Eugenicist Takes Hostage at Discovery Channel, Issues Anti-human Manifesto

[FrankRep]

Eugenicist Takes Hostage at Discovery Channel, Issues Anti-human Manifesto (http://www.infowars.com/eugenicist-takes-hostage-at-discovery-channel-issues-anti-human-manifesto/)


Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/)
September 1, 2010


A eugenicist demanding the Discovery Channel must “broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet” and “stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants” has taken a hostage at the television network’s headquarters in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland.

The media reports the man entered the building with explosives and has taken a security guard hostage. Montgomery County Police spokesman Cpl. Dan Fritz told the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090103911.html) that tactical and bomb squad officers are on the scene and are developing a plan to deal with the situation.

According to the Post, a note was posted on the internet on July 18 demanding the implementation of a global eugenics program. “All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions,” the post reads. “In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.”

The post was posted on the Save The Planet Protest.com (http://savetheplanetprotest.com/) website. The entire “manifesto” follows with a screen-shot before the document was removed:



The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:

1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s “My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

3. All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore. Instead, talk about ways to disassemble civilization and concentrate the message in finding SOLUTIONS to solving global military mechanized conflict. Again, solutions solutions instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons. Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase. World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!

4. Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn’t, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??

5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don’t build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!

7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!

8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s your resposibility because you reach so many minds!!!

9. Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy. Find solutions for their disasterous Ponzi-Casino economy before they take the world to another nuclear war.

10. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. Stop Future Weapons shows or replace the dialogue condemning the people behind these developments so that the shows become exposes rather than advertisements of Arms sales and development!

11. You’re also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing. All these unemployed people makes me think the US is headed toward more war.

Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.

For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!

It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices. Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too!

Also, war must be halted. Not because it’s morally wrong, but because of the catastrophic environmental damage modern weapons cause to other creatures. FIND SOLUTIONS JUST LIKE THE BOOK SAYS! Humans are supposed to be inventive. INVENT, DAMN YOU!!

The world needs TV shows that DEVELOP solutions to the problems that humans are causing, not stupify the people into destroying the world. Not encouraging them to breed more environmentally harmful humans.

Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.

The humans? The planet does not need humans.

You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!

I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.

These are the demands and sayings of Lee.


http://static.infowars.com/2010/09/i/article-images/manifesto.jpg


SOURCE:
http://www.infowars.com/eugenicist-takes-hostage-at-discovery-channel-issues-anti-human-manifesto/

[Flash]

Gloooballll warmmmmiiiinnnnnnggg!

[Acala]

Since when is eugenics about exterminating the human race? I undestood it to be about selective breeding. Big difference between selective breeding and NO breeding!

[FrankRep]

A gunman has taken at least one person hostage the headquarters for the Discovery Channel, and may have an explosive device. by Dennis Behreandt


Gunman Takes Hostage at Discovery Channel Headquarters (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/crime/4483-gunman-takes-hostage-at-discovery-channel-headquarters)


Dennis Behreandt | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
01 September 2010


According to police in a suburb of Washington, D.C., a gunman has entered the headquarters of the Discovery Channel and taken at least one person hostage.

According to the Associated Press (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465771956956744.html?m od=googlenews_wsj), "Montgomery County fire department spokesman Capt. Oscar Garcia said three bomb technicians responded to the scene in Silver Spring, Md., and several more are on their way."

Also, Montgomery County Police Spokesman Dan Friz told (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/01/maryland-police-respond-hostage-situation-man-gun-enters-building/) local news station WJLA-TV that police were dispatched after a report of shots fired at approximately 1 p.m. According to Friz, the suspect, identified as an Asian male, has "some sort of device on him that may be explosive in nature."

Witnesses said that the man fired at least one shot, then said: "Nobody is going anywhere."

The Washington Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090103911.html?hpid=topnews) that some employees have been evacuated. Others were "told to go to the highest floor in the building. An e-mail to Discovery employees had a subject line that read: 'URGENT: Employees at One Discovery Place Proceed to a Locked Office IMMEDIATELY.'"

In its coverage, the Post pointed to a "manifesto" posted on the Internet on July 18 demanding that the Discovery Channel immediately begin broadcasting information about "saving the planet."

Among the demands, published on the site Save The Planet Protest.com (http://savetheplanetprotest.com/), the Discovery Channel was urged to "stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it."

Savetheplanetprotest.com was not available, returning only a network error message, at the time The New American attempted to access it. The Post pointed out, however, that "There is no confirmation from authorities that the website has anything to do with the current situation at Discovery."


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/crime/4483-gunman-takes-hostage-at-discovery-channel-headquarters

[PBrady]

Funny, because I just got out of a class where we talked about trees for 3 hours when I heard the news.

[oyarde]

Funny, because I just got out of a class where we talked about trees for 3 hours when I heard the news.

This guy may be one of the presidents science Czar's people . Maybe the white house can collect him and end this.:)

[Mini-Me]

Since when is eugenics about exterminating the human race? I undestood it to be about selective breeding. Big difference between selective breeding and NO breeding!

You make a good point. The Venn Diagram overlap between eugenicists and Malthusian death cultists is pretty large, but they're still not the same exact circle. ;)

[PBrady]

I hope after this mess, people will start actually having serious discussions about the world's population. Not because it will satisfy what this guy set out to accomplish, but because it actually needs to be done.

[chudrockz]

Al Gore's running mate in 2012?

[Chieppa1]

Can we somehow link this guy with all the eugenics fans in Washington and in the UN? I mean they link us with every "right-wing" nut that goes crazy. Fight dirt with dirt.

[BlackSand]

Industrialized countries fall below the replacement rate. The only way they actually add people to their population is through immigration. Industiralize the world, end over-population.

And just an interesting figure for everyone here. America could fit half the worlds population and still be less crowded than the island nation of Britain.

[Mini-Me]

I hope after this mess, people will start actually having serious discussions about the world's population. Not because it will satisfy what this guy set out to accomplish, but because it actually needs to be done.

You have been misled on the population problem: It's actually not a huge issue, excepting immigration from third world countries into industrialized countries.

All wealthy countries form a natural population equilibrium, where people only reproduce at replacement rate. This is true of both the United States and wealthy European nations, after you cancel out immigration. It's a cultural thing that happens as economies mature.

It's true that the population continues to explode in poor countries. I could oversimplify things and say that their own populations would eventually reach equilibrium too, simply because their food cannot sustain their population...but subsidies and immigration kind of undermine this process, and a country starving its way to equilibrium isn't really a positive way to go about it.

Ultimately, there is one and only one humane or long-term solution: Poor countries need to be given the chance to develop economically and achieve their own industrial revolutions, etc. As they become wealthier, their reproduction rates will level off the same way industrialized countries' rates have. Of course, this is the real solution, which is why nobody ever wants to talk about it. It's the exact OPPOSITE of the non-solution that idiotic environmentalists propose: Some at the UN believe that we need to reverse the industrial revolution to "save the planet" and all that jazz, which is a sure way to promote never-ending population explosion...unless, of course, our wise and benevolent overlords implement the wonderfully progressive and humane plans of baby limits, mass sterilization, and/or genocide.

Anyway, we have plenty of time to allow the world to industrialize: Naive urbanites look around their big city and swallow the propaganda and think, "OMFG, WE ARE SO OVERPOPULATED," but if you think about the current development of America, most of the continent is still made of countryside with plenty of room to spare.

[PBrady]

I'm more than aware of the problem and the solution. The problem is that China and India (though moreso India, as China is actually getting their shit together - despite doing it through a really shitty way) are NOT wealthy nations. Of course we don't have to worry about us or "wealthy European nations". Problem is...we're still a huge minority of the world's population (~1/6).

I also agree with your proposed solution. But again, the problem is...what is the best way to get developing countries prosper...and do it fast?

[Mini-Me]

I'm more than aware of the problem and the solution. The problem is that China and India (though moreso India, as China is actually getting their shit together - despite doing it through a really shitty way) are NOT wealthy nations. Of course we don't have to worry about us or "wealthy European nations". Problem is...we're still a huge minority of the world's population (~1/6).

I also agree with your proposed solution. But again, the problem is...what is the best way to get developing countries prosper...and do it fast?

To the best of my knowledge, the biggest internal obstacle to economic growth is weak enforcement of private property rights. This is pretty much the thesis of Hernando de Soto's book, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else (http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/product-description/0465016146). Austrian economists criticize De Soto on some counts (rightly IMO), but as far as I know, this is the one book that most directly attacks the problem of third world poverty. (If anyone here knows of a better substitute from an Austrian economist, feel free to post it. :p)

There are a lot of external obstacles too though, especially for African countries, South American countries, etc. The US government is constantly training terrorists at the School of the Americas, so they can wreak havoc and fight the good fight against their communist counterparts in Central and South America, and all this intervention keeps the place a brutal hellhole that's never allowed to stabilize. In Africa, the US government, G8, etc. are always propping up one despotic government after another with foreign aid, etc., and meanwhile, these governments regularly sell the future of their people to the IMF. On top of that, the WTO cartelizes international trade, etc...so the powers that be are definitely making a mess of things.

Anyway, the solution seems to be two-pronged: We need to end our destructive intervention, and other countries need to embrace individualism / free market economics (it wouldn't hurt for us to rediscover them either). We're definitely responsible for half of this solution, but the other half is honestly out of our hands. Trying to force other countries to adopt "free market" policies never ends well, because giving our government (and the UN, WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc.) the power to do this is just daring them to use it to promote their own corporatist ends instead...which is exactly what they're doing. All we can really do on our part is end all of the intervention. Meanwhile, we can pragmatically insulate ourselves from the problems with draconian immigration barriers, but that's not a very libertarian stance, so I'm not a big fan of that one morally.

[Stary Hickory]

Anyone who is complaining about overpopulation and want to restrict breeding, sterilize people, or otherwise kill or maim human beings please take the first step towards a solution and off yourself thanks that is all.

[TJefferson1776]

Involuntary eugenics are a joke.

[amy31416]

Can we somehow link this guy with all the eugenics fans in Washington and in the UN? I mean they link us with every "right-wing" nut that goes crazy. Fight dirt with dirt.

Take the higher ground.

The left just loved going nuts over the Hutaree debacle and tried to paint the FBI plane crash fellow as a right-winger (not even to mention Tim McVeigh). It wasn't right to paint every right-wing person with the same broad brush, it's not right to do the same to them, as entertaining as it may be.

[forsmant]

There is no higher ground then eugenics.

[amy31416]

There is no higher ground the eugenics.

Wasn't talking about defending the guy. I was talking about the hypocrisy of going apeshit and pointing the finger at liberals, and saying "SEE! YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF EXTREMIST SYMPATHIZERS!"

Remember how some tried to pin the FBI building kamikaze anti-tax pilot on us?

[TC95]

He's dead now. This was a justfied killing since he entered a building with explosives and endangered other people's lives.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_discovery_channel_gunman;_ylt=AisjsebAeQzgSfHtk T9Zus2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNyNHVxbWM2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwM TAwOTAxL3VzX2Rpc2NvdmVyeV9jaGFubmVsX2d1bm1hbgRjY29 kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb 2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3BvbGljZWtpbGxndQ--

[forsmant]

Oh I was praising the crazy dude.

[TC95]

Anyone who is complaining about overpopulation and want to restrict breeding, sterilize people, or otherwise kill or maim human beings please take the first step towards a solution and off yourself thanks that is all.

Ditto.

[NewFederalist]

I guess he won't do any more selective breeding. Selective bleeding, either!

[tangent4ronpaul]

He's dead now. This was a justfied killing since he entered a building with explosives and endangered other people's lives.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_discovery_channel_gunman;_ylt=AisjsebAeQzgSfHtk T9Zus2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNyNHVxbWM2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwM TAwOTAxL3VzX2Rpc2NvdmVyeV9jaGFubmVsX2d1bm1hbgRjY29 kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb 2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3BvbGljZWtpbGxndQ--

This +1

The gene pool is better for it.

-t

[Vessol]

Then it turned out that Joe Stack was a socialist..

[WaltM]

Since when is eugenics about exterminating the human race? I undestood it to be about selective breeding. Big difference between selective breeding and NO breeding!

you are right, as a eugenicist, I resent being thought of as Malthusian, anti-human.

It's socialists, multiculturalists, pro-lifers and "live and let live" libertines that are anti-human, and pro-extermination (and pro-extinction).

But of course, I can't expect creationists like FrankRep & Alex Jones to get their ad hominems correct. Whenever a murder occurs, you count on these guys to make sure the criminal wasn't a Christian, he was either psycho or atheist, or racist.

[WaltM]

You make a good point. The Venn Diagram overlap between eugenicists and Malthusian death cultists is pretty large, but they're still not the same exact circle. ;)

How can eugenicis be pro-death?

What's the point of breeding good genes, and planning for the future, if death were the goal?

Eugenicists want the SURVIVAL, ADVANCEMENT AND EXPANSION of humans, with quality, not just numbers.

There's a big difference between being SELECTIVE of who lives/who dies, and being of the belief all humans are bad and should die.

There's a big difference between QUALITY of human life, and QUANTITY (but I suspect you know that).

I don't believe all humans are equal by any stretch (only communists do), thus I don't believe all humans are equally good or equally bad.

Pro-lifers believe all humans are equally good and worthy of life.
Maltusians believe (as far as I know) most humans are bad and unworthy of life.
Eugenicists choose, while varying in criteria, which humans are good and bad.
It's call judging, which we all do (some are just more honest about it).

[FrankRep]

But of course, I can't expect creationists like FrankRep & Alex Jones to get their ad hominems correct. Whenever a murder occurs, you count on these guys to make sure the criminal wasn't a Christian, he was either psycho or atheist, or racist.

In this case, James Lee, is an Atheist.

SOURCE (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/09/01/2010-09-01_reports_of_gunman_shots_fired_at_discovery_chan nel_hq_in_maryland.html)


On his My Space page, Lee described himself as an atheist

[WaltM]

Can we somehow link this guy with all the eugenics fans in Washington and in the UN? I mean they link us with every "right-wing" nut that goes crazy. Fight dirt with dirt.

I'm sure there's a clever way to do that, but it's a shame anybody has to.

As if murder and hostaging is more tolerable depending on a person's beliefs and associations.

It's DISGUSTING that people feel the need to associate eugenicists with environmentalists, and ultimately Malthusians, to a standard they'd never hold to themselves. The only way to say "you're a bad guy" is to say "because your belief is shared by those guys, which are shared with those other guys, which are shared with Hitler, NWO, UN" (otherwise, it seems fine).

[WaltM]

In this case, James Lee, is an Atheist.

SOURCE (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/09/01/2010-09-01_reports_of_gunman_shots_fired_at_discovery_chan nel_hq_in_maryland.html)


On his My Space page, Lee described himself as an atheist

Yep. Christians NEVER commit crimes, if one ever did you're bend over backwards to "prove" he's not a "real Christian" or "just not my kind, so he's really an atheist".

You wouldn't accept the same if I said "Lee isn't a good representation of atheists" in return (or else you'd NEVER bring it up).

[FrankRep]

Can we somehow link this guy with all the eugenics fans in Washington and in the UN? I mean they link us with every "right-wing" nut that goes crazy. Fight dirt with dirt.


We can do this:

Al Gore's Environmental Militant Terrorist Problem.


Environmental Militant Killed by Police at Discovery Channel Hdqtrs...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-enters-discovery-channel-headquarters-employees-evacuated/story?id=11535128

'Awakened' by Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Demanded halt to birth of 'parasitic human infants'...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090103911.html?hpid=topnews

[WaltM]

Anyone who is complaining about overpopulation and want to restrict breeding, sterilize people, or otherwise kill or maim human beings please take the first step towards a solution and off yourself thanks that is all.

so just because I believe all rapists are men, and rapists are all worthy of being killed, I should castrate myself?

What happened to "all people are bad except me and my kind"?

Don't confuse eugenicists with Malthusians.

We eugenicists don't believe all people are equally good or equally bad, so offing ourselves would be neither sufficient nor necessary. I have however, in case you cared, chosen not to breed.

[WaltM]

We can do this:
Al Gore's Environmental Militant Terrorist Problem.


I need to start making cash bets on your predictability.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I'm sure there's a clever way to do that, but it's a shame anybody has to.

As if murder and hostaging is more tolerable depending on a person's beliefs and associations.

It's DISGUSTING that people feel the need to associate eugenicists with environmentalists, and ultimately Malthusians, to a standard they'd never hold to themselves. The only way to say "you're a bad guy" is to say "because your belief is shared by those guys, which are shared with those other guys, which are shared with Hitler, NWO, UN" (otherwise, it seems fine).

Eugenics is much worse than environmentalism.

[Icymudpuppy]

Pro-lifers believe all humans are equally good and worthy of life.
Maltusians believe (as far as I know) most humans are bad and unworthy of life.
Eugenicists choose, while varying in criteria, which humans are good and bad.
It's call judging, which we all do (some are just more honest about it).

Change...

Prolifers believe all humans should have a chance to be good and worthy of life.
Anti-capital punishment and welfare advocates believe all humans are equally good and worthy of life.
Pro capital punishment believe if you've proven yourself to be bad and unworthy, then it's high time we eliminate you.
You got Malthusians and Eugenicist's right, but left out....
Darwinists believe nature and god will sort out the good from the bad through selective pressure and we shouldn't interfere artificially and we should let people die when they do stupid, antisocial, or lazy activities which will reduce their reproduction.

I am a pro-life Darwinist. Let every embryo have a chance, but take away all the artificial supports. Live or Die on individual merits. Just like the free market. Don't squash a business with regulations before it even has a chance to try for success, but don't give it any subsidies either.

[oyarde]

I need to start making cash bets on your predictability.

Yes , but you have to admit the Al Gore headline is funny .

[WaltM]

Wasn't talking about defending the guy. I was talking about the hypocrisy of going apeshit and pointing the finger at liberals, and saying "SEE! YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF EXTREMIST SYMPATHIZERS!"

Remember how some tried to pin the FBI building kamikaze anti-tax pilot on us?

AMy, VERY GOOD POINT!

When Hutaree broke out, there were 3 obvious brands of denialist defenses.

a) they weren't real Christians
b) they weren't real bad guys, it's federal tyranny & ambush
c) they weren't real militia, they're actually criminals


Nobody was willing to say
Yes, they were Christian, yes, they were a militia, yes, they were patriots too, just like us, and regardless of whether they were actually criminal, they do not represent us, and we do not advocate any criminal behavior.

Denial is not a defense, it's a form of lying and eventually will expose yourself as a person or group who can't be trusted.

[WaltM]

Change...

Prolifers believe all humans should have a chance to be good and worthy of life.
Anti-capital punishment and welfare advocates believe all humans are equally good and worthy of life.


I honestly don't know the difference.





Pro capital punishment believe if you've proven yourself to be bad and unworthy, then it's high time we eliminate you.


Fair enough.



You got Malthusians and Eugenicist's right, but left out....
Darwinists believe nature and god will sort out the good from the bad through selective pressure and we shouldn't interfere artificially and we should let people die when they do stupid, antisocial, or lazy activities which will reduce their reproduction.


Only creationists are non-Darwinists, Darwinian evolution is a proven fact.

However, I differentiate between taking DESCRIPTION of nature as PRESCRIPTION of actions.

Also, our society which refuses allow "nature take its course" by prolifers advocating socialism, is ANTI-NATURE AND ANTI-DARWINISM (for better or worse, can one disagree?)



I am a pro-life Darwinist. Let every embryo have a chance, but take away all the artificial supports.


So if a mother is on welfare and can't on her own make ends meet to feed her child, is assisting her "artificial support"?





Live or Die on individual merits. Just like the free market.


I'm all for that, which is why I advocate abortion most of the time.

What's more responsible than a person who knows he/she can't afford to take care of their child and ends the deal ASAP?



Don't squash a business with regulations before it even has a chance to try for success, but don't give it any subsidies either.

I'd happily substitute the word "business" with "fetuses" & families.

[WaltM]

Eugenics is much worse than environmentalism.

I respect your opinion, and that's still making my point.

Why should environmentalists whom don't have an interest in human genetics be associated with people who do?

[amy31416]

AMy, VERY GOOD POINT!

When Hutaree broke out, there were 3 obvious brands of denialist defenses.

a) they weren't real Christians
b) they weren't real bad guys, it's federal tyranny & ambush
c) they weren't real militia, they're actually criminals


Nobody was willing to say
Yes, they were Christian, yes, they were a militia, yes, they were patriots too, just like us, and regardless of whether they were actually criminal, they do not represent us, and we do not advocate any criminal behavior.

Denial is not a defense, it's a form of lying and eventually will expose yourself as a person or group who can't be trusted.

Best post you've made in a while... :)

Although, I think there's some debate to be had as to whether it was federal tyranny/ambush. It does look like they were set up.

But, if they were dumb enough to be set up.....

(And yeah, I know you were trying to set me up....)

[Icymudpuppy]

So if a mother is on welfare and can't on her own make ends meet to feed her child, is assisting her "artificial support"?

Good question. If she has established a social network that is willing to voluntarily support her, that is a group survival function demonstrated throughout the animal kingdom. Voluntary support from genetically or culturally similar group members for her proven ability to contribute young to that group is evolutionarily sound.

Involuntary support for a women who is not contributing to the mutual success of a group is not a strategy for success.






I'm all for that, which is why I advocate abortion most of the time.

What's more responsible than a person who knows he/she can't afford to take care of their child and ends the deal ASAP?


It may sound more harsh than abortion, but I think she should have all the same opportunities that a wild animal gets. Nobody asks if an Opossum mother is suitable or advocates abortion for opossum babies because she can't support them all, but we also don't shed a tear when 60% of her young starve to death from lack of nutrients in the first month after birth.

[WaltM]

Good question. If she has established a social network that is willing to voluntarily support her, that is a group survival function demonstrated throughout the animal kingdom. Voluntary support from genetically or culturally similar group members for her proven ability to contribute young to that group is evolutionarily sound.

Involuntary support for a women who is not contributing to the mutual success of a group is not a strategy for success.


Glad we agree, sadly many people here are not willing to be honest about it.

When asked, should a child be starved dead, they always say "that'll never happen in a free society".






It may sound more harsh than abortion, but I think she should have all the same opportunities that a wild animal gets. Nobody asks if an Opossum mother is suitable or advocates abortion for opossum babies because she can't support them all, but we also don't shed a tear when 60% of her young starve to death from lack of nutrients in the first month after birth.

it IS more harsh than abortion, I appreciate your honesty and I wish others who claim holier than thou would at least be such consistent.

[WaltM]

Best post you've made in a while... :)

Although, I think there's some debate to be had as to whether it was federal tyranny/ambush. It does look like they were set up.


Even if it was an ambush, whether they're actually criminal is up for investigation, not our denial.

(Of course, some people can disagree with the law and say what they do is moral though illegal, but those people shy off when somebody's arrested)




But, if they were dumb enough to be set up.....

(And yeah, I know you were trying to set me up....)

I think you get my point, it wasn't at all about defending Hutaree or blaming the government, it's about people being in denial of associations, and wouldn't allow the same for their adversaries.

[awake]

This individual believed that time was up for humans and that he was starting a revolution to save the world from over breeders and climate deniers. Wonder where he got those ideas?

[FrankRep]

This individual believed that time was up for humans and that he was starting a revolution to save the world from over breeders and climate deniers. Wonder where he got those ideas?

'Awakened' by Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

[WaltM]

This individual believed that time was up for humans and that he was starting a revolution to save the world from over breeders and climate deniers. Wonder where he got those ideas?

not from eugenicists who believe selective breeding for a better future, and survival of humans through education and technology.

or maybe he did, and chose more coercive and immediate action.

[Monarchist]

not from eugenicists who believe selective breeding for a better future, and survival of humans through education and technology.

or maybe he did, and chose more coercive and immediate action.

Tell us about your super genes.

[FrankRep]

not from eugenicists who believe selective breeding for a better future, and survival of humans through education and technology.

China Pushes Carbon Reduction Through Eugenics Population Reduction
YouTube - China Pushes Carbon Reduction Through Eugenics Population Reduction (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNoVJjfx2TE)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Cue SPLC in 5....4...3...2...1... Not!

Everyone who is in favor of Eugenics I nominate them for the first ones to be killed. Sound fair?

[awake]

not from eugenicists who believe selective breeding for a better future, and survival of humans through education and technology.

or maybe he did, and chose more coercive and immediate action.

Dog breeders share the same outlook on things chasing after blue ribbons. He referred to other human beings with near virus quality; " stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies".

His choice of selective breeding is quite striking, simply stop all humans from reproducing, render the species sterile through some form of violent threat.

Another quite striking note is that he intrinsically values all animal life over human, which is at the core of the environmentalist ideology.

[WaltM]

Cue SPLC in 5....4...3...2...1... Not!

Everyone who is in favor of Eugenics I nominate them for the first ones to be killed. Sound fair?

anyone who opposes death penalty I nominate him to be a victim, sound fair?

[WaltM]

Tell us about your super genes.

I have none, and I'm honest enough to admit it.

I'm not handicapped, and I'm relatively healthier than most people, but I have made a responsible choice to not breed (and I find it criminal that some people breed solely for their pleasure and abuse of society)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

anyone who opposes death penalty I nominate him to be a victim, sound fair?

So you aren't a problem to the Earth, but everyone else is..fucking coward. Everyone who believes in Eugenics and this balogne should go and off themselves if they truly believed in it...or is it that they are like a Cult and won't kill themselves until everyone else is dead? Drinking the punch last is it?

[James Madison]

I have made a responsible choice to not breed

Why do you feel this way?

[WaltM]

China Pushes Carbon Reduction Through Eugenics Population Reduction


Population reduction isn't always eugenics.

Eugenics may result in population reduction, and it may use population reduction as a means, but they are not equatable or synonymous.

Furthermore, carbon reduction doesn't require population reduction per se either.

Of course, like I said earlier in this thread, I can't expect you to stop connecting these dots because that's the purpose of your life, to make anybody other than a Ron Paul supporter, JBS member and Creationist, look like a bad guy.

Unless you're an anarchist, you'd be a hypocrite for not admitting China has policies and regulations you might accept.

[WaltM]

Why do you feel this way?

Mostly financial reasons.

I'm too selfish to waste time and money on children.

There's also other factors such as my contribution to society, belief that I'm not the best genes, and the realization there's more people than I need to care about.

[WaltM]

So you aren't a problem to the Earth, but everyone else is..fucking coward.


You're not different.

You believe all humans are bad unless they're an ancap like you.

You're just too coward to say you'd rather have them dead (or be your slave) if you could.




Everyone who believes in Eugenics and this balogne should go and off themselves if they truly believed in it...or is it that they are like a Cult and won't kill themselves until everyone else is dead? Drinking the punch last is it?

You can keep spewing ad hominems, falsehoods which I've corrected, or you can actually listen to what I believe.

I don't believe all humans are equally good or bad, so not all humans are worthy to live, or to kill. Therefore, myself is not always a good start.

In contrast, people can start with themselves if they believe they are harm to others, even if they believe others are fine.

[Monarchist]

Mostly financial reasons.

I'm too selfish to waste time and money on children.

There's also other factors such as my contribution to society, belief that I'm not the best genes, and the realization there's more people than I need to care about.

Fascinating.

[James Madison]

Mostly financial reasons.

I'm too selfish to waste time and money on children.

There's also other factors such as my contribution to society, belief that I'm not the best genes, and the realization there's more people than I need to care about.

Odd that you seem to expouse darwinian principles with such conviction and yet don't adhere to the most important evolutionary drive of all: reproduction.

[awake]

I have none, and I'm honest enough to admit it.

I'm not handicapped, and I'm relatively healthier than most people, but I have made a responsible choice to not breed (and I find it criminal that some people breed solely for their pleasure and abuse of society)

"..and I find it criminal that some people breed solely for their pleasure and abuse of society"

Then by all means have those people who might find pleasure in sexual intercourse rendered sterile by force. Ensure all those who would try to birth offspring in hopes of collecting a more sizable welfare check rounded up right away and made sterile as well.

But don't stop there, you already conceded the principle that another human being has a right to his own body as property of himself... you might as well follow through, round up the other social undesirables.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You're not different.

You believe all humans are bad unless they're an ancap like you.

You're just too coward to say you'd rather have them dead (or be your slave) if you could.




You can keep spewing ad hominems, falsehoods which I've corrected, or you can actually listen to what I believe.

I don't believe all humans are equally good or bad, so not all humans are worthy to live, or to kill. Therefore, myself is not always a good start.

In contrast, people can start with themselves if they believe they are harm to others, even if they believe others are fine.

Nature is a self-regulator. If there are too many humans then there will be strife until populations reach equilibrium with resources. Nature like the market is perfectly suitable to run on its own without outside influence (vis a vis Government/State). It's just like anything. If there are no predators and herbivores populate so massively they eat their resources dry, then they will die off until there is a number compatible with the amount of resources. Same with predators. If there are too many predators and not enough prey, the predators die off until their population levels reach equilibrium. So, Eugenics/population control what have you is a farce on its face. People who believe in that make me laugh at how absurd it is.

Call me a Social Darwinist, I don't care. It's the truth.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Odd that you seem to expouse darwinian principles with such conviction and yet don't adhere to the most important evolutionary drive of all: reproduction.

He adheres to no Darwinist principles. If he did he would let things run on their own without intervention. (E.g. Herbert Spencer)

[James Madison]

He adheres to no Darwinist principles. If he did he would let things run on their own without intervention. (E.g. Herbert Spencer)

Not necessarily. One could argue that certain human beings wanting to destory themselves and humanity is nothing more than humans evolving. Not that I believe that, but he may.

[WaltM]

Odd that you seem to expouse darwinian principles with such conviction and yet don't adhere to the most important evolutionary drive of all: reproduction.

I believe in eugenics.

And also, I don't believe it would be right, financially, emotionally, socially or even biologically, if i had children I could not take care of and leave it for burden of others.

I believe in the result, the child will hate me, society will hate me, and nobody ultimately benefits. If I had time and resources, and any interest, I'd devote some to nurturing or adopting children in need. I find it incredibly irresponsible to have children in the society we live in, it's bad for almost everybody.

[WaltM]

He adheres to no Darwinist principles. If he did he would let things run on their own without intervention. (E.g. Herbert Spencer)

I DO believe that, which is why I am attacked on this board constantly for advocating to allow people who can't feed their children to be left alone and starved dead (suddenly libertarians turn into socialists and call me evil).

[WaltM]

Not necessarily. One could argue that certain human beings wanting to destory themselves and humanity is nothing more than humans evolving. Not that I believe that, but he may.

I agree.

Darwinian evolution is a fact.

People can choose to humble approach nature, or try to violate it.

Not all people are eugenicists, but some are more honest than others.

Being a eugenicist, first and foremost, I believe, requires you to believe that not all humans are equal (people who deny that are communists, Lamarckians and egalitarians).

[James Madison]

I DO believe that, which is why I am attacked on this board constantly for advocating to allow people who can't feed their children to be left alone and starved dead (suddenly libertarians turn into socialists and call me evil).

Yes, that is evil. I don't do enough myself, and I admit it. It's something that I don't like about myself.

[WaltM]

Nature is a self-regulator.


Agreed.



If there are too many humans then there will be strife until populations reach equilibrium with resources.


Not if socialism and pro-lifers can help it.




Nature like the market is perfectly suitable to run on its own without outside influence (vis a vis Government/State).


why aren't governments considered part of the mechanism?



It's just like anything. If there are no predators and herbivores populate so massively they eat their resources dry, then they will die off until there is a number compatible with the amount of resources.


to put in context, murder for food was once common place, until we had civilization.

technology makes many things less important.

Nonetheless, we have people who believe it's wrong to allow people to die of starvation and disease because they have some God-give "right to life".




Same with predators. If there are too many predators and not enough prey, the predators die off until their population levels reach equilibrium. So, Eugenics/population control what have you is a farce on its face.


I'm probably only a eugenicist in response to pro-life lunacy.

If people were honestly respectful of nature, I'd probably live and let live.



People who believe in that make me laugh at how absurd it is.

Call me a Social Darwinist, I don't care. It's the truth.

You're not a social Darwinist, you allow socialists and pro-life egalitarians to overrun you. Then you condemn me for embracing nature and responsibility.

[James Madison]

I agree.



Being a eugenicist, first and foremost, I believe, requires you to believe that not all humans are equal (people who deny that are communists, Lamarckians and egalitarians).

I am a Christian, and I believe in pure evolution. To be a Christian requires you to accept that all human beings are equal. Even from a secular point of view to say otherwise opens the door to government regulation of who breeds and who doesn't. Every human being hasthe right to breed as they see fit, whether that be having twenty children or no children. If you accept this then you believe all humans are equal.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I DO believe that, which is why I am attacked on this board constantly for advocating to allow people who can't feed their children to be left alone and starved dead (suddenly libertarians turn into socialists and call me evil).

Well, while I certainly support ones wishes to not donate to charity, I certainly would. Which means there are enough resources to go around to support the population. I however, don't believe in forcing anyone, anywhere, to be stolen from for this endeavor. It leads to chaos, violence, and a far worse strife than if you just let nature run its course. That said, if the human population outgrew our resources, many would simply die, and that is nature and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is those who interfere with nature, and try to become God themselves. Once someone, or even many take that upon themselves, God really help us lmao.

[WaltM]

Yes, that is evil. I don't do enough myself, and I admit it. It's something that I don't like about myself.

so you admit, knowing something is wrong and doing nothing about it, doesn't make you a hypocrite?

or, if it does, who isn't and what's the point of the word?

[awake]

I DO believe that, which is why I am attacked on this board constantly for advocating to allow people who can't feed their children to be left alone and starved dead (suddenly libertarians turn into socialists and call me evil).

You know what Walt, if you had just said : "to allow people who can't feed their children to be left alone", that would make so much more sense... the "starved dead" part sounds like a projected wish.

[WaltM]

I am a Christian, and I believe in pure evolution.


as in, hands off? ANarchy?



To be a Christian requires you to accept that all human beings are equal.


So does Marxism.



Even from a secular point of view to say otherwise opens the door to government regulation of who breeds and who doesn't.


yeah, so?



Every human being hasthe right to breed as they see fit, whether that be having twenty children or no children. If you accept this then you believe all humans are equal.

I don't accept that.

Just like I don't believe a person has the right to kill, I don't believe a person has a right to breed. A person owes society the responsibility of not burdening it. This at least means, not killing people who are productive, and not breed people who are not.

[WaltM]

You know what Walt, if you had just said : "to allow people who can't feed their children to be left alone", that would make so much more sense... the "starved dead" part sounds like a projected wish.

I need to present the extreme to make it clear, so that there are no excuses, if and but...

[James Madison]

so you admit, knowing something is wrong and doing nothing about it, doesn't make you a hypocrite?

or, if it does, who isn't and what's the point of the word?

We are all hypocrites. We spend money on things we don't need when people starve to death all across the planet (mostly because of corruption not overpopulation). Just because we make mistakes, however, shouldn't prevent us giving up altogether. Ron Paul made plenty of mistakes during his campaign, but he doesn't give up.

[James Madison]

as in, hands off? ANarchy?



So does Marxism.



yeah, so?



I don't accept that.

Just like I don't believe a person has the right to kill, I don't believe a person has a right to breed. A person owes society the responsibility of not burdening it. This at least means, not killing people who are productive, and not breed people who are not.

I believe God created the Earth and has overseen its developement. I would recommend studying cell biology and genetics; it will change the way you approach the origins of life.
So are you implying that Marxism is a religion and that Jesus Christ is its Savior?
And you also accept that the government has the authority to restrict who breeds and who doesn't?
A person does NOT have any responsibility to not be a burden to society. Are we not a burden on society because we challenge the status quo of said society?

[WaltM]

We are all hypocrites.


just like we're all sinners?

So I take it you believe human is synonymous with sinner and hypocrite?

I try not to be a hypocrite, for what I can't do, I don't consider it wrong.



We spend money on things we don't need when people starve to death all across the planet (mostly because of corruption not overpopulation).


I don't think that's wrong, unless you're a socialist.



Just because we make mistakes, however, shouldn't prevent us giving up altogether. Ron Paul made plenty of mistakes during his campaign, but he doesn't give up.

I wasn't talking about giving up, I was talking about avoiding the use of a word which can't communicate anything.

[WaltM]

I believe God created the Earth and has overseen its developement. I would recommend studying cell biology and genetics; it will change the way you approach the origins of life.


I have a BS in biological sciences, I also TA & tutored DNA homology.

What is it you wanted me to change my mind about?

To your belief, that all humans have the right to breed, I hope this video helps you think about it again.

YouTube - "Idiocracy" introduction - the future of human evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo)



So are you implying that Marxism is a religion and that Jesus Christ is its Savior?


No, I am implying that Marxism is a religion which believes all people are equal, with equal potentional and entitlements.



And you also accept that the government has the authority to restrict who breeds and who doesn't?


Not per se, but when authorized by its people, and when leaders believe it's the responsible thing to do.



A person does NOT have any responsibility to not be a burden to society. Are we not a burden on society because we challenge the status quo of said society?

A different kind of burden.

Financial and material burden is the hardest to deny.

[Working Poor]

I just think it is great that someone on the radical left did this:D

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Walt I hope you realize any institution especially the State setting up to do what you want it to in this case, would cause untold amounts of destruction, chaos, violence, civil strife, etc. The better option and the more sensible option is to let people breed with whoever they want in however many numbers they want. The solution is not more government intervention to help stunt the government intervention before it. You fall into the fallacious cycle of violent statist solutions to help curb violent statist solutions. IT DOESN'T WORK. Why do people have 18 kids? Government intervention -- Welfare State.

No Government intervention ever produces anything worthwhile or good. NONE WHATSOEVER. Down with the State.

[James Madison]

I have a BS in biological sciences, I also TA & tutored DNA homology.

What is it you wanted me to change my mind about?



Are you in graduate school then?

My point is, life is extremely complicated. Individuals like Darwin had absolutely no idea of how complex even single celled bacterium is, let alone a human being comprised of 10 trillion cells. I simply find it hard to believe that anyone can study biology and not be moved by the beauty of life.

[WaltM]

Are you in graduate school then?

My point is, life is extremely complicated.


No, I am not in graduate school, and I won't be in the same dept. if I do choose to go.

Who ever denied life is extremely complicated?



Individuals like Darwin had absolutely no idea of how complex even single celled bacterium is, let alone a human being comprised of 10 trillion cells.


You are correct, Darwin didn't know much about genetics at the time. But he knew of cell theory, heredity, and biodiversity. All he had at the time to work with were morphology.



I simply find it hard to believe that anyone can study biology and not be moved by the beauty of life.

I am moved by the beauty of life, and I still don't see your point.

[James Madison]

just like we're all sinners?

So I take it you believe human is synonymous with sinner and hypocrite?

I try not to be a hypocrite, for what I can't do, I don't consider it wrong.



Yes we are.
And to be perfectly honest, neither you nor I will ever be able to have any influence on our country's political state of affiars. So you could just lay down and give up. If I did that then I would support the murder of millions of Iraqis, Arabs, etc. Silence is tacet approval. Even if your voice will not be heard, you have a duty as a human being to warn others of danger.

[WaltM]

No Government intervention ever produces anything worthwhile or good. NONE WHATSOEVER. Down with the State.

The revolutionary war which created a government that secure and protected the Bill of Rights is not good, not worthwhile, or not a government intervention?

[WaltM]

Yes we are.
And to be perfectly honest, neither you nor I will ever be able to have any influence on our country's political state of affiars. So you could just lay down and give up. If I did that then I would support the murder of millions of Iraqis, Arabs, etc. Silence is tacet approval. Even if your voice will not be heard, you have a duty as a human being to warn others of danger.

at least we agree on that.

I understand that my indifference is practically approval, and I don't deny it a bit.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The revolutionary war which created a government that secure and protected the Bill of Rights is not good, not worthwhile, or not a government intervention?

Nope. It destroyed the liberties of the people. If you read some Benjamin Franklin he talks about why they had to rush the Government lest people find themselves liking the anarchy they were in. His own words decreed things were perfectly fine the way it was, but of course..they wanted power and the Constitution was a massive centralization of power.

PS: The war didn't create the Government.

"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us." -- B.F.

[low preference guy]

I simply find it hard to believe that anyone can study biology and not be moved by the beauty of life.

lol!

[James Madison]

You are correct, Darwin didn't know much about genetics at the time. But he knew of cell theory, heredity, and biodiversity. All he had at the time to work with were morphology.



I am moved by the beauty of life, and I still don't see your point.

Cell theory doesn't exactly do much to explain the complexity of life at the microscopic level. Hell, viruses are probably the most complex organisms on the planet but according to cell theory they aren't living organisms (which is why cell theory should be rejected).
Darwin knew very little except the basics of heredity. DNA wasn't even known to be the genetic material of the cell until 1954; almost 100 years after he published his findings on evolution.
There is no correlation between morphology and cellular complexity.

My point is, life shouldn't even be able to exist and yet it does. I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree.

[James Madison]

lol!

I take it you weren't a fan of biology in hs/college?;)

[Mini-Me]

How can eugenicis be pro-death?

What's the point of breeding good genes, and planning for the future, if death were the goal?

Eugenicists want the SURVIVAL, ADVANCEMENT AND EXPANSION of humans, with quality, not just numbers.

There's a big difference between being SELECTIVE of who lives/who dies, and being of the belief all humans are bad and should die.

There's a big difference between QUALITY of human life, and QUANTITY (but I suspect you know that).

I don't believe all humans are equal by any stretch (only communists do), thus I don't believe all humans are equally good or equally bad.

Pro-lifers believe all humans are equally good and worthy of life.
Maltusians believe (as far as I know) most humans are bad and unworthy of life.
Eugenicists choose, while varying in criteria, which humans are good and bad.
It's call judging, which we all do (some are just more honest about it).

I'll preface this by saying I still find your belief in eugenics disgusting and terrifying, BUT:
It's important to point out that you are different from the power elites pushing eugenics, because you actually believe in the idea of scientifically bettering the human race. It's not just some pretext for you. I still think you're wrong from a scientific point of view though, because science actually supports the idea of "genetic diversity über alles" anyway, and it especially warns against the vulnerability of monocultures. Plus, evolution towards better adaptation is something that happens on its own, without conscious planning...which is why we're here in the first place and a hell of a lot smarter than the other animals around us. (That said, you'd really think that ugly people would have more trouble finding mates than others, and natural selection would favor better and better-looking people each generation, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Either too many ugly people are still finding mates, or ugliness is just very genetically persistent. ;))

From what I can tell, most eugenicists (or perhaps "eugenicists" in quotes) aren't really like you, though. They support eugenics almost solely for the infrastructure that it gives them to control the human species and control reproduction for their own ends, and their idea of genetic superiority is more arrogant and class-based than your more honest assessment. Plus, they're likely interested in eugenics not just for human advancement and genetic superiority, but also to create a sub-race of subservient drones...which is the complete opposite of genetic betterment. The power elites may use your reasons as a pretext, and some may delude themselves into believing them, but they ultimately support eugenics for different reasons from yours, and these reasons go hand in hand with their support for Malthusian genocide. This is why eugenicists and Malthusians are often lumped together. (Besides, these completely counterproductive ends are the only way eugenics could ever be implemented in practice, simply because of the incentives that centralized power promotes.)

[WaltM]

Cell theory doesn't exactly do much to explain the complexity of life at the microscopic level.


It sure doesn't.

What's your point?



Hell, viruses are probably the most complex organisms on the planet but according to cell theory they aren't living organisms (which is why cell theory should be rejected).


No viruses are NOT more complex than cells, and they certainly aren't more complex than multicell organisms.

Cell theory defines living organisms, and viruses do not fit the definition. However, viruses can be understood an explained under biology, biochemistry and others.

The fact you'd reject cell theory for something it doesn't account for, means you know close to nothing about scientific theories (I am VERY tempted to say "i'm done with you" but I have patience for people ignorant of science).




Darwin knew very little except the basics of heredity. DNA wasn't even known to be the genetic material of the cell until 1954; almost 100 years after he published his findings on evolution.


Yes.

But even while he was alive, his theory of evolution and natural selection had been vindicated. DNA continues to support the theory of evolution.



There is no correlation between morphology and cellular complexity.


Who said there is?

(I'm not denying there might be, but I didn't say there was at all)



My point is, life shouldn't even be able to exist and yet it does.


Says who?



I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Because you don't know what you're talking about.

[WaltM]

I'll preface this by saying I still find your belief in eugenics disgusting and terrifying, BUT:


you find responsibility terrifying.

it almost sounds like I'm a fundamentalist Christian yelling
"you're just an atheist because you don't want to be responsible to God"



It's important to point out that you are different from the power elites pushing eugenics, because you actually believe in the idea of scientifically bettering the human race.


That's actually what eugenics means.

Some people may believe in genetic engineering, but not eugenics.
Some people may promote eugenics as a byproduct, or as a means to an end.




It's not just some pretext for you. I still think you're wrong from a scientific point of view though, because science actually supports the idea of "genetic diversity über alles" anyway, and it especially warns against the vulnerability of monocultures. Plus, evolution towards better adaptation is something that happens on its own, without conscious planning...which is why we're here in the first place and a hell of a lot smarter than the other animals around us.


Not quite.

Adaptation doesn't always happen, not when the chance and time are not given.

We might be breeding new diverse genes which will help us survive later, but in the meantime, without predators, we're flooding ourselves with losers and handicaps.



(That said, you'd really think that ugly people would have more trouble finding mates than others, and natural selection would favor better and better-looking people each generation, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Either too many ugly people are still finding mates, or ugliness is just very genetically persistent. ;))


That's partially because looks are not entirely hereditary, and our politically correct society no longer condemns, shames or discourages ugly people from breeding. THAT IS WHY eugenics is so nasty to the people who've been asleep in egalitarianism for so long.




From what I can tell, most eugenicists (or perhaps "eugenicists" in quotes) aren't really like you, though.


yes, they are.

I know many.

I don't believe the NWO is eugenicist, if that's what you're suggesting.

The conspiracy theory that the NWO wants eugenics is just a story made up by American Christians, whom only oppose eugenics because Hitler did it (if Hitler didn't do it, they'd probably support eugenics and, like me, laugh at those who are afraid of it as stupid liberals).




They support eugenics almost solely for the infrastructure that it gives them to control the human species and control reproduction for their own ends, and their idea of genetic superiority is more arrogant and class-based than your more honest assessment.


you don't need to do that.

if you want slaves, you live and let live, then you prop them alive.

That's already happening, you don't need to intentionally breed stupid people, that's all they're good at, you just need to let them live and support them (which socialist countries DO)

On the contrary, yes, all you need to do to embrace nature and eugenics is leave people alone, but we're not doing that, which is why we're constantly overrun by less intelligent people.



Plus, they're likely interested in eugenics not just for human advancement and genetic superiority, but also to create a sub-race of subservient drones...which is the complete opposite of genetic betterment.


saying something again doesn't make it an extra point, you just repeated yourself.

Again, I don't for a minute buy that NWO wants eugenics to create slaves, if they actually wanted slaves, they'd be for today's rules : LET THE LOSERS BREED, and tell people "let them live, don't let them die".






The power elites may use your reasons as a pretext, and some may delude themselves into believing them, but they ultimately support eugenics for different reasons from yours,


no, they can't, and they won't.

it makes no sense.

if you want slaves, you let them breed.

if you want less people, you admit it, and kill.

You can't want eugenics, and want slaves too. That's retarded.




and these reasons go hand in hand with their support for Malthusian genocide.


WRONG, as I've already said, Malthusian genocide is COMPLETELY against eugenics, as it is unselective. Eugenicists SELECT, ADVANCE, AND HOPE FOR BETTER.

Malthusians, like communists, like egalitarians, believe humans are equally good and equally bad.



This is why eugenicists and Malthusians are often lumped together. (Besides, these completely counterproductive ends are the only way eugenics could ever be implemented in practice, simply because of the incentives that centralized power promotes.)

No. Please read what I said, and have something to say in response. Don't repeat the same nonsense, or cite something more concrete.

[WaltM]

I take it you weren't a fan of biology in hs/college?;)

I can tell you're not.

[Mini-Me]

you find responsibility terrifying.

it almost sounds like I'm a fundamentalist Christian yelling
"you're just an atheist because you don't want to be responsible to God"
I'm fine with responsibility; I just think you have a very warped idea of it, and you find lack of control terrifying.

I agree that having kids without being able to support them is irresponsible, and I'd never do it. I completely disagree that having kids in general is irresponsible though, because I'm coming from a much different perspective from you.


That's actually what eugenics means.

Some people may believe in genetic engineering, but not eugenics.
Some people may promote eugenics as a byproduct, or as a means to an end.




Not quite.

Adaptation doesn't always happen, not when the chance and time are not given.

We might be breeding new diverse genes which will help us survive later, but in the meantime, without predators, we're flooding ourselves with losers and handicaps.
So? It simply means that, because we work together and prop each other up (including our weaklings), we are collectively well-adapted for our environment. Natural selection includes the ability to cooperate, because the ability to cooperate is in and of itself an extremely adaptive trait. We're evolving slowly at the moment because we are already the apex predator of our environment, and there is no need to evolve faster.

If you're worried about some existential threat quickly coming about and changing all that, note the scientific view on monocultures vs. biodiversity with respect to existential threats. Also note that our alien overlords may choose to spare us because they find the handicaps especially interesting. ;) There is no scientific basis for planning out which genes we need to keep and which to throw away, to preempt some unknown future threat, because there could be any number of threats, all of which would require different adaptations.


That's partially because looks are not entirely hereditary, and our politically correct society no longer condemns, shames or discourages ugly people from breeding. THAT IS WHY eugenics is so nasty to the people who've been asleep in egalitarianism for so long.
The ugly people problem is not really a big problem from a genetic point of view, because good-looking people can easily limit themselves to sleeping with other good-looking people. It's not like the uglies are really crowding out the hotties. ;) That said, you're right about looks not being entirely hereditary anyway, and I really only mentioned the whole thing to make light of your eugenics fetish.



yes, they are.
I know many.
I don't believe the NWO is eugenicist, if that's what you're suggesting.
Perhaps - but in any case, it doesn't matter, because the infrastructure for compulsive eugenics would inevitably lead to different ends. You can deny this, but you wouldn't if you understood that governmental systems are dominated and further shaped by their incentives, over the long term.


The conspiracy theory that the NWO wants eugenics is just a story made up by American Christians, whom only oppose eugenics because Hitler did it (if Hitler didn't do it, they'd probably support eugenics and, like me, laugh at those who are afraid of it as stupid liberals).
They don't oppose eugenics just because Hitler did it; Hitler also ate breakfast and liked his dog, but you don't see FrankRep freaking out about Bob Evans or Lassie. People who oppose eugenics "because of Hitler" oppose them because Hitler clearly demonstrated why the very notion is so inherently dangerous and easily abused. It's not just about, "Hitler did this." It's about, "Hitler did this, and it turned out very badly, and he made the wiser among us realize once and for all that the formula is so inherently broken that no fiddling will avert the danger."



you don't need to do that.

if you want slaves, you live and let live, then you prop them alive.

That's already happening, you don't need to intentionally breed stupid people, that's all they're good at, you just need to let them live and support them (which socialist countries DO)
That works well enough, but their forays in public "education" have demonstrated that they're always looking for ways to make people more docile and dependent than yesterday.



On the contrary, yes, all you need to do to embrace nature and eugenics is leave people alone, but we're not doing that, which is why we're constantly overrun by less intelligent people.
You seem to be under the false impression that human civilization is not part of nature, from a biological or evolutionary point of view. Why?


saying something again doesn't make it an extra point, you just repeated yourself.
The points were distinct; you just misunderstood my previous point and conflated it with this one. My previous point - about the power elites' class-based notion of genetic superiority - was referring to the idea that they'd consider their own genes the best, just because they're theirs. When selecting for the "best" genes, they would select for their own, out of sheer narcissism. The second point about deliberately weakening the genes of the underclass was separate.




Again, I don't for a minute buy that NWO wants eugenics to create slaves, if they actually wanted slaves, they'd be for today's rules : LET THE LOSERS BREED, and tell people "let them live, don't let them die".
Believe it or not. It doesn't matter what you think, only what they think.

I should point out that a "live and let live [and breed]" policy would also let the "winners" breed - and perhaps even someday turn the "losers" against them - which is very dangerous to them. Tyrants tend to live in perpetual paranoia of their subjects.



no, they can't, and they won't.

it makes no sense.

if you want slaves, you let them breed.

if you want less people, you admit it, and kill.

You can't want eugenics, and want slaves too. That's retarded.
I disagree, for reasons stated above.

If you really can't see what I'm saying, I have to say you wouldn't make for a very good evil overlord.


WRONG, as I've already said, Malthusian genocide is COMPLETELY against eugenics, as it is unselective. Eugenicists SELECT, ADVANCE, AND HOPE FOR BETTER.

Malthusians, like communists, like egalitarians, believe humans are equally good and equally bad.
This sounds like a "no TRUE Scotsman" kind of thing. I agree that you are a eugenicist but not a Malthusian, and your goals contradict theirs.

However, that has no bearing on the power elites: I've already outlined their support for "eugenics" (true or not) and their underlying motives. You can believe in them or not, but the crux of my original post was this: People here so often lump together eugenicists and Malthusians because we're referring to them, not to you. You wanted to know why people here lump them together, and I told you. You don't have to agree with the reasoning just to know that's what the reasoning is. Simple enough, no?


No. Please read what I said, and have something to say in response. Don't repeat the same nonsense, or cite something more concrete.
I could say the same for you. You can either recognize the way centralized power works, or you can pretend it works the way you want it to work (as socialists do), at your own peril. It's up to you.

[WaltM]

So? It simply means that, because we work together and prop each other up (including our weaklings), we are collectively well-adapted for our environment.


I can tell you've not seen this.

YouTube - "Idiocracy" introduction - the future of human evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo)

Or you think it's acceptable for the group to be dragged down by the weak, the dumb, the poor, why not the handicapped?



Natural selection includes the ability to cooperate, because the ability to cooperate is in and of itself an extremely adaptive trait. We're evolving slowly at the moment because we are already the apex predator of our environment, and there is no need to evolve faster.


So would you be in favor of at least not propping up those who refuse to cooperate?



If you're worried about some existential threat quickly coming about and changing all that, note the scientific view on monocultures vs. biodiversity with respect to existential threats. Also note that our alien overlords may choose to spare us because they find the handicaps especially interesting. ;) There is no scientific basis for planning out which genes we need to keep and which to throw away, to preempt some unknown future threat, because there could be any number of threats, all of which would require different adaptations.


But there's a good reason to reduce UNWANTED GENES.




The ugly people problem is not really a big problem from a genetic point of view, because good-looking people can easily limit themselves to sleeping with other good-looking people. It's not like the uglies are really crowding out the hotties. ;) That said, you're right about looks not being entirely hereditary anyway, and I really only mentioned the whole thing to make light of your eugenics fetish.


My eugenics fetish is much more sensible than your Marxist politically correct fetish.



Perhaps - but in any case, it doesn't matter, because the infrastructure for compulsive eugenics would inevitably lead to different ends. You can deny this, but you wouldn't if you understood that governmental systems are dominated and further shaped by their incentives, over the long term.


I wouldn't exactly be opposed to it.

I would however, still say that one cannot be for eugenics, and for slavery (by slavery I mean using humans for labor as we did centuries ago).



They don't oppose eugenics just because Hitler did it; Hitler also ate breakfast and liked his dog, but you don't see FrankRep freaking out about Bob Evans or Lassie.


Yeah, because FrankRep is a hypocrite like that.



People who oppose eugenics "because of Hitler" oppose them because Hitler clearly demonstrated why the very notion is so inherently dangerous and easily abused.


So at least we agree we can do it without it being abused.

By the way, Hitler lived in a time where we were in exploration stages, you want to make an omelet without breaking eggs?



It's not just about, "Hitler did this." It's about, "Hitler did this, and it turned out very badly


Not quite, it only turned out badly because Hitler lost the war.

Again, had Hitler won the war, Americans would praise him as they do Roosevelt and Churchill.



, and he made the wiser among us realize once and for all that the formula is so inherently broken that no fiddling will avert the danger."


That works well enough, but their forays in public "education" have demonstrated that they're always looking for ways to make people more docile and dependent than yesterday.


So why shouldn't eugenics be an acceptable response?



You seem to be under the false impression that human civilization is not part of nature, from a biological or evolutionary point of view. Why?


I DO believe human civilization is part of nature, at least part of it is.

Civilization however, is not the same as embracing retarded people, treat handicap people as role models, or lying about how everybody is equal.
(yes, I just created a strawman, the fact you don't like what I said means you know you can't accept it either)



The points were distinct; you just misunderstood my previous point and conflated it with this one. My previous point - about the power elites' class-based notion of genetic superiority - was referring to the idea that they'd consider their own genes the best, just because they're theirs.


That's not scientific, so any use of that notion wouldn't be eugenics, even if it was GE for their own selfish reasons.



When selecting for the "best" genes, they would select for their own, out of sheer narcissism. The second point about deliberately weakening the genes of the underclass was separate.


Both of which are not eugenics.

If you're opposed to narcissism, ego extension by cloning and breeding, why aren't you opposed to irresponsible breeding?



No, because "live and let live" would also let the "winners" breed


Not if socialism can help it.

I find it amazin you claim to know so much about "power elites" but turn a blind eye or manage to miss the obvious fact that socialism is DESTROYING HUMANITY, and conditioning humans to abandon genetic responsibility (yeah, I made up that term).



- and perhaps even someday turn the "losers" against them - which is very dangerous to them. Tyrants tend to live in perpetual paranoia of their subjects.


Watch idiocracy or look around you, see what tyrants are afraid of their people.



I disagree, for reasons stated above.


And you're wrong, because I actually am a eugenicist, and I know what I believe.

You are neither a eugenicist nor a power elite, yet you claim to know what they believe.



If you really can't see what I'm saying, I have to say you wouldn't make for a very good evil overlord.


I can live with that.



This sounds like a "no TRUE Scotsman" kind of thing. I agree that you are a eugenicist but not a Malthusian, and your goals contradict theirs.


Close. But more accurately, you (and others) started the strawman, so correcting the strawman is not denying I'm a Scotsman. Unless, understandably, the common usage of the words eugenicist & Malthusian has redefined this Scotsman.

You are right, I'm not a Malthusian and my goals CONTRADICT MALTHUSIANS.
(which is what I said from the first post, I am a eugenicist and I resent being lumped with Malthusians).




However, that has no bearing on the power elites: I've already outlined their support for "eugenics" (true or not) and their underlying motives. You can believe in them or not, but the crux of my original post was this: People here so often lump together eugenicists and Malthusians because we're referring to them, not to you.


And they're using the wrong terms.

You wouldn't like it if I called them minarchists or libertarians either.





You wanted to know why people here lump them together, and I told you. You don't have to agree with the reasoning just to know that's what the reasoning is. Simple enough, no?


I know what their reasoning is, mostly wrong, which is why I corrected them, and defended my beliefs, and I intend to defend any eugenicist that's smeared as Malthusian.




I could say the same for you. You can either recognize the way centralized power works, or you can pretend it works the way you want it to work (as socialists do), at your own peril. It's up to you.

Fair enough.

[WaltM]

By the way, when the NWO is the bad guy, conspiracy theorists have to jump around on why, first they're pro-gay, then they're pro-abortion, then they want slaves, then they want depopulation, then they want starvation, then they want socialism, sometimes they're pro-racist, sometimes they're communist.

WOW, either the NWO doesn't have their plan straight, or somebody just makes up mutually contradictory reasons why the NWO is bad.

[Mini-Me]

I can tell you've not seen this.

YouTube - "Idiocracy" introduction - the future of human evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo)

Or you think it's acceptable for the group to be dragged down by the weak, the dumb, the poor, why not the handicapped?
A lot of this is very subjective though. I'd like to be stronger and faster, but strength/speed/size/etc. are often tradeoffs. People who I'd consider "stupid" have brains that are much better-suited to certain tasks than people who I'd consider "smart." If growing stupidity is a real problem though, you'd think the smart people would be smart enough to start having more kids to even things out. Heck, anyone even slightly above average would be doing humanity a favor. ;) No matter how deranged I think you are, I can recognize you're much smarter than average, yet you're deliberately taking yourself out of the gene pool by willfully not reproducing. Nikola Tesla did the same, because he considered himself unfit. As socially awkward and weird as he was, can anyone say that such a consummate inventor did the world a favor by letting his genes die with him?

Anyway, back to subjectivity and lack of omniscience: If the environmentalist fearmongers of thirty-forty years ago end up being right, and we end up going through some horrible ice age, the extra cushion on fat people might even come in handy. Poverty is causally irrelevant to genetics regardless of correlations, and handicapped people could have other very desirable genetic traits. For all we know right now, the person who cures cancer could end up being a one-legged albino who's deathly allergic to peanuts. If I started a eugenics campaign to sabotage EpiPens and keep peanut allergies from spreading (if they're even hereditary?), I could end up accidentally screwing the entire human race.

It's really difficult to classify people along a one-dimensional "fit" vs. "unfit" spectrum. There are people with extremely unadaptive genes all around, such as people with Down Syndrome, but they still bring love and happiness to people's lives, so their genes alone do not guarantee that their lives are a net negative for humanity. In any case, I don't exactly see them "breeding" and crowding everyone else out of the gene pool, so it's a moot point. On the other end of the spectrum, it's extremely difficult to find people with "desirable" traits all around. What if some guy almost has it all - looks, intelligence, speed, strength, drive, leadership skills - but has a kind of small penis? Should we throw him out? What if he has everything we look for, and we mass-produce him in factories, and then it turns out that only people with very different genes could survive some horrible virus that ends up exterminating humanity?

Also, consider that phenotypes and genotypes do not map 1:1. Given this, even blind people reproducing might possibly help strengthen the gene pool: People blind from birth must rely so much on their other senses to thrive, that their chances for reproduction can partially hinge upon the acuteness of their other senses. Over time, gene pools selecting for better hearing, etc. could mix with "regular" gene pools and result in a better product overall.

All that said, I have nothing against people voluntarily deciding not to reproduce, and I think it would be great if smarter couples started cranking out more babies. Heck, the latter is what evolutionary competition is all about! I favor biodiversity above genetic planning for sure, but I'm not an absolutist when it comes to the idea that "nobody is genetically better than anybody else." In fact, it's easy to see that it's untrue. It's much harder to rank people fairly though, and I'm cautious and reluctant about even trying, because we simply don't have enough information to do it reliably. I AM an absolutist when it comes to the use of government force to promote eugenics, because I see nothing but misery and ruin coming from it, and it's a total affront to human liberty.


So would you be in favor of at least not propping up those who refuse to cooperate?
I'm in favor of freedom, so that certainly means I don't think anybody should be FORCED to cooperate with or subsidize people who can't pull their own weight. That doesn't mean I'd refuse to help anyone who's disadvantaged or needs a hand, but it does mean that I'd refuse to help someone cranking out thirty kids and expecting sympathy. I just want the discretion to choose who to help and who not to help.


But there's a good reason to reduce UNWANTED GENES.
Like the one that leads people to think eugenics is a good idea? ;)


My eugenics fetish is much more sensible than your Marxist politically correct fetish.
First, egalitarian thought predates Marx, and Marxist thought is a mere subset. Second, I'm really not being egalitarian here; I agree that some people are objectively more fit than others. I just think it's beyond our capability to accurately judge in the general sense, partly due to multidimensional spectrums, partly due to incomplete knowledge about each person, and partly due to incomplete knowledge about future threats. It's also far too dangerous to make anyone the arbiter of "good genes." The odds of them guessing correctly are very poor, and biodiversity is a much safer bet. Even aside from the corruption factor, treating people as equals under the law is just a much safer operating assumption. Most of us are roughly equal in the respects related to human dignity, anyway.


I wouldn't exactly be opposed to it.

I would however, still say that one cannot be for eugenics, and for slavery (by slavery I mean using humans for labor as we did centuries ago).


Yeah, because FrankRep is a hypocrite like that.
Are you deliberately missing the point here? The point was that most people don't oppose EVERYTHING Hitler did, because that would include innocuous things like eating breakfast and loving dogs. However, most people do oppose the authoritarian things Hitler did, because Hitler [among others] demonstrated why authoritarian policies were so destructive of freedom, [real] security, human dignity, and long-term economic prosperity. By following so many authoritarian policies, each of them tyrannical, he drew a crystal clear pattern that anyone paying attention can plainly see. From that point forward, any other authoritarian policy that "sounds like something Hitler would do" is widely recognized as bad, precisely because it follows that same pattern that has been shown to enable, lead to, and/or equate with tyranny. It is not "hypocrisy" to say that any Hitler-like policies that follow this pattern are bad, but eating breakfast is a-okay. It's just good judgment and pattern matching.


So at least we agree we can do it without it being abused.
A wise and benevolent Chinese emperor king of legend could, in theory, do it without abusing it, for a limited amount of time...maybe. However, when you're talking about a long-lived system passing through many hands (typically those most attracted to power - i.e. not the good people...and not the smartest, either), that's another story. The human element combined with the incentives makes it a statistical impossibility for such a system to work indefinitely without inevitably leading to complete devastation. You can flip a coin trillions of times and have it land on heads every time, but what are the odds? It's just a matter of time before it lands on tails. If it lands on tails three times or so, let's say that's Pol Pot, and he decides to exterminate all of the smart and/or educated people. Congratulations to everyone who created such a far-sighted system of centralized coercive power. ;)


By the way, Hitler lived in a time where we were in exploration stages, you want to make an omelet without breaking eggs?
I'd rather not have any of the omelette that Hitler was cooking, and I think the eggs were worth saving for something much better...specifically, something that they volunteered for.


Not quite, it only turned out badly because Hitler lost the war.

Again, had Hitler won the war, Americans would praise him as they do Roosevelt and Churchill.
Yes, just as citizens of Oceania praise Big Brother. Just because people can be brainwashed to praise something (or else), that doesn't mean it's a good thing.


So why shouldn't eugenics be an acceptable response?
Response on whose part? It doesn't matter though, because it all comes down to the matter of a system of eugenics being unable to work the way its creator wants it to...unless its creator intends from the start for it to become completely corrupted and counterproductive.


I DO believe human civilization is part of nature, at least part of it is.

Civilization however, is not the same as embracing retarded people, treat handicap people as role models, or lying about how everybody is equal.
(yes, I just created a strawman, the fact you don't like what I said means you know you can't accept it either)
I don't quite follow the sentence in parentheses, but...
How many retarded people do you know of that are reproducing and creating armies of retarded people?
How many handicapped people do you know that you're better than at absolutely everything?

Saying, "Well, we're not all equal," is one thing. Actually trying to determine who is better, and acting on it with force, is something entirely different and far more dangerous. Who do you want to decide, and on what premise? In any case, it's moot, since the truth is that once a system like that is instituted, you would not have any control over it. You would simply be at the mercy of the sociopaths and genetic morons running it.


That's not scientific, so any use of that notion wouldn't be eugenics, even if it was GE for their own selfish reasons.

Both of which are not eugenics.

Perhaps you're right, which is why I've noted a few times that they might only be rightfully called "eugenicists," in quotes, i.e. phony eugenicists. It doesn't matter though, because no system of institutionalized eugenics could ever reliably and indefinitely distinguish between the real and fake ones.


If you're opposed to narcissism, ego extension by cloning and breeding, why aren't you opposed to irresponsible breeding?
It's because if I ever tried to use force to stop it, I would only make the problem worse. Narcissism feeds on centralized power, and farms more centralized power to feed on.


Not if socialism can help it.

I find it amazin you claim to know so much about "power elites" but turn a blind eye or manage to miss the obvious fact that socialism is DESTROYING HUMANITY, and conditioning humans to abandon genetic responsibility (yeah, I made up that term).
If you were an evil supervillain, you'd be the one who'd implement a merely adequate death trap and then say, "Nobody could survive that!" I'd be the one to say, "There's no kill like overkill," and the only way to be sure you've destroyed your enemy is to make them "deader than dead."

A lot more people responded to Ron Paul's message of liberty in 2007/2008 than any elites would have wanted. They'd be stupid not to continue tightening their grip with better and better measures, and the fact that the laws are getting worse every day indicates this is exactly what they're doing.


Watch idiocracy or look around you, see what tyrants are afraid of their people.
I sometimes share your notion that the people are perpetually too docile to be afraid of, but...the huge control grid, NSA surveillance dragnet, etc. indicate to me that the establishment is quite a bit more cautious and fearful.


And you're wrong, because I actually am a eugenicist, and I know what I believe.

You are neither a eugenicist nor a power elite, yet you claim to know what they believe.
I'm just following the incentives. ;)

Do recall that I never misrepresented your beliefs about eugenics, though. In fact, I've been careful to explicitly set you apart from the people (real or imagined, if you will ;)) that cause people on this board to conflate eugenicists and Malthusians.



I can live with that.



Close. But more accurately, you (and others) started the strawman, so correcting the strawman is not denying I'm a Scotsman. Unless, understandably, the common usage of the words eugenicist & Malthusian has redefined this Scotsman.

You are right, I'm not a Malthusian and my goals CONTRADICT MALTHUSIANS.
(which is what I said from the first post, I am a eugenicist and I resent being lumped with Malthusians).
Right.

I would still say that your methods will better enable Malthusians than yourself, though.





And they're using the wrong terms.

You wouldn't like it if I called them minarchists or libertarians either.
I'd say a better comparison would be people calling Obama a socialist: Socialists resent it, because Obama is technically a corporatist and redistributionist, but not a "true" socialist. "True" socialists who actually believe in it have goals almost diametrically opposed to Obama's. Few here care to make a distinction though, since we recognize the fundamental collectivism and central planning of both make them parallel paths to the same destination in practice...because socialism cannot work the way "true" socialists want it to work, only the way oligarchs want it to work.


I know what their reasoning is, mostly wrong, which is why I corrected them, and defended my beliefs, and I intend to defend any eugenicist that's smeared as Malthusian.
Carry on, I guess.



Fair enough.


By the way, when the NWO is the bad guy, conspiracy theorists have to jump around on why, first they're pro-gay, then they're pro-abortion, then they want slaves, then they want depopulation, then they want starvation, then they want socialism, sometimes they're pro-racist, sometimes they're communist.

WOW, either the NWO doesn't have their plan straight, or somebody just makes up mutually contradictory reasons why the NWO is bad.
Never forget that "conspiracy theorists" are not one homogeneous group. The stories jump around precisely because everyone has their own narrative. Of course, a few (like the JBS) do try to tie in everything under the sun and call it "cultural Marxism." ...for that matter, the powers that be are not one homogeneous group, either. There are obviously different factions, but they're united on the most basic goal of centralized hegemonic control of everyone and everything (the perennial lowbrow goal of countless rulers).

[awake]

Can we put this thread back on the rails. I think Walt has done a fine job of keeping the conversation away from the following point.

“Save the Planet; Kill the People”
Posted by Butler Shaffer on September 1, 2010 10:47 PM

James J. Lee, the Al Gore inspired environmentalist who undertook a destructive assault on the Discovery Channel building, will be quickly dropped down the “memory hole” as a political embarrassment. The anti-life implications of this secular religion were revealed in his brief manifesto urging television programming to “save the planet,” by showing “how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children” who, in his words, “are pollution.” As we are seeing with the established order’s responses to Wikileaks, the power structure cannot abide revelations to the public of the details of its various schemes. Mr. Lee must be forgotten.

On the other hand, had this man been a cousin of the treasurer of the Mud Flats, Kansas, Tea Party, we would never hear the end of the reporting on this event!

[James Madison]

[QUOTE=WaltM;2870811



No viruses are NOT more complex than cells, and they certainly aren't more complex than multicell organisms.

Cell theory defines living organisms, and viruses do not fit the definition. However, viruses can be understood an explained under biology, biochemistry and others.

[/QUOTE]

Viruses as a collective are far more complex (I was referring to them as a whole not individual viruses). They completely defy everything we understand and know about life on this planet. They don't constitute a cell, this is correct, however the definition of cell as the basis of all living organisms was developed in 1838. Viruses weren't discovered until over 50 years later. At the time cell theory was developed, every organism we were aware existed was comprised of either a single cell or multiple cells. Unfortunately, it's my opinion that scientists got a bit lazy at this point simply declaired them not alive. Of course, the problem with this is that "alive" is simply a term humans invented, that is where you're mistaken. We decided that life is defined by a cell and not just a protein coat (cells vs. viruses). Just like "hot" and "cold", in reality no such thing exists. Besides, if we're just a series of chemical reactions, are we alive in the truest definition of the word.

Now, why are viruses as a collective more complex. The can either possess a DNA or RNA based geneome that can either be single stranded or double stranded. No where in nature are RNA genomes found. Also, their genomes can either be linear or segmented. Again, this doesn't really occur in "living organisms". One of the most unqiue organisms of all are the retroviruses that synthesize DNA from RNA. This is a complete reversal of what we assumed was the "central dogma" of biology.

Sorry for the geeky rant, but I wanted to explain my position.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

This is bullshit. Minorities in America are reproducing at way greater rates than whites. Not only that, there's what 300 million people here? Over a billion in China and India. A middle class family having 2-3 kids is hardly destroying the planet.

[WaltM]

Can we put this thread back on the rails. I think Walt has done a fine job of keeping the conversation away from the following point.

“Save the Planet; Kill the People”
Posted by Butler Shaffer on September 1, 2010 10:47 PM

James J. Lee, the Al Gore inspired environmentalist who undertook a destructive assault on the Discovery Channel building, will be quickly dropped down the “memory hole” as a political embarrassment. The anti-life implications of this secular religion were revealed in his brief manifesto urging television programming to “save the planet,” by showing “how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children” who, in his words, “are pollution.” As we are seeing with the established order’s responses to Wikileaks, the power structure cannot abide revelations to the public of the details of its various schemes. Mr. Lee must be forgotten.

On the other hand, had this man been a cousin of the treasurer of the Mud Flats, Kansas, Tea Party, we would never hear the end of the reporting on this event!

No, FrankRep copied Alex Jones' article, which accused Lee of being a eugenicist, and I made it clear eugenicists are NOT Malthusian, and Lee was not a eugenicist.

[WaltM]

This is bullshit. Minorities in America are reproducing at way greater rates than whites. Not only that, there's what 300 million people here? Over a billion in China and India. A middle class family having 2-3 kids is hardly destroying the planet.

it's not destroying the planet, you can't destroy a planet, but you can hurt a habitat and make living conditions less desireable for humans, and animals.

[WaltM]

All that said, I have nothing against people voluntarily deciding not to reproduce, and I think it would be great if smarter couples started cranking out more babies. Heck, the latter is what evolutionary competition is all about!

Again, not if socialists and people like you can help it.

You've expressed how its wrong to judge and wrong to select, so idiocracy can't be prevent the way you're enabling liberals and socialists from pushing "all are equal" down our gene pool.

[pcosmar]

Bringing the closet eugenicists out of the woodwork.

At least this accomplished something.
:(

[WaltM]

Viruses as a collective are far more complex (I was referring to them as a whole not individual viruses).


How did you arrive at such a conclusion?




They completely defy everything we understand and know about life on this planet.


No, they don't. They follow the laws of chemistry and physics, like all objects do, and they depend on what we know about biology to function. They are not considered living organisms, that's about the only thing about they different than cells.

Prions are weird, but they too, are not known to defy any mechanism of life.



They don't constitute a cell, this is correct, however the definition of cell as the basis of all living organisms was developed in 1838. Viruses weren't discovered until over 50 years later.


So are you saying viruses should be considered cells?

Including viruses as cells really doesn't change the facts of what it is and isn't.



At the time cell theory was developed, every organism we were aware existed was comprised of either a single cell or multiple cells. Unfortunately, it's my opinion that scientists got a bit lazy at this point simply declaired them not alive.


That's because you're ignorant.

Scientists refine theories and definitions as information becomes available. That's why we've gotten rid of Linneaen taxonomy (for evolution purposes), and today we use DNA homology (and in favor of cladistics).




Of course, the problem with this is that "alive" is simply a term humans invented, that is where you're mistaken.


It might be a term invented, but it is not entirely subjective and arbitrary without basis.

Cells are alive when they can function, and dead when they are not. Viruses cannot die the same way as cells, they can be disabled or dormant, and they cannot self replicate (an essential function of cells and living).




We decided that life is defined by a cell and not just a protein coat (cells vs. viruses). Just like "hot" and "cold", in reality no such thing exists.


Protein coat, and missing much more.

Now you're just playing semantics, you might as well say there's no such thing as man and woman.



Besides, if we're just a series of chemical reactions, are we alive in the truest definition of the word.


playing word games? knock yourself out.



Now, why are viruses as a collective more complex. The can either possess a DNA or RNA based geneome that can either be single stranded or double stranded.


You're confusing diversity and variation as complexity.



No where in nature are RNA genomes found.


So viruses came from God or outer space?



Also, their genomes can either be linear or segmented. Again, this doesn't really occur in "living organisms". One of the most unqiue organisms of all are the retroviruses that synthesize DNA from RNA. This is a complete reversal of what we assumed was the "central dogma" of biology.


Central dogma of molecular biology was formed from the perspective of the cell.

Retroviruses DEPEND ON CELLS TO SYNTHESIZE DNA OR RNA!

So they do NOT violate central dogma, this is not just tautology, it's the fact viruses work within cells and are completely slaves of cells to replicate.




Sorry for the geeky rant, but I wanted to explain my position.

I still don't see your point.
(what does your little knowledge of cells and viruses have to do with eugenics?)

[WaltM]

Bringing the closet eugenicists out of the woodwork.

At least this accomplished something.
:(

I was never closet, you just had to ask.

If I wasn't a eugenicist, why wouldn't I be a socialist?

[chudrockz]

I was never closet, you just had to ask.

If I wasn't a eugenicist, why wouldn't I be a socialist?

Not going to comment on your preferred social policy, other than that I find it horrific. Also, I'm glad Ron Paul doesn't share your views. That'd be a deal-breaker for me, and I could never support him.

Gotta watch those odd sentences with double negatives and such. Did you seriously just insinuate that everyone who is NOT a eugenicist is a socialist?!

[Tend yer biscuits.]

Save the froggies!


... and (of course) the squirrels.

[Tend yer biscuits.]

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/09/02/i2q0ynufy6.jpg

[WaltM]

Not going to comment on your preferred social policy, other than that I find it horrific. Also, I'm glad Ron Paul doesn't share your views. That'd be a deal-breaker for me, and I could never support him.

Gotta watch those odd sentences with double negatives and such. Did you seriously just insinuate that everyone who is NOT a eugenicist is a socialist?!

More specifically, anybody who doesn't believe some people need to be left alone, starved dead, and instead, all people are equally entitled to life, society should prop up people even if they can't feed themselves, is socialist.

[WaltM]

Never forget that "conspiracy theorists" are not one homogeneous group.


correct, and they can't all be right.



The stories jump around precisely because everyone has their own narrative. Of course, a few (like the JBS) do try to tie in everything under the sun and call it "cultural Marxism." ...for that matter, the powers that be are not one homogeneous group, either.


Indeed, which is why I'd appreciate it if people can say what's wrong with depopulation, eugenics, socialism and gays, ON THEIR OWN MERIT rather than by associations to other people.



There are obviously different factions, but they're united on the most basic goal of centralized hegemonic control of everyone and everything (the perennial lowbrow goal of countless rulers).

no, they're not united.

I don't think they have common enemies either, they just think they do, because all they're good at is lumping and blaming.

[James Madison]

More specifically, anybody who doesn't believe some people need to be left alone, starved dead, and instead, all people are equally entitled to life, society should prop up people even if they can't feed themselves, is socialist.

Guess you won't care when no one's there to help you.

[James Madison]

How did you arrive at such a conclusion?




No, they don't. They follow the laws of chemistry and physics, like all objects do, and they depend on what we know about biology to function. They are not considered living organisms, that's about the only thing about they different than cells.

Prions are weird, but they too, are not known to defy any mechanism of life.



So are you saying viruses should be considered cells?

Including viruses as cells really doesn't change the facts of what it is and isn't.



That's because you're ignorant.

Scientists refine theories and definitions as information becomes available. That's why we've gotten rid of Linneaen taxonomy (for evolution purposes), and today we use DNA homology (and in favor of cladistics).




It might be a term invented, but it is not entirely subjective and arbitrary without basis.

Cells are alive when they can function, and dead when they are not. Viruses cannot die the same way as cells, they can be disabled or dormant, and they cannot self replicate (an essential function of cells and living).




Protein coat, and missing much more.

Now you're just playing semantics, you might as well say there's no such thing as man and woman.



playing word games? knock yourself out.



You're confusing diversity and variation as complexity.



So viruses came from God or outer space?



Central dogma of molecular biology was formed from the perspective of the cell.

Retroviruses DEPEND ON CELLS TO SYNTHESIZE DNA OR RNA!

So they do NOT violate central dogma, this is not just tautology, it's the fact viruses work within cells and are completely slaves of cells to replicate.



I still don't see your point.
(what does your little knowledge of cells and viruses have to do with eugenics?)

Wow. Where to began with this mess. First of all, I see that you removed from my post the points I made on why they are so complex and diverse as a group of organisms. That's classy.
And if you'll also notice, I don't for moment claim that viruses should be considered cells. They do not possess a cellular membrane, nor are they capable of autonomous reproduction. My concern is we're not being scientifically honest about how we define life. Viruses still have a genome and more importantly have an innate desire to replication. Actually, that's ALL they do is replicate. I'm not challenging cell theory in a general sense, but in the case that life doesn't have to be cell-based. This sounds more like human arrogance than anything (since we're obviously composed of cells). Seems like you can't figure that out one out.
lol. You sound like a 19th century scientist defending spontaneous generation. Why don't you toss aside some of you're teachings and actually think for one. That's what being a scientist is all about: thinking outside the norm and challenging the beliefs of your day.
"Knock yourself out"? Would you like to do the honors?
Actually, retroviruses (like HIV) transcribe DNA from RNA using reverse transcriptase which they possess inside their protein coat.

Thank God you've decided not to pass on your genes.

[WaltM]

Guess you won't care when no one's there to help you.

just because I wish people helped me doesn't mean I believe I have a right to be helped.

I wish people gave me money for nothing in return too, so what?

[James Madison]

just because I wish people helped me doesn't mean I believe I have a right to be helped.

I wish people gave me money for nothing in return too, so what?

You help people because it's the right thing to do not because you expect anything in return.

[WaltM]

Wow. Where to began with this mess. First of all, I see that you removed from my post the points I made on why they are so complex and diverse as a group of organisms. That's classy.
And if you'll also notice, I don't for moment claim that viruses should be considered cells.


But you said cell theory should be discarded just because it can't include viruses as life.




They do not possess a cellular membrane, nor are they capable of autonomous reproduction. My concern is we're not being scientifically honest about how we define life.


Why not?

Why is it more honest to define a virus as life?





Viruses still have a genome and more importantly have an innate desire to replication.


Desire to reproduce? You made that up.



Actually, that's ALL they do is replicate. I'm not challenging cell theory in a general sense, but in the case that life doesn't have to be cell-based.


Even if you do do that, what does that change but semantics?



This sounds more like human arrogance than anything (since we're obviously composed of cells). Seems like you can't figure that out one out.


No, you can't. You're just nitpicking on words.

Humans are monkeys, by the way.




lol. You sound like a 19th century scientist defending spontaneous generation. Why don't you toss aside some of you're teachings and actually think for one.


No, that's you.



That's what being a scientist is all about: thinking outside the norm and challenging the beliefs of your day.


I can tell you're not one.




"Knock yourself out"? Would you like to do the honors?
Actually, retroviruses (like HIV) transcribe DNA from RNA using reverse transcriptase which they possess inside their protein coat.


but they still depend on hosts to transcribe and persist.




Thank God you've decided not to pass on your genes.

whatever.

[WaltM]

You help people because it's the right thing to do not because you expect anything in return.

so keep hating yourself for not doing enough.

I chose not to.

[James Madison]

But you said cell theory should be discarded just because it can't include viruses as life.

Why not?

Why is it more honest to define a virus as life?

Desire to reproduce? You made that up.

Even if you do do that, what does that change but semantics?

No, you can't. You're just nitpicking on words.

Humans are monkeys, by the way.

No, that's you.

I can tell you're not one.

but they still depend on hosts to transcribe and persist.

whatever.

Not really. You'll notice that my only beef with cell theory is that it tells us that living organisms must be comprised of cells exclusively.
I suppose it's not that important. I debating ideas and clearly you don't possess the ability to understand them.
Humans are, in fact, not monkeys as they belong to separate genera. Using this logic dogs are cats.
I love how you claim to know things about me when I've never actually told anything about me personally. Then again, that's typical of you.

By the way, if you consider children and other humans to be a burden, then doesn't that make you a burden also? If you really believed in your opinions you'd step up to the plate. Oh, that's right you don't have the balls. You want all of us to die instead.

[Kludge]

You help people because it's the right thing to do not because you expect anything in return.

I'm not sure about this. I help people because I expect the act can indirectly be helpful in the future, even if I don't know how - I think it's good to be in good favor. I don't expect anything in return, but I consciously factor how helpful the person could potentially be in considering whether or not I should stick my neck out for them.

Edit: Beyond that, dishonor has to be factored in. I'd be frustrated if I had to keep repressing a story where I let a paraplegic roll into a river, and I'd be considered (rightfully so) an asshole if I ever let it slip.

[WaltM]

Not really. You'll notice that my only beef with cell theory is that it tells us that living organisms must be comprised of cells exclusively.
I suppose it's not that important. I debating ideas and clearly you don't possess the ability to understand them.


From other things you said, I can say the same for you.



Humans are, in fact, not monkeys as they belong to separate genera. Using this logic dogs are cats.


Like I thought, you seriously know nothing about biodiversity.




I love how you claim to know things about me when I've never actually told anything about me personally. Then again, that's typical of you.


You've told me that you think humans are distant to monkeys as cats are to dogs.



By the way, if you consider children and other humans to be a burden, then doesn't that make you a burden also? If you really believed in your opinions you'd step up to the plate. Oh, that's right you don't have the balls. You want all of us to die instead.

I don't believe ALL humans are burden, or else I'd be Malthusian.

[James Madison]

Like I thought, you seriously know nothing about biodiversity.



How so? We share a common ancestor with monkeys. We also share a common ancestor with fish (lungfish). I guess we're fish then.:confused:

[James Madison]

I'm not sure about this. I help people because I expect the act can indirectly be helpful in the future, even if I don't know how - I think it's good to be in good favor. I don't expect anything in return, but I consciously factor how helpful the person could potentially be in considering whether or not I should stick my neck out for them.

Edit: Beyond that, dishonor has to be factored in. I'd be frustrated if I had to keep repressing a story where I let a paraplegic roll into a river, and I'd be considered (rightfully so) an asshole if I ever let it slip.

I can see your point. I suppose that complete altruism may not occur often in nature or in human populations. But I also don't blame you for being slightly selective in who you help. You can't be completely careless.

[EndDaFed]

One less psychopath in the world. What a huge loss. :D

[Mini-Me]

Again, not if socialists and people like you can help it.

You've expressed how its wrong to judge and wrong to select, so idiocracy can't be prevent the way you're enabling liberals and socialists from pushing "all are equal" down our gene pool.

The solution to socialism is to fight state power, not augment state power with a coercive eugenics institution.

[James Madison]

One less psychopath in the world. What a huge loss. :D

Very true.

[Mini-Me]

I can see your point. I suppose that complete altruism may not occur often in nature or in human populations. But I also don't blame you for being slightly selective in who you help. You can't be completely careless.

I think it really depends on how Randian your definition of altruism is. I mean, tons of people help others expecting nothing in return except the feeling that they're making a positive difference. You could then call the act "selfish" and not altruistic, but I think that's a cynical take on it. Such a view bears the connotation that it comes from egotism and a narcissistic desire to think highly of yourself (and maybe that was the case for Rand - who knows? ;)), but I think that for most people, it comes from feeling an outward personal connection with the person you helped. If an act can only be considered altruistic if it is some kind of loathesome self-denigrating sacrifice, then I'd agree that altruism is rare...but frankly, I think this Randian view of selfishness vs. altruism is a bit contrived and far removed from everyday understanding of the terms.

[low preference guy]

frankly, I think this Randian view of selfishness vs. altruism is a bit contrived and far removed from everyday understanding of the terms. ;)

Frankly, I think you don't have an even mediocre grasp of Objectivist Ethics.

[Endgame]

How so? We share a common ancestor with monkeys. We also share a common ancestor with fish (lungfish). I guess we're fish then.:confused:

Some schools of taxonomy would actually argue that.

[James Madison]

Some schools of taxonomy would actually argue that.

:eek::D

[Mini-Me]

Frankly, I think you don't have an even mediocre grasp of Objectivist Ethics.

Maybe you're right, but I'm not a total noob either. I understand what Rand was trying to get across, but I can't help but feeling like she was trying to put a square peg into a round hole with her definitions of terms. I think it's not so much that I disagree with her, as it is that I'm looking at the same thing from a different angle. I'm aware of her differentiation between good selfishness and bad selfishness (and I really like this Internet essay on it (http://freedomkeys.com/paradox.htm)), but as I stated in my edit above, the exclusive use of selfishness in describing the reward for charitable acts connotes narcissistic meaning, rather than a feeling of genuine interpersonal connection with the person you helped. I think it's crucial to make a distinction between the two, and if you're familiar with narcissists in real life, you may understand what I mean here and why I stress this. People with that disorder may end up acting just like the rest of us (if you're lucky enough to know a benign one ;)), but their motivations are very different.

[low preference guy]

rather than a feeling of genuine interpersonal connection with the person you helped.

self-interest alone indicates that such acts where we can help people a lot with relatively little effort are moral. feeling a "genuine interpersonal connection" is not necessary but it's not immoral to feel it.

a truly self-interested person sees the benefits of living in a society. the division of labor allows humans to live a much higher quality of life. the more people there are, there more division of labor there is.

morality deals with the effect of your actions in the long term. helping one particular person once might not benefit you, but you do it because it's good practice. just like telling the truth one particular time might not benefit you, but having the practice of always telling the truth will likely benefit you in the long term (lies can sometimes be revealed in weird ways, and when it happens you lose credibility).

human relationships and friendships are perfectly OK under Objectivist Ethics. if your morality is based on Objectivism, you will naturally be attracted to people with your values: hard-work, ambition, independence, etc., and their company will not be a burden, but the contemplation of their virtues alone can inspire you to accomplish more things yourself, even if you're an accomplished person already.

so there is no altruism at all in anything i described, and yet you can have relationships and help people. at the very least, those actions are morally permissible.

[Mini-Me]

self-interest alone indicates that such acts where we can help people a lot with relatively little effort are moral. feeling a "genuine interpersonal connection" is not necessary but it's not immoral to feel it.

a truly self-interested person sees the benefits of living in a society. the division of labor allows humans to live a much higher quality of life. the more people there are, there more division of labor there is.

morality deals with the effect of your actions in the long term. helping one particular person once might not benefit you, but you do it because it's good practice. just like telling the truth one particular time might not benefit you, but having the practice of always telling the truth will likely benefit you in the long term (lies can sometimes be revealed in weird ways, and when it happens you lose credibility).

human relationships and friendship are perfectly OK under Objectivist Ethics. if your morality is based on Objectivism, you will naturally be attracted to people with your values: hard-work, ambition, independence, etc., and their company will not be a burden but the contemplation of their virtues alone can inspire you to accomplish more things yourself, when you're shown that over human being is dong it, even if you're an accomplished person already.

so there is no altruism at all in anything i described, and yet you can have relationships and helping people. it's morally permissible to say the least.

Yes, I know. I'm aware of all of these selfish, non-altruistic motives; I just don't view the world exclusively in terms of them. :p I see them as part of a larger whole, where feeling a genuine connection with other people is not just "not immoral" or "permissible" but an integral part of our humanity.

[low preference guy]

Yes, I know. I'm aware of all of these selfish, non-altruistic motives; I just don't view the world exclusively in terms of them. :p

so what's contrived about what i described? or what do you think is contrived about Rand's conception of selfishness?

[Mini-Me]

so what's contrived about what i described? or what do you have contrived about Rand's conception of selfishness?

I think that Rand did well to point out the [positively] selfish aspects of all of those things, but I think that she's only viewing one part of the picture in a contrived effort to categorize [essentially] all virtue under the banner of selfishness. This allows her to strip all positive aspects from the concepts of selflessness and altruism until an act can only be considered altruistic if it is loathesome and self-denigrating.

Rand revolutionized the understanding of selfishness vs. selflessness with her radical argument, but she was the master of the "macho flash," and I think she overstated her argument a bit in order to shockingly reverse the connotations of the two concepts and cleanly eliminate any positive overlap between them.* Ultimately, I just don't think that clean divorce entirely reflects the real world, even if it's a valuable perspective to consider. In addition to all the motivations that you [and she] gave, interpersonal connections are an integral part of both our humanity and motivations for doing good, yet they are too outward-focused to honestly call "selfish."

*After the fact, I think she was just too rigid to give an inch or admit any kind of overstatement, in fear that it would undermine her argument entirely (which I don't think it does; I think her argument has a lot of value, even though I view things differently). She protected her worldview so fiercely that she basically hated libertarians for not being in lockstep.

[WaltM]

How so? We share a common ancestor with monkeys. We also share a common ancestor with fish (lungfish). I guess we're fish then.:confused:

We share common ancestor with MODERN monkeys, and our common ancestors are monkeys too.

If you are descendent from monkeys, you are still a monkey.

At least as of now, we share all characteristics of our common ancestor, that which would be classified as monkeys.

We do have a VERY distant ancestry with sea life, but that is VERY far removed that it's misleading and unworthy of mention. However, dogs and cats are much more distant that man & monkey (but closer than man and sea life).

[WaltM]

Some schools of taxonomy would actually argue that.

it's called phylogenetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

the most consistent of which is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly

which means if you're ancestors are mammals, you're still a mammal.
Snakes are still lizards, and birds are still dinosaurs.

This is based on genetics and ancestry, not morphology.

[low preference guy]

*After the fact, I think she was just too rigid to give an inch or admit any kind of overstatement, in fear that it would undermine her argument entirely (which I don't think it does; I think her argument has a lot of value, even though I view things differently). She protected her worldview so fiercely that she basically hated libertarians for not being in lockstep.

I still don't get what was contrived. Being selfish means acting according in one's self-interest, where an action is in one's self-interest if it benefits the life of the individual in the long-term. I find her conception very natural.

Regarding her opinions about libertarians, sadly I agree with her. If you go to debate about what rights are that is talking place right now, it's hard to not see the majority of posters as "hippies of the right". I find her description strikingly accurate.

She might not have had the best strategy to convert libertarians to her position, but that's a completely different issue, and a minor issue in relation to the actual philosophy.

[low preference guy]

In addition to all the motivations that you [and she] gave, interpersonal connections are an integral part of both our humanity and motivations for doing good, yet they are too outward-focused to honestly call "selfish."

There are people who actually practice Objectivism, at least most of it (I don't agree with her views on IP), and we view relationships with other people as selfish and don't see anything weird about it. I guess the description I gave in one of the posts above is the most I'm willing to write about it right now.

My guess is that you haven't been able to see all the aspects of how a relationship can benefit an individual. Or maybe you do have altruistic relationships with some people. I personally don't think I have those relationships. "Altruistic" is a word that makes me feel disgusted whenever I hear it.

[Mini-Me]

There are people who actually practice Objectivism, at least most of it (I don't agree with her views on IP), and we view relationships with other people as selfish and don't see anything weird about it. I guess the description I gave in one of the posts above is the most I'm willing to write about it right now.

My guess is that you haven't been able to see all the aspects of how a relationship can benefit an individual. Or maybe you do have altruistic relationships with some people. I personally don't think I have those relationships. "Altruistic" is a word that makes me feel disgusted whenever I hear it.

It's not that I don't see all the aspects of how a relationship can benefit an individual; I do. I just see these as partially incidental to healthy relationships rather than entirely central to them. The distinction is useful for describing the different mindset and motives of narcissists when it comes to relationships...and if you know any narcissists, you'll know what I mean. With any luck, you don't. ;)

[low preference guy]

It's not that I don't see all the aspects of how a relationship can benefit an individual; I do. I just see these as partially incidental to healthy relationships rather than entirely central to them. The distinction is useful for describing the different mindset and motives of narcissists when it comes to relationships...and if you know any narcissists, you'll know what I mean. With any luck, you don't. ;)

Yep, that's where we disagree. I see the non-selfish aspects as incidental. And I'm not a narcissist. Hehe.