[ExI] de Waal
johnkclark at gmail.com
Wed Feb 28 22:07:10 UTC 2018
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
>> if the devout didn't think the very young didn't have such a tendency
>> they would not place such emphasis on having religious grade schools and
>> even religious kindergarten.
> >* *
> *I'd say that that was a good argument for the opposite: believing that
> environment had to install the values. *
I'd say the environment had to install the values too, and the most
important part of that environment is what adults say. And what adults say
now depends on what their mommy and daddy said to them many years before.
> *> and I'll bet it doesnt' work very well.*
*WHAT?!* If indoctrinating the young didn't work extraordinarily well how
on earth could Christianity have survived for 2000 years when it doesn't
make one particle of sense? Think about it, God is homicidally angry with
the entire human race because one man was naughty and ate an apple when
told not to, and even though He is omnipotent He is unable to forgive them
unless they torture His son, who He loves very much, to death. Only after
they've finished with the butchery and His son has died in agony can the
atrocity of eating the apple be forgiven
> *> I fail to see how all those statistics you gave about the Muslims
> support your case for genetics. *
But it does support my case that I wasn't
stereotyping Muslims as you claimed I was,
> *People are not sheep.*
The two things are not identical but there are certainly similarities .
> *> you don't need genes here except for those involved in learning, esp.
> social learning - who tells who what to do is noticed by tots and up. *
If the tots didn't believe that what they were told was true there would be
nothing to learn socially.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat