Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Evolution - Is it down to Us?

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    Nuravictus wrote: »
    I find this really annoying, If the kid is been bold. The parent is doing something wrong. This sense that it was nature & I am not a crap parent is a load of crap. Different Kids need different approachs. What worked on their first kid might not work on there second. So on the first kids they could of been GREAT parents but on the seconds they would of been crap parents.

    This is a great thread btw, Im getting called out on nearly everything I say :P

    You find it really annoying that parents cannot be the only thing that determines how a child will develop morally?

    In that case i would suggest you never have kids.


  • Options
    #123
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Nuravictus wrote: »
    You swear there is no social conditioning going on,

    No I don't. where did you get that from?
    Nuravictus wrote: »
    Do we all go murdering or raping people ?. No because we are ALL shown this is wrong as children so a majority wont do it.

    We tell our children not to rape people?
    Nuravictus wrote: »
    Fair point but in the majority of cases he will stop in my opinion.

    That's fine, but please bear in mind that just because something is not the majority does not mean it is irrelevant or can be duly ignored.
    Nuravictus wrote: »
    True you are correct but the truth is that Children are still happy in School whether that be in there maths class or arts class. Is doesn’t matter.

    The truth? Do a survey in any school and you will find a large portion of them are not happy. You missed my point entirely. A very structured approach on education will benefit some, but not all.
    Nuravictus wrote: »
    Everything I post is my opinion or taken from something I have read, I can’t go link every article that I have read in the past 5 years just to get you to accept my point. So you will have to take my “word”

    Why should he take your word for it if you are not willing to back up your points? You are partaking in what has become a scientific debate. One of the fundamental principals of such is to back up any points made with evidence. If we took everyone's word for it the world would be one very confused place.
    Nuravictus wrote: »
    I find this really annoying, If the kid is been bold. The parent is doing something wrong. This sense that it was nature & I am not a crap parent is a load of crap.

    Tried and tested orthodox science is a 'load of crap'? Well done.
    Nuravictus wrote: »
    Different Kids need different approachs. What worked on their first kid might not work on there second. So on the first kids they could of been GREAT parents but on the seconds they would of been crap parents.

    Pretty much. In some cases there may simply not be a solution available. Hypothetical example: Child needs a chemical imbalance fixed to curb his disruptive tendencies. Perhaps there is no known cure for this particular imbalance. No amount of social conditioning can fix this particular problem. Only a chemical interaction (which would affect said child's very genetic disposition, in other words his natural state of being) can solve the problem. therefore it is a problem with his nature, not his nurture so to speak.
    Granted it is a quite specific example, but not invalid.
    Nuravictus wrote: »
    This is a great thread btw, Im getting called out on nearly everything I say :P

    There appears to be a reason for that.


  • Options
    #124
    Nuravictus
    Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭Nuravictus


    Dragan wrote: »
    You find it really annoying that parents cannot be the only thing that determines how a child will develop morally?
    In that case i would suggest you never have kids.
    I personally think its a lot to do with the social structure the children are in. What I am saying works. Look at Government programs like the Hitler Youth & the Nashi in Russia where Children join youth movements are conditioned. Social Interaction & real life experiences define your character and your character defines who you are. Evil people can become good people but according to you guys if your born evil that means you are evil. I think most people the social aspect defines who they are but you lot keep going back to its genitic Maybe in small percentage but in the majority i don’t see that been the case.
    Galvasean wrote: »
    No I don't. where did you get that from?
    We tell our children not to rape people?
    I’m saying the Society we live in, Kids are predisposed to this via News Reports & so on. By looking at there parents general distaste or reaction to a news report a kid will get that understanding in my opinion.
    Galvasean wrote: »
    That's fine, but please bear in mind that just because something is not the majority does not mean it is irrelevant or can be duly ignored.
    The truth? Do a survey in any school and you will find a large portion of them are not happy. You missed my point entirely. A very structured approach on education will benefit some, but not all.
    You missed my point on this, What I am saying on this matter is that on Schools rules & structure are predefined as well as in sports. Children like this because they no the limits. In the home these rules can change depending on the parents mood.

    Galvasean wrote: »
    Why should he take your word for it if you are not willing to back up your points? You are partaking in what has become a scientific debate. One of the fundamental principals of such is to back up any points made with evidence. If we took everyone's word for it the world would be one very confused place.
    While you might not agree with me everything I state has come from a report or article of some sort. This thread is so vast that if I spent all day & night getting articles to back my posts up I would have a real life. I have backed a lot of this things up on other issues.
    Galvasean wrote: »
    Tried and tested orthodox science is a 'load of crap'? Well done.
    Tried & tested Science recommends you give anti depression drugs to a 4 year old. I rather take my chances than listen to that crap.
    Galvasean wrote: »
    Pretty much. In some cases there may simply not be a solution available. Hypothetical example: Child needs a chemical imbalance fixed to curb his disruptive tendencies. Perhaps there is no known cure for this particular imbalance. No amount of social conditioning can fix this particular problem. Only a chemical interaction (which would affect said child's very genetic disposition, in other words his natural state of being) can solve the problem. therefore it is a problem with his nature, not his nurture so to speak.
    Granted it is a quite specific example, but not invalid.
    There appears to be a reason for that.
    We all aren’t born the same we all look different but I still think that the overall character of a person is not predefined upon birth but is a result of life experiences & environment events they don’t control.#

    Also we are way offtopic I think now :P


  • Options
    #125
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    Nuravictus wrote: »
    I personally think its a lot to do with the social structure the children are in. What I am saying works. Look at Government programs like the Hitler Youth & the Nashi in Russia where Children join youth movements are conditioned. Social Interaction & real life experiences define your character and your character defines who you are. Evil people can become good people but according to you guys if your born evil that means you are evil. I think most people the social aspect defines who they are but you lot keep going back to its genitic Maybe in small percentage but in the majority i don’t see that been the case.

    First off, find where i said it is genetic? Because i haven't. You assume that because i don't agree with the point you are very badly putting across that i think it is the other.

    I don't. Personally i lack indept understand of the Human Genome, or the Human Condition beyond my own, so i am working from the vantage point that any post in this thread from me are purely my opinions and questions in an interesting debate.

    From you posts i am taking that you think you are right.

    Well, prove it? It's not that much to ask for prove of a point, or a research paper to back up the opinions you are putting forth as fact.

    This is, afterall, a quasi-scientific debate, no?

    My issue with what you are saying is that you are aguing Parental/Child relations as if that is the only part of Social. There are hundreds of various points of contact that would fall under the Social aspect, not just parental.

    But you maintain the parental influence should be stronger than all the others.

    It makes no sense to be honest.


  • Options
    #126
    Nuravictus
    Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭Nuravictus


    Dragan wrote: »
    First off, find where i said it is genetic? Because i haven't. You assume that because i don't agree with the point you are very badly putting across that i think it is the other.

    I don't. Personally i lack indept understand of the Human Genome, or the Human Condition beyond my own, so i am working from the vantage point that any post in this thread from me are purely my opinions and questions in an interesting debate.

    From you posts i am taking that you think you are right.

    Well, prove it? It's not that much to ask for prove of a point, or a research paper to back up the opinions you are putting forth as fact.

    This is, afterall, a quasi-scientific debate, no?

    My issue with what you are saying is that you are aguing Parental/Child relations as if that is the only part of Social. There are hundreds of various points of contact that would fall under the Social aspect, not just parental.

    But you maintain the parental influence should be stronger than all the others.

    It makes no sense to be honest.

    Sorry if both if I offended you but I am debating with two people here & replying to them at the same time. :o

    I stated a few posts back that there is many social events that affects the character of a kid but I was talking about the fact that a kid who was born "evil" will grow up to be evil which I dont agree with.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Why can't you accept that it's a little of both?


  • Options
    #128
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Nuravictus wrote: »
    Sorry if both if I offended you but I am debating with two people here & replying to them at the same time. :o

    I stated a few posts back that there is many social events that affects the character of a kid but I was talking about the fact that a kid who was born kid will grow up to be evil which I dont agree with.

    This is very difficult to argue since what we consider to be evil changes over the decades.


  • Options
    #129
    Nuravictus
    Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭Nuravictus


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Why can't you accept that it's a little of both?

    Say a child who is born with good but is abused & turns bad why can't a kid who is born evil have something happen to him turn him good ?.

    What i am saying is the Social Structure & Enviorment defines the person. Now I gota run or I will miss my bus to the gym :mad:
    metrovelvet wrote: »
    This is very difficult to argue since what we consider to be evil changes over the decades.

    True but im talking about what is acceptable when the child is born. The Society you are born into.


  • Options
    #130
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,205 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    Nuravictus wrote: »
    Say a child who is born with good but is abused & turns bad why can't a kid who is born evil have something happen to him turn him good ?.
    Maybe it does, how are you supposed to know if a kid is born 'evil'? I believe a child could be genetically be predisposed towards bad behavior, depending on how he is raised he could turn out fine or be a little bastard. It's nature versus nurture, both play a part, but not always in the same proportion.

    As regards women controlling evolution, no way. Women cant force a man to take them, and can choose to settle for someone less desirable just to have a family instead of remaining single. This would have been popular in the past, as women would see it as their duty to find a husband and raise a family.

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



Advertisement