Ah so Darwin would be "so ashamed" of me because I because I said something not 100% in line with one of his theories?

It sounded like you were accusing me of rejecting the theory of evolution or something.

I mean really, you are coming across somewhat hyperbolic.

It's so apparent and obvious that I didn't think names needed to be said.

But, off the top of my head, any theorists who've written on power (dynamics) would be a good start. Start with Foucault, I like him.

This is also the reason Marxism is an amazing theory/ideal, but, any time it's been practiced, it inevitably does not maintain such ideal.

Ah Foucault. Such a precise scientist whose arguments nobody could refute. I like the way you patronizingly assume I must never have read him or else I couldn't fail to be in agreement with him.

You could also name Nietzsche, Elias Cannetti, Adam Smith, oh you could even drag out Hobbes or Weber! What fun!

Really though, it's just your opinion against mine, so don't start naming "sociology" and "anthropology" and "biology" as if these fields are in undisputed agreement with you

And when was Marxism practiced, specifically? Marx and Lenin were always clear that communism could only be acheived if there was a revolution int he industrialized western world. But you knew that, obviously, because surely you wouldn't be such a clown as to comment on Marxism without even knowing something as basic as that!

Welcome to the real world. I don't yet know if we're glad to have you.

Oh, you know all about the "real world" because you read Foucault? Give me a break kiddo. Next!

"Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

"Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

For example, consider military superiority. I could verbally define the Mig-29 as having air superiority over the F-22. But that doesn't make it so.

Don't get lost in the words buddy! Words do not have magical powers.

There's a difference between a culture that can fish and build snow houses, versus one that can do that *and* design and use aircraft, build cathedrals and skyscrapers, make conquests, and create entire literary genres. For someone who likes to talk about definitions and power, you're ignorant of the basic definition of power-- the capability of doing or accomplishing something.

Let me know when the Inuits drop nuclear bombs on two cities or wipe out an indigenous population...

"Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

"Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

For me its usually when someone starts to claim something as "objectively superior", because then you know that person is SO personally and emotionally involved in the issue that they don't even realize that their side is just their opinion.... and really how do you argue with someone who has taken such a stance?

Someone once said to me:

"We are the superior race, and we must endure."

He wasn't referring to black or white.
He was referring to his religion as an actual race.

So wait, are you actually justifying the massacre of the Native Americans there?

"Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

"Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

So wait, are you actually justifying the massacre of the Native Americans there?

I could justify it. I could also make the Aztecs, the Iroquois, and the Apaches look like noble savages.

But justification has nothing to do with who wins and loses on the stage of history. The problem with moral relativists, is that their thought is never relative to anything out there in the world, just relative to their warm and fluffy feelings.

Remember, not how we can work as a society to make it without competition. (no pseudo-philosophizing)

You're gonna have to prove how competition is not (and has not been) inherent in human beings and society. I.e., not a "natural law"

Really though, it's just your opinion against mine, so don't start naming "sociology" and "anthropology" and "biology" as if these fields are in undisputed agreement with you

This is what you've brought the argument down to? My opinion versus yours?
Pathetic. You're grasping at straws.

And when was Marxism practiced, specifically? Marx and Lenin were always clear that communism could only be acheived if there was a revolution int he industrialized western world. But you knew that, obviously, because surely you wouldn't be such a clown as to comment on Marxism without even knowing something as basic as that!

Yes, communism. And, your point doesn't disprove mine. Communism is to be the final step aimed to be achieved by a society. It's a process. Different systems have aimed to get there, aimed to practice it (did they practice it 100% according to "formula"? No, and I never claimed that)....all I claimed was that they failed. And, gave a reason why. It intrinsically negates competition. And, given that competition is one of the two main vehicles of motivation in humans, that's why. And, there's always been someone in "power"/pulling the puppet strings....which is kinda a farce to Marxist theory. And, kinda proves my point.

For example, consider military superiority. I could verbally define the Mig-29 as having air superiority over the F-22. But that doesn't make it so.

How anything is NOT a matter of definition, escapes me. Unless you're talking of the subjective realm, in which case, your original wording of "objective" is wrong.

Don't get lost in the words buddy! Words do not have magical powers.

What quack are you talking here?

There's a difference between a culture that can fish and build snow houses, versus one that can do that *and* design and use aircraft, build cathedrals and skyscrapers, make conquests, and create entire literary genres. For someone who likes to talk about definitions and power, you're ignorant of the basic definition of power-- the capability of doing or accomplishing something.

The fact that in such a harsh environment, they've survived for generations without needing such "advances in technology" is pretty awe-inspiring to me. Maybe not to you.

^ that would be subjectivity by the way.

These groups of people have also been approched by Western scientists to gain knowledge of different aspects of science in the Arctic.

I want you to explain to me how your use of the words "objectively superior" and "culture" are valid.

You have failed to do so.

You're pussyfooting around the topic. Answer my points.

You have also failed to explain how you see "culture" as some isolated thing - when you explain that, or try to explain that, it'll make you realize how most of these "accomplishments" came about in human civilization.......through the knowledge transfer and building of knowledge between "cultures" (and their histories)/mixing "cultures" (and their histories), and all other variations in between.

Which, as I said, is kinda hard for those isolated Inuits.

It's like having access to 1 book versus 100 books, of equivalent standing in terms of knowledge. Of course, the latter would produce more fruitful accompliments. Cultures that were all able to influence, be influenced by one another, are like those with 100 books. Aggregated knowledge. Able to build on knowledge - because a rich knowledge base was already available to them.

A fair comparison of superiority would be between 1 book versus 1 book. And, then one coming out with far greater accomplishments. I.e., one isolated culture versus one isolated culture.

Prove that USA, which sent man to the moon, was, and is, an isolated culture, without any peek at others' books of knowledge, then you can claim this "objective superiority".

Originally Posted by JHBowden

But justification has nothing to do with who wins and loses on the stage of history. The problem with moral relativists, is that their thought is never relative to anything out there in the world, just relative to their warm and fluffy feelings.

You're so ignorant it hurts to read your comments. It's relative to the world they occupy, it's functional to their environment. Otherwise, they could not have sustained for as long as they did. Not solely on their own "fluffy feelings".