... you can talk about whatever you want.
And please do think about using the Althouse Portal to Amazon.
The photo is from April 14th, in Pedernales State Park.
May 6, 2018
At the Blue-Green Café...
... you can talk about whatever you want.
And please do think about using the Althouse Portal to Amazon.
The photo is from April 14th, in Pedernales State Park.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
48 comments:
On May 1, 2018, a jury convicted Jacob Scott Goodwin on a charge of malicious wounding of DeAndre Shakur Harris in a riot in Charlottesville, Virginia, on August 12, 2017.
The incident happened when the Charlottesville city government and the Virginia state government conspired to prevent a peaceful assembly of citizens who wanted to protest against the removal of statues of Confederate generals from city parks.
The city and state governments allowed counter-protesters to physically attack the peaceful group, which had obtained a permit for their protest.
One of the counter-protesters who physically attacked the peaceful protesters was Harris, who subsequently was beaten by Goodwin, one of the peaceful protesters.
Goodwin testified at the trial that he saw Harris run at him, and so Goodwin kicked Harris in self-defense.
Harris is seen on a YouTube video swinging a flashlight to hit another protester, Harold Crews, on the side of the head to enable another counter-protester to grab Crew's Confederate flag.
You can watch the video on YouTube if you register your age to watch it.
You can watch the video also on a VDare webpage.
Harris's physical attack to help grab the flag started the fight. The Charlottesville prosecutor refused to indict Harris until Crews, the man with the flag, pressed charges. Harris was tried ineffectively and so was acquitted despite the video showing him hitting Crews in the head with a flashlight.
The jury recommended that Goodwin be sentenced to ten years in prison and a $20,000 fine.
The right to assemble is endangered in the USA today. The police allow violent attacks on protesters, who subsequently are convicted and imprisoned if they defend themselves.
-----
On this Althouse blog, I have written many comments about the events on Fourth Street, where James Fields drove into a crowd. I have changed my thinking about that matter. I no longer think that Fields was guided by any conspirators when he drove into the crowd.
I explain my reasons for my changed opinion in an article titled Key Considerations About the Events on Fourth Street in Charlottesville, which I published on one of my blogs on Friday.
I still don't see any seagulls in that Pedernales place.
Here's a collusion that Putin and Trump should do.
1) Russia charges Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller for malicious prosecution of Russian citizens.
2) Putin requests that the USA extradite Mueller to stand trial in Russia.
3) Trump approves the extradition request.
Isn’t this timely. I just mocked Althouse's persistently jejeune comments on evolution and tonight Insty has a link to a new DNA study on just the point at issue
https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
No seagulls, but some great hiking, birdwatching and getting away from it all at Pedernales State Park. It's pronounced purd-nal-iss, BTW. And what's astonishing is how fast the stream in the picture can flood after just a few inches of rain upstream. The Texas Hill Country is covered over with streams and waterways that flood quickly, due to the unique geology and topography of the area. When my wife, a native of Chicago, and I moved here in 2000, one of the first things I taught her was not to ever drive through a low-water crossing if water was visibly moving over the road. Turn around, don't drown, they say, and it's good advice.
What a relief to be rid of the angry lefties on the Derschowitz thread.
There are good threads here and there are 400 comment threads best ignored.
Michael K
Yes, an interesting topic but a ruined thread. Not just lefties though, we have some idiotic angry righties too. Althouse needs to prune more. I commend to you the link I posted above as I think you rejected Peterson's claim about differential reproduction in human males. Now one bottleneck like this won’t establish Peterson’s claim, but it’s wrong to dismiss the power of sexual selection or the heritability of behavioral traits.
I was trying to salvage it:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/judge-ellis-is-on-the-case.php
I was musing about fictional analogies like borchgraves the spike and coppels the apocalypse brigade, to how the Carter era could have degenerated sans Reagan The parallels between the better angels and shelleys heart and the current era.
Discus is like that in my experience as opposed to haloscan
Regardless McAuliffe extracted a blood price like that world war 2 al history or how thanos got one of the reality stones, when asked what did he give up "everything' was a soulful answer which was great acting on brolins part.
Unlike thanks I don't think it was a consideration in McAuliffe the global crossing bandit enaber of the mccabe.
Now one bottleneck like this won’t establish Peterson’s claim, but it’s wrong to dismiss the power of sexual selection or the heritability of behavioral traits.
Let's talk about it. I like Peterson but he is a psychologist and they tend to go for the psychology and not the biology.
Pinker's book "The Blank Slate" is devastating to the behaviorists.
I was talking, anyway, about Copper Age events, not today,
Speaking of pseudoscience yale is going all Frankenstein for the 200th anniversary.
Part of all constructivist educational templates is their roots are in Soviet psychology.
That dna study quoted by Instapundit is rather shaky in my opinion. The problem is the same one for Jefferson and Sally. They can say that someone in Jefferson’s family fathered some of her children but they can’t say who definitively. This study assumes that one man fathered a lot of children by many women. But I expect in a small group, there was a lot of incest and it’s possible that brothers shared women. It’s impossible to know.
Well the argument is simple. Some traits help you reproduce by staying alive. Others by helping you get laid. This is called sexual selection. It is what leads to peacock tails, and antler fights. It has been at work in humans too. Now Althouse persistently misunderstands the claims, and thinks when a biologist says, as one theory goes, that aggressiveness is such a trait and that human females prefer aggressive mates that she can refute the claim by pointing at non aggressive males who get mates. But that is the kind of obtuseness that people who say “genes cannot be selfish because they don’t think” evince.
Peterson's point in the present case is simply that if you look at our biological history, wildly different rates of sexual success are endemic, you need to accept that, and adapt your own behavior. He may be right about his particular recommendations or he may be wrong. But he's not being silly to discuss it, and you can’t just “genes can’t feel” the argument away as Althouse does.
Well genes influence behavior and those behaviors are broadly classed into patterns.
So it doesn't seem that radicAl in principle, there is a disturbance in the force or a collapse in the wave firm the way NBC BBC NPR have reacted to him.
Seeing as this was buried in an old thread
https://www.americanthinker.com
From an even older one, why have not Henry Mathews observations not gleaned as much attention as marx.
Mathews lives of the London poor, it was journalism with a Dickensian eye, re earlier speculation of the likelihood of a,russian revolution montefiore suggests that had Alexander 3rd had lived and there hasn't been a transition to a,more Nicholas 2nd
The revolution might have been states another generation.
Now belys Petersburg with perfect hindsight suggests the revolution was right on the brink in 1905-6
The Atlantic Had A Meeting About Kevin Williamson. It Was A Liberal Self-Reckoning.
@Michael K., my gut feeling about the 17:1 study is that there’s Something wrong with it, something they’re overlooking.
Michael K said: "Pinker's book "The Blank Slate" is devastating to the behaviorists."
As a cognitive-behaviorist in good standing, I would reply that we welcome empirical evidence that limits the scope of any theoretical orientation.
The goal is to seek knowledge, not to win arguments.
I think that the genetic influence on behavior has become increasingly evident over the last 40 years. Unfortunately, political correctness does not serve science because it limits what psychologists are willing to study.
That is a whole other kettle of worms.
Borchgrave was saying a lot more than he put out overtly. "Spike" was a novel after all.
De Borchgrave was tremendously well-connected.
There were plenty of Soviet agents of influence in the western press and intelligentsia.
The Bolsheviks certainly weren't inevitable. It was a perfect storm of incompetence at multiple points on the part of several Russian political players plus the decisive factor of Lenin's personality. A genuine "great man" moment.
"Great men" aren't necessarily "good".
"langford peel" is not a "righty" it's a moby.
Re the "Atlantic" meeting - its interesting as an exercise in sophistry. Several flavors of sophistry dancing around the idea that diversity of views is henceforth intolerable.
That would be Simon Montefiore the British historian?
Yeah, well, Althouse has a twisted view on homosexuality, so it twists her "logic" too.
Highly recommended - A Russian war movie,
"The Road to Berlin", Sergey Popov
On Youtube.
In Texas, there are some interesting pronunciations for various places. I think the funniest one I know is the local way of pronouncing Pedernales. At the Johnson Ranch, we were told by our guide that Pedernales was pronounced "Perd-n-aless" - "Just like your Uncle Perd and your Aunt Alice".
"Now Althouse persistently misunderstands the claims, and thinks when a biologist says, as one theory goes, that aggressiveness is such a trait and that human females prefer aggressive mates that she can refute the claim by pointing at non aggressive males who get mates. But that is the kind of obtuseness that people who say “genes cannot be selfish because they don’t think” evince."
Could you quote something I've written that has made you feel that I've said something like that?
You're committing the straw man fallacy. How about an apology?
Assuming Althouse and Meade drove to Texas on I35, I'm surprised they didn't take the short detour to Glen Rose. Pedernales is pretty, but it doesn't compare to Dinosaur Valley for awesomeness. OTOH, sometimes the water level is high and there's nothing to see but the river.
Althouse
I cannot find a way to get a permalink to a comment so I will just identify it. Your 10:01 comment from the Swimmer thread I think suffices to prove there is no straw man. And past comments passim.
To clarify, when you start with a quotation and the the next sentence starts “And it [Peterson's argument] obyusely refuses to see” I take you as endorsing the quotation. That is my smoking gun, it is exactly the kind of argument I mock above.
Ken B said...
That is my smoking gun, it is exactly the kind of argument I mock above.
Nothing in her posts justifies your saying "But that is the kind of obtuseness that people who say “genes cannot be selfish because they don’t think” evince."
Similarly, you've falsely attributed statements to Jerry Coyne (for some reason...) and haven't responded when corrected by links to his actual statements.
"I cannot find a way to get a permalink to a comment so I will just identify it."
It's rocket science
No Titcomb. Althouse endorsed that quote which is exactly the kind of argument I identify here at 10:23.
Could you quote something I've written that has made you feel that I've said something like that?
Could you phrase your apparent denial of this position in the form of a statement rather than a question?
You're committing the straw man fallacy. How about an apology?
Tender much?
5/7/18, 7:40 AM
buwaya said...Re the "Atlantic" meeting - its interesting as an exercise in sophistry. Several flavors of sophistry dancing around the idea that diversity of views is henceforth intolerable.
--
Although a lot of what Coates said was pretty lame, it was interesting to read him seeming to struggle with the firing..as if he actually could sense "if it could happen to him..".
Alas..he is in a protected class..so not to worry.
"To clarify, when you start with a quotation and the the next sentence starts “And it [Peterson's argument] obyusely refuses to see” I take you as endorsing the quotation. That is my smoking gun, it is exactly the kind of argument I mock above."
So I quote something and then say it contains something obtuse, and you call that an endorsement of it (without even proving the point about what is wrong with the original quote). You are a fool to mock other people based on that kind of reasoning. You fought a straw man. It's obvious. Just admit you were wrong and apologize. Every other approach is either stupid or in bad faith.
My point was that lots of pregnancies -- over the millennia of human history -- were caused by rape, so the genes were carried forward without the woman needing to have a liking for the type of man who rapes. I added that the offspring won't survive to reproduce to take the genes to the next generation if it isn't cared for and nurtured to adulthood, so a less than completely brutal rape approach to reproduction may be the tendency that survives, since the pregnant, lactating, and child-caring-for woman without support might die or kill or neglect the baby. That was all entirely about the passing on of the genes. How you could get the idea that I missed the mechanism of evolution, I do not know. But you jumped to mockery and contempt, and you owe me an apology. Without it, I will view you as a commenter who is in bad faith and who should not be provoking other people here to engage with you.
So let's look at why Peterson's view (even though it leaves out the prevalence of rape) might make sense in evolutionary terms. He said: "Human female choosiness is also why we are very different from the common ancestor we shared with our chimpanzee cousins, while the latter are very much the same. Women’s proclivity to say no, more than any other force, has shaped our evolution into the creative, industrious, upright, large-brained (competitive, aggressive, domineering) creatures that we are."
First, you have to think about why females became so choosy and how that coevolved with male achievement. There's also the long babyhood of the human that has something to do with the increasing brain size. The larger brain means the women and children need more care and support and also that the men can do amazing things for their families if they want. The desire to provide might have survived because the babies that were supported didn't die young, whereas the babies conceived by animalistic rapists died (or were killed by their mothers).
Which came first, female choosiness or large human brains? Peterson seems to assume that female choosiness came first, but I'm guessing the 2 things emerged together. I also assume that male caring developed along with that, but Peterson classifies that caring as part of competitive aggressive domination, which he sees through his idea of order, so that it involves making and building things for his family. He's skipping a step: rape. If it was all aggressive domination, why not just rape? I think the answer is because the children of rapists are more likely to die before they can pass on their genes.
To be fair to Peterson, he does talk about rape in the book, just not at that point.
No. Here's what happened, paraphrasing. You quoted X saying “Y's argument misses P”. And your observation was “And it misses Q as well”. That is a straight forward endorsement of X's criticism of Y. X was Peterson.
The point of your rape comments is directed at Peterson which further shows your comment was a a criticism of X. But if it is a criticism of X then I am right, n'est ce pas?
Let's review the bidding. You made several comments airily dismissing the impact of sexual selection. You called them obtuse. I say that doing so is what's obtuse, and that while Peterson might be wrong he's not silly to consider sexual selection. You call me a fool.
So if anyone is acting in bad faith it’s you.
As for your following comment, it is wrong to conflate aggression and rape, as that is not the only or primary form of aggression. There is a book, The Natural History Of Rape that argues rape is a successful strategy for genes but it is highly controversial and having read it I found it engagingly provocative but unconvincing.
The larger brain means the women and children need more care
It's interesting that > 80% of bird species have "two parent" families (because of the chicks' rapid growth rate, so they need to be fed by two adults), and also that birds are famous for "male mating displays", the peacock tail one pretty obvious result of sexual selection.
I think the answer is because the children of rapists are more likely to die before they can pass on their genes.
If so, it also keeps stupidity out of the gene pool. Primitive abortion techniques must have been extremely dangerous (and possibly therefore stigmatized), given the libfem squealing over any kind of modern abortion restrictions as lethal - coat hangers, etc. Well, Ugg and Groo in the cave didn't even have coat hangers, let alone antibiotics, so a fortiori, it would seem wiser to grit your teeth and have the baby and make the best of it.
Once born, the baby is half her heredity and all her property; and the costs of its birth are sunk costs. It also didn't do anything to her. To deprive it of nurture is pointlessly, counterproductively cruel, the more so as the rapist seems likely not to be on the scene to witness the Medean revenge you conceive. Kept alive, it can serve her and the tribe as effectively as can a wanted child of acceptable antecedents.
Also, by definition, whatever sperm made it to her egg is the most competitive sperm. Must be better sperm than that of her tribesmen who took no for an answer, or who failed to defend her.
The more you talk, the better rape sounds. Like rhhardin says about slavery, it's a fortuitous alternative to the obvious choice of killing the defeated. If the woman really didn't want to be raped badly enough, she could have died resisting, or killed herself afterwards. But, the woman never has to die unlike the man, because she is always worth more alive, because she comes attached to a pussy. She always has that out.
Post a Comment