not exist imo...so what now?
the point is that aren't the political categories generally used (as here in the op) somewhat obsolete?
 
Top