The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker

[Publius]

Anyone here read it?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Anyone here read it?

I guess not, by the lack of response.

This (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141885858/qid=1128547334/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/202-7250263-1432645) must be it. From what I read in the review, it doesn't sound like a book which Communists would agree with. Though I must admit, it looks interesting.

Have you read it and if so, what did you think?

[YKTMX]

From what I read in the review, it doesn't sound like a book which Communists would agree with

I'd say.

Pinker is a far right "socio-biologist" who argues an ultra-darwinist view, saying that all human behaviour is genetic and based on evolution.

For instance, he says that rape is an inherent trait in all males, marking a evolutionary desire to "sow their oats". Perhaps this would explain father's raping their pre-pubescent daughters, or not?

He also says males are inherently stronger and dominant, and that females are inferior and "naturally" submissive.

It's crazy, reactionery, proto-fascist pseudo science.

[Intifada]

Pinker is a far right "socio-biologist" who argues an ultra-darwinist view, saying that all human behaviour is genetic and based on evolution.

For instance, he says that rape is an inherent trait in all males, marking a evolutionary desire to "sow their oats". Perhaps this would explain father's raping their pre-pubescent daughters, or not?

He also says males are inherently stronger and dominant, and that females are inferior and "naturally" submissive.


I don't think I have time for that crap.

[Publius]

I'd say.

This was exactly why I posted this; I knew the responses would be hilarious and ignorant.



Pinker is a far right "socio-biologist" who argues an ultra-darwinist view, saying that all human behaviour is genetic and based on evolution.

Is he now?

Neither he, nor anyone in the course of human history has ever stated that 'all human behavious is genetic'.

That is the mother of all strawmen and it's clear you haven't read the book.



For instance, he says that rape is an inherent trait in all males, marking a evolutionary desire to "sow their oats". Perhaps this would explain father's raping their pre-pubescent daughters, or not?

No he doesn't, he merely says that rape stems from men's sexual urges; an undeniable truth, but, to be fair, I haven't gotten to this chapter yet.



He also says males are inherently stronger and dominant, and that females are inferior and "naturally" submissive.

You don't believe males are stronger than females? Shit man, look around you.

I haven't gotten to this part of the book yet, but I'm sure your either: Wrong or) Wrong.



It's crazy, reactionery, proto-fascist pseudo science.

Almost man, almost. I was looking for the phrase 'bourgeious science'; that was the one I wanted so badly to see. It would have made my day.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 09:26 PM





I guess not, by the lack of response.

What I figured.




This (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141885858/qid=1128547334/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/202-7250263-1432645) must be it. From what I read in the review, it doesn't sound like a book which Communists would agree with. Though I must admit, it looks interesting.

It IS interesting. The man is obviously one of the greatest living minds.


Have you read it and if so, what did you think?

In the process of reading it; it's fascinating.

[Publius]

I don't think I have time for that crap.

Don't listen to him, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

FIrstly, he isn't 'far right'. He's one of the most vehement, strident atheists around.

I don't know his actual politics (They aren't relevent either, science is science), but he seems to be a moderate liberal of some sort.

He denies utopian socialism, but lauds moral goals such as equality, fairness and morality.

How ironic that 'scientific socialism', when confronted with actual science, mans the trenches with with the REAL far right morons who also deny Pinker's work, in a reactionary battle against materialism.

[YKTMX]

No he doesn't, he merely says that rape stems from men's sexual urges; an undeniable truth

Really? As long as we're dealing with "straw men" here, it's good of you to throw a few of your own into the mix.

Rape is an act of violence, it is non-sexual. The fact that it involves the sexual organs is secondary.


Neither he, nor anyone in the course of human history has ever stated that 'all human behavious is genetic'.


No, he says that some behaviour is "non-adaptive", but even this comes from "adaptive" modules.


You don't believe males are stronger than females? Shit man, look around you.


:lol: Science lives.


I was looking for the phrase 'bourgeious science'; that was the one I wanted so badly to see. It would have made my day.


Perhaps. Although Pinker's thinking is even too barmy for most mainstream bourgeois scientists. Whatever else it is, bourgeois science is based on some representation of the enlightenment and rationality, which Pinker doesn't have time for.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 10:00 PM




Really? As long as we're dealing with "straw men" here, it's good of you to throw a few of your own into the mix.

Rape is an act of violence, it is non-sexual. The fact that it involves the sexual organs is secondary.

Have you even read the book? He refutes this.



No, he says that some behaviour is "non-adaptive", but even this comes from "adaptive" modules.

Elaborate.



Perhaps. Although Pinker's thinking is even too barmy for most mainstream bourgeois scientists. Whatever else it is, bourgeois science is based on some representation of the enlightenment and rationality, which Pinker doesn't have time for.

Utterly hilarious.

[*Hippie*]

He also says males are inherently stronger and dominant, and that females are inferior and "naturally" submissive.

What does physical strength have to do with being "submissive".
:angry:

[FleasTheLemur]

I may agree with you on some points but the terminology you use is rather offensive. A sizible majority of women may be physically weaker than men, but inferior to men? Hardly. The Corpus colosseum in women is signifigintly larger then their male counterparts. Women have also surpassed males in college enrollement. I ultimately believe that women are smarting than men and all accounts and the only reason you don't see more women in the intelligensia is the fact that men still dominate the field socially.

[Publius]

Originally posted by *Hippie*@Oct 6 2005, 01:15 AM




What does physical strength have to do with being "submissive".
:angry:

Nothing.

[Publius]

I may agree with you on some points but the terminology you use is rather offensive.

How so?

What have I said that's offensive?

Views are being foisted upon me that I don't actually hold.


A sizible majority of women may be physically weaker than men, but inferior to men?

Neither I nor Steven Pinker have ever said that or believe that.

This is nothing but wishful thinking on your part.


Hardly. The Corpus colosseum in women is signifigintly larger then their male counterparts. Women have also surpassed males in college enrollement. I ultimately believe that women are smarting than men and all accounts and the only reason you don't see more women in the intelligensia is the fact that men still dominate the field socially.

That women are smarter than men is as logically untenable and morally precarious as likewise.

I agree with the rest.