Rick, all you are doing is showing over and over that you don't see anything different between crime and psychopathy, personality traits and specific personality disorders. That quote, like most of what you've posted doesn't even agree with idea that psychopathy may be inherited: it is just a blurb stating that study was conducted, along with a study of "environmental factors" which you seem to think falls into the category of genetics. Much like most of your posts, there is no actual political, scientific or economic content: just you revealing your own state of mind and attacking imagining adversaries. You never post anything personal, when asked about your beliefs you never reply. When the NWO comes, there will be no Clocker Bob for them to erase, you have already done all the work for them.

You have taken a racist position, deal with it or explain yourself.

I'm sure the entire board is enjoying reading this. How's the weather out there?

Well I'm sure he'll explain the common "environmental factors" away as being caused by fluoridated water or smallpox vaccines.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Call it what you want - my boiled-down point is this: If it (being/entity/consciousness/intelligence/whatever) transcends physical laws/natural laws/scientific observation/etc., then it's not within science. If it doesn't, then I don't think it makes sense to name it "God."

I am in general agreement with this. But I’d say the idea of God is more complex. It certainly has a ‘transcendent’ element to it but the idea comes from somewhere solid enough.
It comes from us. It just seems to come from a part of us not open to scientific enquiry.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

Earwicker wrote:If you are to follow your logic through - regarding the absence of evidence - then you must be atheistic about the existence of other people's dreams.

I think the key difference is this: when people have experiences they call dreams, those are dreams.

It's a definitional thing: when shit goes on in your head while you sleep, that's a dream. When people have experiences they attribute to God, they're making a leap. Or, that sounds judgmental. Let's say, they're taking a step.

I think people who have the experience would not separate the experience from the ‘God’. The experience is part of it.
To then take the experience and add horned helmets or cloud shrouded mountain temples is taking a step – yes – but those steps still have significance. These ‘steps’ become symbolic maps for their experience and these things have real world effects. Often for bad but sometimes for good (see other thread for another example of Gramsci kicking off about how that’s not possible – religion only makes good people bad).

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

Earwicker wrote:My point is - if enough people experience something it makes the experience significant even in the absence of hard evidence.

I don't know what you mean by "hard." People's reports of their dream-experiences are evidence of the existence of dreams. The obvious response is that people's reports of their god-experiences are evidence for the existence of god. This doesn't work, because god is not the experience; god is the purported cause of the experience.

Well, it works if the experience is fundamentally part of the definition.
And if peoples reports of their dreams are allowed to be included as evidence (it’s not ‘hard’ evidence because it can’t be reproduced and shown to someone else in laboratory conditions) then ‘god experiences’ – while not evidence for specific gods – are evidence of some experience worthy of study. The implication by many – I think – is that the people who have these experiences are liars.

However, to clarify, I don’t think I’ve said that the accumulation of god experiences is proof of God (as a being) but it is significant. That those who have experienced it choose to ascribe the experience to ‘God’, ‘Higher consciousness’ (etc) shouldn’t be dismissed though.
And that is what is happening.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:That's fine - the process that is now named "science" does not include gods - even if that process loses the name "science" in the future to some other process, it still won't encompass gods, even if the process newly called "science" does.

I agree. I think I’ve either not made myself clear enough or you’ve misunderstood what I’m saying.
Or both.

I am saying that many have an experience that they ascribe to a god or godhead higher intelligence or higher consciousness. Unless all such people are liars they are experiencing something but this experience can’t be scientifically investigated without ignoring the person experiencing it.
And the person experiencing it is fundamental to the experience.

I raise the subject of modern science because modern science has discovered, similarly, that observation of ‘reality’ fundamentally involves the person observing also.

That being the case an inability to look into the mind of the observer is a shortcoming of the scientific method.
It means science can’t explain a quite fundamental aspect of reality.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Newton and Bacon (so far as I'm aware, and I don't claim to be an expert) were not working to prove the existence of God or the influence of God on the world - they were taking that for granted, and trying to work out what the laws were.

Yes. This is my point. They were taking things for granted. One big thing they were taking for granted was that the universe is (like) a big machine that runs on laws made by god.
This big machine is made up of parts ticking away separately in the ether.

They were wrong. That is not what science has since discovered.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I don't know what you mean by "absolute" here. I don't think you can do science without believing that some things are real - that there exists such a thing as reality .

I wouldn’t say there is no such thing as reality. Just that we can’t ever say what reality is without taking ourselves (including our consciousness and intelligence) into consideration.
Science can make approximations of certain areas, and those approximations can be useful. But they don’t - and cannot - give us the full picture.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I think it was Dick who defined reality as "that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Who’s this Dick?
This is vague enough to cover an awful lot.
Which suits me actually.

Bear in mind a lot have people have stopped believing in god – but the idea still hasn’t gone away.

Gramsci wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:Dude, if you accept the existence of a consciousness and you try and explore it or treat it therapeutically, you have acknowledged the supernatural/intangible. Just like the dreams that Earwicker writes about, God cannot currently be measured or defined by man, and neither can consciousness.

Explain why.

I wouldn't use the word 'supernatural' to describe consciousness myself but, like I've said elsewhere, I don't like the word full stop. 'Intangible' - certainly.

Consciousness cannot be covered by science, currently, because it can not be investigated separate from the person experiencing it. And all you have to go on from them is what they say about it. You cannot investigate it - where it comes from, why it's there or what it means - directly.

You can talk about what you think you are conscious of
and I can do the same
but neither of us could ever 'prove' it to the other.
Neither of us can prove to the other that we are conscious at all.
Not using the scientific method.

If you would like to prove it or indicate someone who has I'd love to listen.
If you would like to explain how human consciousness even could be investigated scientifically I am also all ears.

And - out of genuine curiosity - how did the meditation go for you?

And Dave could you post a quote where Rick has been racist please?

Saying a personality trait might be passed on genetically is not racist. That's why Rick keeps posting those quotes and links.
Deducing that someone making that claim is therefore assuming all people of a particular race have a particular characteristic is a misrepresentation of anything i've read that Rick has said.

Nowhere has Rick said anything like 'all Jews are against the rest of us - or inclined to be'

I'm inclined to think you know this so are just trolling - again.


I'll take that back if you can prove to me Rick is racist.

Earwicker wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

Earwicker wrote:If you are to follow your logic through - regarding the absence of evidence - then you must be atheistic about the existence of other people's dreams.

I think the key difference is this: when people have experiences they call dreams, those are dreams.

It's a definitional thing: when shit goes on in your head while you sleep, that's a dream. When people have experiences they attribute to God, they're making a leap. Or, that sounds judgmental. Let's say, they're taking a step.

I think people who have the experience would not separate the experience from the ‘God’. The experience is part of it.

Is that God? Or is that something else called "God"? Did our experiences create the matter and energy that exists in the universe? If you want to take something that is part of us and name it "God" that's fine, but then we're not talking about the same thing.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

Earwicker wrote:My point is - if enough people experience something it makes the experience significant even in the absence of hard evidence.

I don't know what you mean by "hard." People's reports of their dream-experiences are evidence of the existence of dreams. The obvious response is that people's reports of their god-experiences are evidence for the existence of god. This doesn't work, because god is not the experience; god is the purported cause of the experience.

Well, it works if the experience is fundamentally part of the definition.

And again, that's not what I mean by "God."

And if peoples reports of their dreams are allowed to be included as evidence (it’s not ‘hard’ evidence because it can’t be reproduced and shown to someone else in laboratory conditions) then ‘god experiences’ – while not evidence for specific gods – are evidence of some experience worthy of study. The implication by many – I think – is that the people who have these experiences are liars.

I don't call anyone a liar who believes what they're saying is true. Well, I can't say I never have, but as a general rule, I don't. I generally believe it when people describe their experiences, but I don't necessarily believe it when people ascribe a cause to their experiences, even if I believe that they believe it. A report of an experience is evidence that the experience happened. An unsupported guess or speculation as to the cause of an experience is not evidence that that is the true cause.

However, to clarify, I don’t think I’ve said that the accumulation of god experiences is proof of God (as a being) but it is significant. That those who have experienced it choose to ascribe the experience to ‘God’, ‘Higher consciousness’ (etc) shouldn’t be dismissed though.
And that is what is happening.

I don't know about "dismissed." I don't know if I "dismiss" God, and I'm fairly sure I don't dismiss 'higher consciousness.' I choose not to believe in God, but I don't know about "dismiss."

I am saying that many have an experience that they ascribe to a god or godhead higher intelligence or higher consciousness. Unless all such people are liars they are experiencing something but this experience can’t be scientifically investigated without ignoring the person experiencing it.
And the person experiencing it is fundamental to the experience.

I raise the subject of modern science because modern science has discovered, similarly, that observation of ‘reality’ fundamentally involves the person observing also.

That being the case an inability to look into the mind of the observer is a shortcoming of the scientific method.
It means science can’t explain a quite fundamental aspect of reality.

I won't disagree with that. I think there's stuff that's real that is outside the realm of science. I believe in a soul or something similar. I believe in love. I believe in the power of positive thinking - even faith. This may sound strange or even inconsistent from an atheist, but there you go. I think there are reasons to believe in these things - call them evidence, even if it's not the type of evidence that would impress a scientist. I believe there is no evidence (scientific or otherwise) for a god.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I think it was Dick who defined reality as "that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Who’s this Dick?

Philip K. Dick

This is vague enough to cover an awful lot.
Which suits me actually.

Bear in mind a lot have people have stopped believing in god – but the idea still hasn’t gone away.

No one's arguing that the idea isn't real. I definitely believe the idea of god is real. All too real (although I don't think I'm as anti- as Gramsci). But for those who have stopped believing in God, God (not to be confused with the idea of God) has gone away.


The stuff you wrote that I deleted - I don't mean anything negative by it - I just didn't want the posts to get longer and longer, and I didn't feel I had fruitful things to say about certain things you said. If you want me to address something I deleted it, let me know and I'll try.

Earwicker wrote:And Dave could you post a quote where Rick has been racist please?

Saying a personality trait might be passed on genetically is not racist. That's why Rick keeps posting those quotes and links.
Deducing that someone making that claim is therefore assuming all people of a particular race have a particular characteristic is a misrepresentation of anything i've read that Rick has said.

Nowhere has Rick said anything like 'all Jews are against the rest of us - or inclined to be'

I'm inclined to think you know this so are just trolling - again.


I'll take that back if you can prove to me Rick is racist.

I have already posted more than enough of his quotes. Go fuck yourself.

You can obviously see how the idea that extended "bloodlines" and family/geographic groupings make a person a criminal. His posts on the subject clearly aren't as mild as "genetics may influence personality traits". It is simpler: Crime = Psychopathy = Inferior or corrupted "bloodlines". This is what was stated, the garbage about personality being genetic was merely implied.

I regard the term "bloodlines", on its own, to be racist. Pure BNP pamphlet bullshit, spitting distance from hyuk-hyuk Aryanism.

No one has the right to rank anyone else on the grounds of breeding or family history, let alone state that it makes the predisposed to crime and violence.

Has said he wants these people punished, possibly executed and he has said that this behaviour is caused by genetics. It is not hard to see this as sophistry surrounding his true opinions on race and behaviour, much like his "keep an open mind" attitude towards UFOs, Fallen Angels and Jehofuckingvah.

Rick Reuben wrote:The troll sent me a PM this morning begging me to stop exposing how little he knew about the connection between genetics and anti-social disorders. I won't post it, except for the last line.

idiot troll in a PM wrote:
also there is a nazi hate virus attached to this PM, make sure you tell steve about it!

Dave, I told you before not to send me personal messages. I don't negotiate with lying troll assholes. If you want to surrender, announce that psychopathic and sociopathic personalities are influences by genetics, here in the thread- and then screw yourself.

Hey, I just asked if you could stop repeatedly posting the same shit over and over because it clutters up the board with off topic conversation and petty bickering. My first PM to you in, oh, six months. i.e. Rick, if you stop obsessing over my posts and repeatedly posting the same drivel over and over, I will steer clear of you, and people will have less shit to wade through in these.

I signed off with a joke. Much like Earwicker and Skronk, you are an expert at pretending to take jokes seriously for the purpose of being a self-righteous arsehole.

Here is my PM (seeing as you're implying that I was abusive)

I'll try again: let's cut this shit out. No one likes reading it.

There are people on the board who like you, there are people on the board who like me. We are shitting over both those categories of people by being boring.

Is this really how you imagined Spring 2008? Spending four or five hours a day obsessing over and attacking some dudes on the other side of the Atlantic ocean?

Keep it under your hat, my man. Under your hat.

also there is a nazi hate virus attached to this PM, make sure you tell steve about it!

So how about this:

Yes, personality is genetic, perpetual motion is being kept from the public by Big Oil and the New World Order blew up the World Trade Centre. The Battle of LA photograph also clearly shows an alien mothership. Pike's Egyptian memorandums are under Cleopatra's Needle. You are right, now will you please shut up?

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote: You never post anything personal, when asked about your beliefs you never reply.

You idiot- the reason why you are compelled to ask about my beliefs over and over is because my beliefs are transparently obvious in everything I write. I do not cheat my readers. I explain to them what I think and why, and I often explain to them what they think and why, as an added bonus. Because you are unable to confront my beliefs straight-on ( probably because you and the other robots can only understand homogenous thinkers, like cookie cutter politically correct liberals ), you invent some caricature of me out of distortions of my words or out of ignorance ( but mostly out of your own cowardice in the face of a free thinker ), and you tediously troll that invented caricature endlessly.

Your sole motive for interacting with me is this: I tell the truth about people you do not want the truth told about. End of story. You are only interested in stifling debate by playing your pathetic 'race' card over and over. You can't stop me. Get me banned. It's all you've got. I'll make 100 posts about the bankers tomorrow, and I'll make you see the word 'Jew' in every single one, even though it will be missing from all of them.

You suck. You love bankers and elites and hate workers. You lie all the time. Better get me banned, because I will be roasting your scumbag employers every inch of the way as their crimes unravel.

tl;dr for the most part.

I don't want you banned. That you can stay on this forum and be (vaguely) tolerated is feathers in the caps of the majority of the people here who know when to hold their tongues. As long as you don't start fagsploding in the tech forum (or threads about pussy and records) or bumping purile 9/11 threads there is no need, you are consistently entertaining.

This is ironic, considering you call me a troll and do everything within your spindly wrist's abilities to get me banned. Did you forward my PM to the admin account?

big_dave wrote:

Earwicker wrote:I'm inclined to think you know this so are just trolling - again.

I'll take that back if you can prove to me Rick is racist.

I have already posted more than enough of his quotes. Go fuck yourself.

No you haven't - not any that prove he's a racist.

big_dave wrote:His posts on the subject clearly aren't as mild as "genetics may influence personality traits". It is simpler: Crime = Psychopathy = Inferior or corrupted "bloodlines". This is what was stated, the garbage about personality being genetic was merely implied.

I took it the other way round myself. He said that certain people behave in a reprehensible way and suggested their genes might have something to do with it.
He didn't say 'all (or most) Jews are genetically inferior' - nor did he imply it.
That is your hang up and you are projecting

You do realise that if someone is racist they think that all (or the large majority) of the members of a race have the same negative characteristics?

Where has he even implied this?

big_dave wrote:I regard the term "bloodlines", on its own, to be racist. Pure BNP pamphlet bullshit, spitting distance from hyuk-hyuk Aryanism.

Well, maybe this explains it. You're just making up your own meanings for words (again).

'Bloodlines' is not, on its own, racist.

You are free to try and persuade me that it is.

big_dave wrote:Has said he wants these people punished, possibly executed and he has said that this behaviour is caused by genetics.

Let's clear that one up by asking him.

Rick do you think the members of a family should be punished or executed even if those individuals haven't done anything wrong in your eyes?

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

Earwicker wrote:I think people who have the experience would not separate the experience from the ‘God’. The experience is part of it.

Is that God? Or is that something else called "God"? Did our experiences create the matter and energy that exists in the universe? If you want to take something that is part of us and name it "God" that's fine, but then we're not talking about the same thing.

I don’t think we generally are following the same conception of god. That was a point of mine – that the concept can accommodate a variety of different things.
I don’t mind that other people have a different concept of it.
I got shirty with Gramsci before because he seems to mind – even though he doesn’t believe in any conception of it.

And incidentally – regarding the origin of matter and energy in the universe: there is a theory (a scientifically sound one) that without our observation that matter and energy cannot have taken any form that we recognise. It can’t be said to have existed (in any recognisable way) before we (or an awareness) was there to observe it.
I can’t think who the theorists who posit this are right now but I’ll have a check and post names etc.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I think there's stuff that's real that is outside the realm of science. I believe in a soul or something similar. I believe in love. I believe in the power of positive thinking - even faith. This may sound strange or even inconsistent from an atheist, but there you go.

I think this is inconsistent. What is the evidence for a soul?
What is it that makes you think there is such a thing?

Linus Van Pelt wrote:The stuff you wrote that I deleted - I don't mean anything negative by it - I just didn't want the posts to get longer and longer, and I didn't feel I had fruitful things to say about certain things you said. If you want me to address something I deleted it, let me know and I'll try.

No worries at all, at all. i've been doing the same