Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 11:19 pm 
 

I think each nation should have control over it's own population count, I don't think it'd be nice to impose our idea of worth on anyone else by killing people in other parts of the world because we consider them backward. If anything we should be escaping from that kind of moral absolutism.

However, within my own country, sometimes I take a walk outside and see defectives, degenerates and general scumbags, who only ever exist to depend on welfare (as were their ancestors and as will their descendants be), the only things they bring to the table are fear, discomfort and inconvenience for level-headed, law-abiding citizens. Some kind of genocide would be rather crude (as appealing as it sounds to some) not to mention how some people are the products of economic conditions, but I do think society could bring some eugenics measures in, bearing in mind they can be positive or negative eugenics, and can be forced or voluntary. Tricky thing to deal with. I personally don't think that it will spill into any homophobic/racist thing necessarily, unless it's just one person calling all the shots, which I doubt would be the case. Of course, maybe in some countries but hey, different cultures, right?
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
Black_Metal_Elite
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 4:23 pm
Posts: 23
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 11:23 pm 
 

- For the genocide thing: Why not just let the people die out and not reproduce? Then you don't have to kill them.

- If we look at AIDS, lets pretend it became airborne. With 6'ish billion people in the world, there is definitely going to be a genetic mutation making someone immune to aids. The problem is it could be anyone. This is a reason why genocide would be bad.

- If we kept kicking out the bottom layer, wouldn't we eventually hit an equilibrium point?

- Nature always balances stuff out somehow. If we breed the perfect humans, this could happen all over again, but with stronger immune systems/more problems/stuff.


I pointed them since they're more ideas to leap forth from, rather then actually debate and go "no ur rong k".
_________________
If you take what I say seriously, you are stupid.

Top
 Profile  
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 11:26 pm 
 

Black_Metal_Elite wrote:
- For the genocide thing: Why not just let the people die out and not reproduce? Then you don't have to kill them


Some people have no concept of birth control or family planning (or just ignore it) and let their impulses take over, and the generation gap with such people is so small that they don't just die out, just keep breeding. And such people live in squalor.
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
Kruel
Veteran

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 3426
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 11:58 pm 
 

Black_Metal_Elite wrote:
- If we kept kicking out the bottom layer, wouldn't we eventually hit an equilibrium point?

Any reason to believe so?

I actually think that the explitation of the "bottom layer" is essential for the "top layer" to prosper. Who are going to serve them and do all the blue collar work if the "bottom layer" is wiped out?
_________________
Quote:
So, Manes > Samael?
Quote:
yeah, it's ironic, they are so pretentious, yet one can say that at least they don't pretend. They don't release some techno-rap-whatever album and say "on this record we tried to sound like in our old days"

Top
 Profile  
rabid_death
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:42 am
Posts: 49
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 2:23 am 
 

Kruel wrote:
Black_Metal_Elite wrote:
- If we kept kicking out the bottom layer, wouldn't we eventually hit an equilibrium point?

Any reason to believe so?

I actually think that the explitation of the "bottom layer" is essential for the "top layer" to prosper. Who are going to serve them and do all the blue collar work if the "bottom layer" is wiped out?


Firstly blue collar workers could hardly be called the bottom layer of society, surely that title is reserved for career criminals and those who exist solely to bludge off others.

Secondly since when did being employed in a blue collar job amount to exploitation?

Thirdly I would argue that the bottom layer exploits the top layer via benefit bludging and criminal activity.

Top
 Profile  
Kruel
Veteran

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 3426
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 2:45 am 
 

rabid_death wrote:
Kruel wrote:
Black_Metal_Elite wrote:
- If we kept kicking out the bottom layer, wouldn't we eventually hit an equilibrium point?

Any reason to believe so?

I actually think that the explitation of the "bottom layer" is essential for the "top layer" to prosper. Who are going to serve them and do all the blue collar work if the "bottom layer" is wiped out?


Firstly blue collar workers could hardly be called the bottom layer of society, surely that title is reserved for career criminals and those who exist solely to bludge off others.

Secondly since when did being employed in a blue collar job amount to exploitation?

Thirdly I would argue that the bottom layer exploits the top layer via benefit bludging and criminal activity.

Good points, actually.

Exploitation was too strong a word to use for the employment of blue collar workers. I was suggesting that the "top layer" needed "lower layers," which I mistakenly lumped into the "bottom layer."

And for the "bottom layer," I was also thinking of third world people, referring to the OP. There are exploitations of labor by mutinational corporations, and those exploitations bring the prices of the goods down.

At any rate, if we are to wipe out a certain group of people, we could consider exploiting them instead, since it might be more beneficial.

Well, this sounds like slavery.
_________________
Quote:
So, Manes > Samael?
Quote:
yeah, it's ironic, they are so pretentious, yet one can say that at least they don't pretend. They don't release some techno-rap-whatever album and say "on this record we tried to sound like in our old days"


Last edited by Kruel on Tue May 27, 2008 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
greysnow
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:01 am
Posts: 378
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 3:02 am 
 

DGYDP wrote:
What I was trying to say is that it's better to let "unproductive" people die in stead of "random" people, which would be the case when overpopulation becomes a global catastrophe in the future.

What's "productive"?

DGYDP wrote:
I know that, reread my post to see how I stand regarding active murdering.

I know, I understood you. I got a little carried away from answering Scorpio's posts; I'm a bit like a bull, once I see red and get really pissed off it can be kind of difficult to stop. ;) You also said that not helping the weak was immoral. I agree. However, you said, and that's why I made all the fuss:

DGYDP wrote:
Perhaps it's time that somebody takes one for the team and starts killing anybody who only causes trouble to others (subjective, I know) ...

Is this the point, then, where your ecological reasoning would get the upper hand of your compassion? If someone rose to power and did the dirty work and you could wash your hands of it? Because that is hardly better morally than killing (or withholding your help) yourself. But I think you wouldn't tolerate that either, that's why I concluded that the only moral course of action left to you to ease the burden on the planet Earth was suicide.

Look, I demonstrated to you that huge killings wouldn't help the planet. So wouldn't it be better to sort out your doubts and look for ways to accommodate ten billion? Because to even acknowledge killing as a potential solution already plays into the hands of people offering a genocidal remedy.

Kruel wrote:
Black Metal Help Thread is the longest because it is much older than other help threads.

And why was it started first? :p

NeglectedField wrote:
However, within my own country, sometimes I take a walk outside and see defectives, degenerates and general scumbags, who only ever exist to depend on welfare (as were their ancestors and as will their descendants be), the only things they bring to the table are fear, discomfort and inconvenience for level-headed, law-abiding citizens. Some kind of genocide would be rather crude (as appealing as it sounds to some) not to mention how some people are the products of economic conditions, but I do think society could bring some eugenics measures in, bearing in mind they can be positive or negative eugenics, and can be forced or voluntary.

Try not to become unemployed for any extended time. You might end up as a defective, degenerate and general scumbag who only ever exists to depend on welfare. You'll be excess humanity with no rights. If you have your way, you might even be slated for forced sterilization, and be thankful that you're not slated for killing off. (That would, after all, be rather crude. Sterilization is so much more elegant.)

This kind of reactionary, bourgeois, self-righteous, social Darwinist classist elitism makes me sick. (Maybe that's a borderline ad hominem; I think it's just calling it what it is.) I won't even try to argue human rights here, since if that is a meaningful concept to you at all, it appears that you want to reserve them for your chosen segment of the population. So all I can say is that I hope you never find yourself on the other end of the stick.
_________________
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

Top
 Profile  
rabid_death
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:42 am
Posts: 49
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 3:18 am 
 

Kruel wrote:
rabid_death wrote:
Kruel wrote:
Black_Metal_Elite wrote:
- If we kept kicking out the bottom layer, wouldn't we eventually hit an equilibrium point?

Any reason to believe so?

I actually think that the explitation of the "bottom layer" is essential for the "top layer" to prosper. Who are going to serve them and do all the blue collar work if the "bottom layer" is wiped out?


Firstly blue collar workers could hardly be called the bottom layer of society, surely that title is reserved for career criminals and those who exist solely to bludge off others.

Secondly since when did being employed in a blue collar job amount to exploitation?

Thirdly I would argue that the bottom layer exploits the top layer via benefit bludging and criminal activity.

Good points, actually.

Exploitation was too strong a word to use for the employment of blue collar workers. I was suggesting that the "top layer" needed "lower layers," which I mistakenly lumped into the "bottom layer."

And for the "bottom layer," I was also thinking of third world people, referring to the OP. There are exploitations of labor by mutinational corporations, and those exploitations bring the prices of the goods down.


Ok mate was just wondering what you meant. I won't get into the exploitation by MNC's issue.

Back on topic:
I believe that while there are actually some positives in genocide (saving scarce resources for those who will contribute to the furtherance of man etc) there are too many negatives. Eliminating an entire demographic assumes that all the individuals within that demographic will never achieve anything that will help the human race which is bullshit. Someone mentioned nuke the middle east and remove all this holy war bullshit. It would suck if this happened and the person who would have created faster then light space travel happened to be right under the bombs.

Top
 Profile  
Scorpio
Healthy Dose of Reality

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:30 pm
Posts: 3654
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 7:04 am 
 

Quote:
That is the most anti-humanistic use of the word "humanistic" I have ever seen. Humanism, as I understand it and, I believe, as it is understood by most secular humanists, means respecting the individual's human rights, be they "defective" or not, not some sort of quality control of humanity.


AFAICT, secular humanism =df atheistic liberalism, so we might as well call it that. As I understand its origin, humanism started as a rejection of fundamentalist belief systems that emphasized man's evil nature at the exclusion if his positive qualities. Indeed, it was more individualistic than what it opposed, but that wasn't its defining feature. Rather, its defining feature was its affirmation of man's ability and encouragement of his natural curiosity, whereas medieval thinkers often believed that science was pointless except when it enlightened us about God.

Quote:
In secular humanist ethics, the most important individual human right is the right to live. Now, "cleansing humanity" either means "eugenics (in the sense of prevention of genetic defects)" or "killing or rendering infertile existing humans". I'll go with the second interpretation, since from the context of the earlier posts in this thread and because prenatal eugenics cannot have anything to do with the offspring's achievements, I suspect that this is what you meant. Under the normal definition of humanism, killing humans for perceived defects is a grave violation of one of its most important principles and totally inexcusable. Sterilizing them is hardly better.


So, basically, what you're telling me is that according to contemporary liberal doctrine, negative eugenics is unacceptable. True, but obvious. I mean, if you're going to define humanism as liberalism, it makes the term redundant. I would prefer to understand it more generally as a belief system that affirms man's accomplishments and his role in the world.

Quote:
If "defect" is used to mean "lack of achievement", the proposition becomes even more callous, if at all possible. Firstly, the word "achievement" implies a value judgment. Who gets to judge what constitutes an achievement and what doesn't? Who has the right to weed out whom? If I find fault with your way of life or am dissatisfied with, say, the level of technology at your disposal, I get to pass judgment on you? (For what crime, by the way?) In this scenario, why wouldn't you be allowed to pass judgment on me?


You've gone off the tracks, I'm afraid. I haven't endorsed Resident Hazard's thesis. As it happens, I am in favor of moderate types of eugenics practiced on the domestic level (no killing, no forced sterilization, except perhaps for the most incorrigible and deviant criminals -- i.e., people who have forfeited their rights due to their damaging behavior). I have no interest in bearing the white man's burden.

Quote:
Secondly, is lack of achievement, however you define it, seriously reason enough for you to warrant anyone's death (or sterilization)? Even if I thought that any human had the right to decide whether another may live or die-which I do not, barring self-defense, abortion and switching off life-prolonging machines- or to have children, the idea that the grounds for being deemed unworthy to live or to procreate could be mere underachieving is, to put it mildly, a decidedly unfriendly one. Less mildly, I might also call it fascistic or insane. However, it definitely is not humanistic.


Well, I don't think anyone has the 'right' to procreate. I don't even have the 'right' to put up a fence on my own property without a permit and I wonder which has a greater impact upon the lives of others - putting up a fence or having a child? Apart from eugenics, restrictions on reproduction make sense on the grounds that people who are unable or unwilling to properly care for their children function as leeches. There are other ways of dealing with these issues than killing them or forcing them to submit to sterilization, though.

Quote:
What they regard as achievements. And that they cherish, say, Picasso or the emancipation of women or the invention of polyvinyl chloride does not mean that they thereby get the moral authority to decide who is to live and who is to die. So this is not an argument; it's an empty phrase.


You've misinterpreted my post. It was not intended to be a defense of the OP or my own beliefs about eugenics. I said both are humanistic. That's why you don't see an argument for Resident Hazard's position or for eugenics, in general. I figured this was obvious to even the most casual reader.

Quote:
And fascists.


I disagree.

Quote:
It could only ever be a good idea to the conquerors. Parts of Africa also contain human beings, a number of whom would die by such action. So another reason not to do it is that it claims victims. A third reason not to do it would be that the resources are their resources.


Who cares? When did I speak of the morality of conquering Africa? Frankly, I don't think that political entities care very much about morals. Leaders talk about it a lot, but institutionalized immoral behavior on the parts of governmental agencies is absolutely standard, even in liberal democracies. The US has a noteworthy record of dangerous experimentation on non-volunteers, for instance. Morality's only place in politics is in rhetoric to be fed to the People, who are eager to feel righteous.

Obviously, I meant 'political reasons.' It would be absurd of me to suggest without qualification that no one has a reason to oppose conquering Africa.

Quote:
Hey, I think I like your stereo. It's a useful resource for me, it'll allow me to finance my crack addiction for another week. I'll bring ten friends, then conquering your house will be easy. You may die in the process, and that might be unpopular, but, hey, in theory it's still a good idea.


What does this have to do with geopolitics? It's not in the interest of a state to allow citizens to abuse each other as they please, since that would dissolve it. It's not in the interest of the citizens either, since in the absence of the state they're vulnerable to abuse by sociopathic individuals (only this minority stands to benefit) and with no organization, they're vulnerable to attacks from other states. On the other hand, it might very well be in the interest of a state to conquer another and it might be in the interest of the citizenry, too.

Quote:
Finally, as an aside, I must say that it was very difficult for me to refrain from ad hominems in addressing your posts.


It can be a struggle sometimes...
_________________
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

Top
 Profile  
Viral
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:04 am
Posts: 1891
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 11:05 am 
 

These aspirations of yours (Resident_Hazard) will never materialize. You're speaking from a very pro-Western point of view and fail to recognize the accomplishments of those you despise. I don't like Israel very much mostly because of its government and their treatment of the Palestinians. But I don't hate Jews nor do I advocate the genocide of the Jewish people. Secondly, who are you or anyone else on this board to decide these things? Many people believe the United States should be wiped out because it presents itself as a thorn on the side of many countries and because of some of your country's cultural values. Does that make it right? Your arrogance astounds me.
_________________
The_Beast_in_Black wrote:
Sathanas_BM wrote:
The biggest influence of Swedish Death Metal is In Flames.

That's not right. That's not even wrong. It's so fundamentally inaccurate that I think it may well be incorrectable.

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 11:42 am 
 

Holy fucking crap!


I never intended that post to be a precursor to a thread, nor did I imagine it would derail the last one so completely. For anyone coming into this now, just be aware that I didn't actually start this thread and that it is a "sidebar" to one I haphazardly derailed. I never even returned to the thread and now I've been turned into Pol Pot or Stalin. Ha ha, wow!


Normally, when I start a thread, I try to make the first post as high on quality as I can while delivering my personal point of view. Had I intended to start a thread on why I think mass euthanasia is "the way to go" for solving global problems, it'd have been more thought out than the post at the top. For those of you that responded to me in the old thread, I apologize for my apparent "cut-n-run." As I said early on, I was only intending to inject my one view and then pretty much leave it at that. My views aren't particularly popular--unless you're looking for a firey argument to tear down someone with harsh viewpoints, then my view is just what you're looking for!




Upon my scimming of the article, Osmium appears to be the person who grasped what I was saying. Anyone not willing to partake in the scientific and intellectual advancement of the human race is not needed. They are a detriment.

Muslims, Christians, and Jews are a detriment, as are any who worship at the feet of old gods. The Muslims are currently the worst in the world where cheapening human life and killing for a figmant of their imagination is factored in. This is a major problem since they tend not to seperate secular from religious life. Someone said that they have familes and music and lives of their own. Not true if you remember the Taliban where almost everything, including music was banned. These are a small, seperate group from most Muslims, but they exhibit the pure danger of ruling with religion. In my view, the human race needs to move toward a scientific and intellectual new world--sans all faiths and religion. The problem is that organized religion has one major purpose--controlling the masses for the often erratic wants of a few. Give any religion enough breathing room, and they'll move into being large organized faiths. Look at Scientology. People stuck with old ways and living by faith, and forcing others to do the same, should be wiped out. As I've said many times through the years, getting rid of religion is the one thing Communism did right (not counting Catholic Cuba).


Many third world nations are third world by their own accord. Yes, I know, sometimes the country is just in a shitty place, like, say, the Horn of Africa and moving into a more modern setting is much harder. As Morrigan pointed out in another thread, all the aid sent to Africa is one of the biggest problems to the continent since it destroys their need to do things for themselves (as in industry). Africa needs to be left to it's own devices for a while. But location, location, location is not the only problem there. It is also the primates that are all-too-often in charge of these struggling nations. Rather than working for a peaceful, modern, clean vision (aka civility), they wage petty wars on one another, commit genocides, and offer up useless countries with needless totalitarian rule. These people do nothing to further the scientific and intellectual advancement of humanity. They keep war, poverty, genocide, and political evil alive and kicking. They rule by faith and/or fear. They steal financial and physical aid (food, clothes, etc). They allow their economies to suffer further. At some point, the rest of the world needs to wake the fuck up and say, "if they don't want to work to save themselves, why should we fucking care?" They are unnecessary.



I never said the US was perfect. We have people that somehow managed to be very powerful who do little to advance the human race--people who push Intelligent Design or people who try to force legislation on things based on half-sciences because they offer political and financial gain for said pusher and some cronies. The US welfare system and lax citizenship laws invite some of the worst of humanity to continue living in squalor. The welfare system needs to go, people need to learn to be better self-reliant--though not selfish. Welfare would be fine if the people receiving it turned around and gave back to the society or people. If someone living in welfare used it as an opportunity to effect positive change in their lives and society as a whole. Instead, the current US welfare system invites human leeches who all-too-often take the money greedily and selfishly continue taking without contributing or giving back.


I know this sounds a little like Communism, but it's not. It's not easy to explain so that it can be followed. You either get it or you don't, and often times, I only get the kinks worked out when the proper questions are brought up.

So what about me? you may ask. That's fair since I talk big and offer what many see as terrible solutions to perhaps not-as-terrible problems. I did nothing for most of my life. I neither contributed nor took. I merely existed. I personally view my life as largely useless and have a pretty low view of how much of it has been wasted. Change is hard. I joined the Army. Now I'm contributing, and the Army is giving me a lot back. And I'm going to take that and contribute some more. When I return from Iraq in 2010, I'll be investing heavily into community and buying my own house. The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards moving into politics because, fuck, George Bush and John Kerry can do it, I sure as hell can. They were C students because they were stupid. I was because I was lazy. The brains were there, I just ignored them (which was it's own form of stupidity, I'll give you that).

I'm disappointed that I was never properly motivated in my life. My parents discouraged more than encouraged my choices, and direction was limited. I'm a big gamer and rather than my parents encouraging me in my dreams to make video games, they found reasons why it wouldn't work. I was ahead of the curve, too. I wanted to do it before every fucking tech/art school in the country was offering a course in it.


I don't mean to come off as jaded, and in fact, believe that overall, my views are largely positive as the end result would more than make up for the path getting there. In my opinion, the human race should move toward advancement--scientific, intellectual--peaceful. In my view, there are too many groups and people and countries working against advancement. Destroying them outright would be the fastest way to move to a newer, cleaner, better, smarter, world. Human viewpoints need to change. Religion should be discouraged. Too much focus on a mythical, unproven afterlife and not enough focus on living today, or bulding a better tomorrow for our children. People who choose petty warfare over human advancement, selfishness over selflessness, and clinging to obsolescence over moving toward advancement are problems. They are holding humanity back as a whole. Killing off all these people would be considered genocide. But if it reduces overpopulation, destroys counter-productive faiths, people, and ideas; and if it moves humanity as a whole to work together for a brighter, smarter future, then I think it's a small price to pay for moving forward.


You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, and you can't make a utopia without breaking a few skulls. Crude, but it's a working analogy.


So, what guarantee is there that the after-population (after whichever event wipes out all undesirables) will move correctly into a utopia? The terribleness of the past event is the key. Europe was a good, though misguided example after World War I: They built up the League of Nations with a focus on maintaining peace because the awfulness of the war instilled them to do so. The problem was they failed to see that, sometimes, that peace needs to be maintained with force. The other problem was, WWI did not kill enough of the world. The aftermath of any major catastrophic event will no doubt (with a margin for error, so "no" is not definite) be large groups dedicated to peaceful futures, and smaller groups dedicated to their own, perhaps violent or backwards-moving, goals. Those moving into a peaceful, intellectual future need to be aware that even after a near collapse of humanity, some leftover undesirables would still need to be cleared out.



I understand the irony of my view that we handle all these little marauders and genocidal nations with a much bigger genocide. They're just killing smaller groups of people back and forth over a long time, I think we should just wipe out all of those types in one fell swoop.



Finally, what do I think is a model future utopia? Japan. Japan is a country where science and intellectual advancement are very important. They are the technological leaders of the world. Europe and America are technological leaders as well, but both Europe and America have too many instances where politics fuck everything up. Part of this comes from, in my view, too many ethnic backgrounds mixed together not working in the mix. In Japan, it's one people, one background, one race and they tend to work together to advance everyone. Japan is one of the safest countries in the world where crime is considered. America is a very bad example. We have practically forced integration here that muddles everything. Humanity needs to work as a whole to advance into the future, but in my view, it works better when ethnic groups stick with their own. Why? I'm not exactly sure. It could be that when you have a room of all Japanese scientists, they are more likely to work together without harboring secretive racial views on one another. You get a mix of people, and racism will no doubt find it's way into a place where it doesn't belong. My experience for this comes from the Army where, during training, there were three primary ethnic groups: Whites, blacks, and hispanics. Rather than working together easily, there was always racial tension.


This post is getting a bit out of hand and is likely moving into becoming the longest I've ever written (I can write a helluva lot more than I can read it seems), and I'd be "happy" to elaborate best I can on my complicated views later should someone be interested.



Just keep in mind, though, had I wanted to deliberately start a thread on "pro-genocide & human advancement," my initial post would be substantially better than the one heading this thread. And keep in mind again, that I define "civility" fairly simply: Humans working toward scientific and intellectual advancement. With science and intellect at play, generally peaceful resolutions to minor problems are much more likely. And again, for clarity (maybe), I would only advocate "mass killings" of people if, and only if, they are counter-productive to humanity advancing in science and intelligence.



I want the best possible life and future for humanity. However, I feel the best way to get there is actually one of the worst things that could be done to people. However lofty and unrealistic, nevertheless, I believe, with tweaking, it could be very functional.


As for "western viewpoints," those of you criticizing me on that clearly failed to notice the only two solid factors I have for what I believe is a properly civilized people: Humanity with a focus on science and intelligence, and advancement. Not control or annhilation. Scientifically-grounded peace.
_________________
Check out Opinionhated from Amazon-Kindle

Top
 Profile  
greysnow
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:01 am
Posts: 378
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 1:42 pm 
 

@Resident_Hazard: I am not a particular friend of religion myself, but I fail to see why if I want to combat software that I feel is detrimental I need to destroy the hardware it's running on. Point one, what about respect for human life? Point two, who decides what is an undesirable idea? I am convinced myself that I am not too far off on desirable ideas, but does that give me the right to force my point of view in this drastic fashion? I can try to argue my point. You are talking about killing people for what they think, especially for standing in the way of progress as you define it. So what, in effect, distinguishes you from Pol Pot or Stalin? That's the exact same thing they did, and that was their exact motivation.

Quote:
You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, and you can't make a utopia without breaking a few skulls. Crude, but it's a working analogy.

This is what I mean. Even the phrasing seems familiar.

Then, when it comes to Africa, you keep talking about African leaders, who are, I'll grant you, mostly unmitigated assholes, and their countries would probably do better if they were removed. But why does that mean that Africa should be left alone? To me the conclusion is the exact opposite. Go in there and remove the dictators, bring the education and medical systems up to scratch, give loans on the village level so Africans can invest them in building their own economy. (Don't send machines, don't send food, don't send weapons. Circumvent the governments.) Apart from the paltry and often misplaced aid that the West has sent there, post-colonial Africa was either a surrogate battlefield in Cold War times or, when it wasn't needed, it was indeed left alone, with the results you see today. Why punish the people for the crimes of their leaders, crimes of which the people themselves are the victims?

Quote:
I understand the irony of my view that we handle all these little marauders and genocidal nations with a much bigger genocide.

Of course. It seems reasonable to kill the Iranian goatherd for the ideology of Ahmadinejad, the Rwandan grad student for the crimes of the Hutu militias, the Congolese peasant for the massacres by Kabila's troops and the Syrian housewife for the state's suppression of the Kurds. (If I have misidentified any country that you would like to see bombed, please correct me.) By the same token, it also seems reasonable to nuke the US for My Lai.

Quote:
The aftermath of any major catastrophic event will no doubt (with a margin for error, so "no" is not definite) be large groups dedicated to peaceful futures, and smaller groups dedicated to their own, perhaps violent or backwards-moving, goals.

Like how WWII was not followed by the Cold War? Like how one massacre is normally not followed by one in retaliation?

And of course I don't agree with your opinion on welfare. I don't particularly like parasitism myself, but I contend that not all welfare recipients are parasites of their own free will. Capitalism cyclically (and it seems, also durably as more and more work is done by machines) produces people without the means to support themselves because they can't get a job. Abolishing welfare means throwing them on the mercy of charities, which don't always have a purely charitable agenda (Hamas), or letting them starve. (While that may be an idea that some welcome as weeding out excess humanity that is not needed, I am certainly not among them.) Of course free handouts will mean that some people are content with that. I don't think too highly of them myself, but that is a far cry from letting them starve. And there are those who are reduced to welfare, not because they're happy with it, but because, right now, they have no choice. What are you going to do about them? Tell them to live off their savings? Do you have any substantial savings? With the child support you pay, I guess not. I used to be unemployed too, and if there wasn't a welfare system in this country, I'd be homeless by now -- by the way, without an address, no job. Nobody except maybe some charities hires a homeless person for a steady job.

I don't want to address your racial lens here, this is not the thread.
_________________
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

Top
 Profile  
greysnow
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:01 am
Posts: 378
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 2:46 pm 
 

Scorpio wrote:
AFAICT, secular humanism =df atheistic liberalism, so we might as well call it that.

I find that simplistic, but I don't want to get into a terminology war over this.

You did not post in this thread before; the one use of the word "humanistic" in this thread was used in the "humanism" = "moral achievements" liberal sense in one of Osmium's posts ("I think RH's proposal is utterly absurd, impractical, and ironically, utterly contrary to the humanistic principles of the West that many westerners view as our crowning achievements"); out of the blue, with no mention that you are using "humanistic" in another sense now, there is a post that calls eugenics humanistic, but in the older sense (of which I am well aware). That certainly did not help to make things clear to any reader, casual or not. Maybe you should try to be less pithy next time.

Scorpio wrote:
Well, I don't think anyone has the 'right' to procreate. I don't even have the 'right' to put up a fence on my own property without a permit and I wonder which has a greater impact upon the lives of others - putting up a fence or having a child?

For a supposedly clear thinker, you do a lot of mixing up of different uses of the same term, don't you? You don't have the right to put up a fence because there's a statute against it; that's "right" in a strictly legalistic sense. There is no law yet against you having children. However, I clearly used the word "right" in another sense, in the sense of the ethical construct of human rights to which all humans are entitled. Kindly do us the favor and stick to what the post you're addressing intended its terms to say instead of mixing things up by an unrelated use of the term. Or, if you use another meaning, at least say so.

Quote:
Who cares? When did I speak of the morality of conquering Africa?


Quote:
BTW, in theory, conquering Africa is a good idea.

Again: make your terms clear. From your post, nobody could decide if you meant "good" in the utilitarian or in the ethical sense; so I was free to interpret.

Scorpio wrote:
Morality's only place in politics is in rhetoric to be fed to the People, who are eager to feel righteous.

I have become cautious now. Are you just taking stock of the situation or do you intend to say that morality should have no place in politics apart from being opium for the people? Again, you don't make yourself clear. If you meant the second, then, as you will have guessed, I couldn't disagree more.

Quote:
Obviously, I meant 'political reasons.'

Obviously, you are far from being obvious half the time. My little parable about the crack addict robbing your house was of course intended to show you the other side of the coin just in case you thought conquering Africa was a "morally" good idea.
_________________
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

Top
 Profile  
Scorpio
Healthy Dose of Reality

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:30 pm
Posts: 3654
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 4:19 pm 
 

Quote:
You did not post in this thread before; the one use of the word "humanistic" in this thread was used in the "humanism" = "moral achievements" liberal sense in one of Osmium's posts ("I think RH's proposal is utterly absurd, impractical, and ironically, utterly contrary to the humanistic principles of the West that many westerners view as our crowning achievements"); out of the blue, with no mention that you are using "humanistic" in another sense now, there is a post that calls eugenics humanistic, but in the older sense (of which I am well aware). That certainly did not help to make things clear to any reader, casual or not. Maybe you should try to be less pithy next time.


I am not in the habit of stating the obvious. If one of my remarks can be interpreted in one of several ways, I assume that readers will avoid the absurd interpretation. If I suspect that the matter is obscure or highly complex, then I will be explicit, but if not, then I won't bother. In this instance, I didn't bother because the only other interpretation was 'the OP is not contrary to universalist egalitarianism.' I couldn't have meant that.

The only reason that I raised the issue is that I am tired of the word 'humanistic' being used as synonymous with 'consonant with the ideals of contemporary liberalism.' It has a muddling effect on discourse, since people pretend that humanism and liberalism are distinct.

Quote:
For a supposedly clear thinker, you do a lot of mixing up of different uses of the same term, don't you? You don't have the right to put up a fence because there's a statute against it; that's "right" in a strictly legalistic sense. There is no law yet against you having children. However, I clearly used the word "right" in another sense, in the sense of the ethical construct of human rights to which all humans are entitled. Kindly do us the favor and stick to what the post you're addressing intended its terms to say instead of mixing things up by an unrelated use of the term. Or, if you use another meaning, at least say so.


My point is that since the state has no qualms about interfering with my trivial decisions about what to do with my own property and there is no outrage against it from the citizenry, I fail to see why there is a problem with restricting human reproduction. There is more cause for state involvement in that domain, since it the outcomes actually make a difference.

Quote:
Again: make your terms clear. From your post, nobody could decide if you meant "good" in the utilitarian or in the ethical sense; so I was free to interpret.


Very well. Now it is clear.

Quote:
I have become cautious now. Are you just taking stock of the situation or do you intend to say that morality should have no place in politics apart from being opium for the people? Again, you don't make yourself clear. If you meant the second, then, as you will have guessed, I couldn't disagree more.


I am taking stock of the situation, but I also believe that the situation is an inevitability. After all, other states won't care about moral considerations, since historically power has trumped morality in political matters, so if one state acts morally, it will be put at at a disadvantage and its citizens' interest will be less likely to be advanced. Politics has traditionally been dominated by pragmatic concerns and I see no reason whatsoever to think that will change.

Quote:
Obviously, you are far from being obvious half the time. My little parable about the crack addict robbing your house was of course intended to show you the other side of the coin just in case you thought conquering Africa was a "morally" good idea.


You need to distinguish between political agents operating on international scale and individual agents operating on an intranational one. Your failure to do so rendered your point irrelevant.
_________________
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

Top
 Profile  
WilliamAcerfeltd
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:36 am
Posts: 194
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 11:45 pm 
 

Human life is expendable. Of course, no one here would like to think of their own lives or their loved ones lives as being expendable. But in reality it is.

Take war for example, young men are moved and sacrificed like chess pieces.

In relation to suicide, it isn't really a loss to society as a whole as one humans life can easily be replaced and in reality not really anyone will care. Maybe at most about 1000 people for a few months but then the majority forgets them at moves on.

Top
 Profile  
greysnow
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:01 am
Posts: 378
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 2:25 am 
 

@Scorpio: I disagree with a good deal of your last post, but I don't want to clutter up this thread with a meta-discussion on how to interpret a discussion. I have sent you a PM.
_________________
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:16 am 
 

greysnow wrote:
@Resident_Hazard: I am not a particular friend of religion myself, but I fail to see why if I want to combat software that I feel is detrimental I need to destroy the hardware it's running on. Point one, what about respect for human life? Point two, who decides what is an undesirable idea? I am convinced myself that I am not too far off on desirable ideas, but does that give me the right to force my point of view in this drastic fashion? I can try to argue my point. You are talking about killing people for what they think, especially for standing in the way of progress as you define it. So what, in effect, distinguishes you from Pol Pot or Stalin? That's the exact same thing they did, and that was their exact motivation.

Quote:
You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, and you can't make a utopia without breaking a few skulls. Crude, but it's a working analogy.

This is what I mean. Even the phrasing seems familiar.

Then, when it comes to Africa, you keep talking about African leaders, who are, I'll grant you, mostly unmitigated assholes, and their countries would probably do better if they were removed. But why does that mean that Africa should be left alone? To me the conclusion is the exact opposite. Go in there and remove the dictators, bring the education and medical systems up to scratch, give loans on the village level so Africans can invest them in building their own economy. (Don't send machines, don't send food, don't send weapons. Circumvent the governments.) Apart from the paltry and often misplaced aid that the West has sent there, post-colonial Africa was either a surrogate battlefield in Cold War times or, when it wasn't needed, it was indeed left alone, with the results you see today. Why punish the people for the crimes of their leaders, crimes of which the people themselves are the victims?

Quote:
I understand the irony of my view that we handle all these little marauders and genocidal nations with a much bigger genocide.

Of course. It seems reasonable to kill the Iranian goatherd for the ideology of Ahmadinejad, the Rwandan grad student for the crimes of the Hutu militias, the Congolese peasant for the massacres by Kabila's troops and the Syrian housewife for the state's suppression of the Kurds. (If I have misidentified any country that you would like to see bombed, please correct me.) By the same token, it also seems reasonable to nuke the US for My Lai.

Quote:
The aftermath of any major catastrophic event will no doubt (with a margin for error, so "no" is not definite) be large groups dedicated to peaceful futures, and smaller groups dedicated to their own, perhaps violent or backwards-moving, goals.

Like how WWII was not followed by the Cold War? Like how one massacre is normally not followed by one in retaliation?

And of course I don't agree with your opinion on welfare. I don't particularly like parasitism myself, but I contend that not all welfare recipients are parasites of their own free will. Capitalism cyclically (and it seems, also durably as more and more work is done by machines) produces people without the means to support themselves because they can't get a job. Abolishing welfare means throwing them on the mercy of charities, which don't always have a purely charitable agenda (Hamas), or letting them starve. (While that may be an idea that some welcome as weeding out excess humanity that is not needed, I am certainly not among them.) Of course free handouts will mean that some people are content with that. I don't think too highly of them myself, but that is a far cry from letting them starve. And there are those who are reduced to welfare, not because they're happy with it, but because, right now, they have no choice. What are you going to do about them? Tell them to live off their savings? Do you have any substantial savings? With the child support you pay, I guess not. I used to be unemployed too, and if there wasn't a welfare system in this country, I'd be homeless by now -- by the way, without an address, no job. Nobody except maybe some charities hires a homeless person for a steady job.

I don't want to address your racial lens here, this is not the thread.



Wiping out the people and many Islamic Holy Sites seems drastic but necessary. When the Conquistadores did this to Native American people, they essentially destroyed the ability for their customs and faiths to continue with any real strength. Granted, some of those customs and beliefs did survive, but in very minimal ways. Islam is not like Christianity or Judaism. It is more than a religion that people partake in on Sundays. They worship four times a day and it is under harsh indoctrination which often advocates the very things civilized people view as barbaric or part of humanity's ignorant past. This isn't the loving faith of Jesus where he was essentially the Ghandi of his time. I'll put it a way that most of the more liberally-minded on here might like: Islam is a religion if a more wicked version of George W. Bush started it. Bush was not afraid to go to war and being a former Texas Governor, had no problems letting criminals be executed in the prisons. This, to many is an out-dated view--many feel that execution is a form of punishment we should be "evolved" beyond. This is Islam. It is a way of life that in many ways, continues to live in obsolete, uncivilized times and unlike the Jews and Christians, it clearly cannot be adapted to a modern, scientifically-minded, civilized world. The base teachings are too strong and too old. In order to make a world free of religion, it and many (if not most) of the people therein need to be killed off and many of those holy sites need to be destroyed. I'll say it like this, when Islam is considered in the same category as ancient Egyptian or Mayan faiths--when it is viewed as "just a faith people used to believe in" and is an archaelogical curiosity--then we're on the right track for a better world. The same goes for all religions, but especially the "big three."



The major difference between what I'm saying and what Stalin or Pol Pot did is that I want to work for a better future based on science, logic, reason, and intelligence. This admittadly harsh view I have is for a greater good. Stalin and Pol Pot wanted power and control. Pol Pot practically destroyed Cambodia, murdering good people for paranoid reasons. He took professionals like doctors and moved them into the fields. He removed all freedom and pushed his country back with a goal of practically a pre-industrial "civilization." Stalin was a power-hungry madman. In part, he wanted to make Russia and the Soviet Union more powerful, but he too was wracked with extreme paranoia and ruled by fear. They both wanted power and control for themselves. I want to simply lay the groundwork for a cleaner, more scientific world. I know a part of this comes off as me sounding like a classic comic book mad scientist--but without the mysterious Ultimate Death Ray or Superatomic Mutant Lizardman Army.


The Welfare system is a thorn in the side of the US. I'm not saying that we don't help the truly disabled, truly hurt people. But far, far, far too many people simply leech off the system. It doesn't motivate them to do anything better with their lives and, like the US Social Security System, changes need to happen or we'll be heading down the road to being a bankrupt nation having successrfully (inadvertantly) trained countless people to be worthless human sponges. The problem is political. People fear change and the top fear is "'someone will lose their job' or 'someone will lose their welfare.'" That's the price of advancement. People will have to lose their jobs and people on welfare will have to look for work. But you know what? Even in some of the worst conditions, there are still places for people to get work. Extreme conditions such as the Dust Bowl and Great Depression are a bit different. I'm talking about the recession we're heading into.


Also, if I were elected to a public office, I can tell you that one of the first things I would do is to annhilate the current family court system and build a brand new one that's fair and that works with a focus on family and children rather than single motherhood and child support. Damn near everyone working in that sector now would be fired outright and new people would be hired. I want the new employees in the working family court system to be completely trained from the ground up so none of them will have that obsolete mindset. The old employees can be moved to the DMV. I would also force legislation that cuts the pay of elected officials by 20-50% (depending on amount) and publish a list online of every single politician that voted against it so America could really see who is the greedy sack of shit and who is a politician working for the greater good. I would have no problem, as an elected official, making less money than they do now simply because I know I can live with less money than they can.

Both of these thoughts work toward a greater good, and both break a few eggs and cost a few jobs. That's the price of advancement. The direction we're heading in now is the exact opposite of advancement. As it is now, we're practically inviting China to take over.


Oh, and this one might be hard, but I would give top-ranking military Generals (those who oversee the entire military) veto power on any way so they are not just the lapdogs of the President. If it is a defensive war--defending "the homeland," if you will, the top Generals would not have veto power. But if it's something like going into Iraq to root out WMD's without better intelligence--something that would not benefit the country (US) as a whole, then the Generals should have full veto power.
_________________
Check out Opinionhated from Amazon-Kindle

Top
 Profile  
Napero
GedankenPanzer

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 8398
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:46 am 
 

Great, R_H, you just started WWIII and made it a war of religion, made it certain that a lot of people like you do not have a choice but to enlist, enter wage slavery or starve (that's a job, being in the military), reached scientific racial and religious conclusions not unlike those of 1930's Germany, AND gave the military enough power to essentially work as a new legislative or executive branch of government. I foresee a military coup over your government within about three months of you entering your office.

Resident_Hazard wrote:
But if it's something like going into Iraq to root out WMD's without better intelligence--something that would not benefit the country (US) as a whole, then the Generals should have full veto power.

I thought that two or three years ago, you supported invading Iraq without any reservations, and GW Bush with the sole exception of his views on creationism. I must be mistaken?
_________________
Chest wounds suck (when properly inflicted).
-Butch-

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:52 am 
 

Napero wrote:

Resident_Hazard wrote:
But if it's something like going into Iraq to root out WMD's without better intelligence--something that would not benefit the country (US) as a whole, then the Generals should have full veto power.


I thought that two or three years ago, you supported invading Iraq without any reservations, and GW Bush with the sole exception of his views on creationism. I must be mistaken?



Damn, you're a negative person (mildly referencing the part of the post I deleted to save a bit of space). I would never give the military higher control or make it a legislative branch, only veto power if higher ranking officials feel that a certain non-defensive war would be too costly in lives and money. That's fucking it. You really only read what you wanted to see and all of it was terrible. That makes my knee-jerk reactionism look like a thought-out elegy.


Back in the day, I did support the Iraq war as getting rid of Saddam was a good idea. However, Bush went about it all wrong and misused the intelligence (there were reports of many trucks heading into Syria and gosh, I wonder what was on those). The Iraqi people have gone out of their way to show that they do not like peaceful resolution or civility, and now, the war is going on too long and costing too much with too little good coming from it. Keep in mind, I never said that I joined the Army to fight for freedom that Iraqis don't even give two shits about, nor did I join for some greater glorious American purpose--often times, I look at the sorry state of this country and am disgusted that this and these people are what I'm supposed to defend. I joined to give my family a better life because we were in a crisis moments from destroying our lives completely. I'm taking a lot of benefits, and I'll be giving back next year when I'm called for.


I never outright supported Bush, however. I preferred him over Gore and viewed him as the less sucky of two douchebags when it came to the 2004 election. I view the hardcore anti-Bush people as bandwagon fools spouting rhetoric, but I don't hardcore love the guy. I've also complained about how poor our choices for Presidential candidates have been the last few elections. Bush is a mediocre president at best and does some things all wrong. He filled his cabinet with yes-men where his father was much, much smarter and filled his cabinet with differing viewpoints and opinions so he could make better and more educated decisions.


Kudos on your memory. But you might want to watch yourself on your hyper-reactive responses.



Note: I've never been all that specific on what method there need be to minimize the population of the world to move to a more peaceful, utopian, scientific future. Waging war against all the people holding back the human race as a whole is illogical, impossibly costly, and do I even need to mention the political disagreements heading in? I doubt it, since your leg is probably still spasming from your initial reaction. Surely you understand the differences in opinion.

For now, the most logical course is to get into politics and change things from the inside. Follow Teddy Roosevelt's classic example of a man who cared about making things better for the future (as he did in his conservation of the natural wonders of America). Wipe out obsolete ways and laws. Give freedom back to people, streamline now-broken systems (such as family court, education, corrections), give veto power to military officials so as to limit some of the control of the President, impose term limits on politicians and lower their pay. Things of that nature.

Most of what I say is hypothetical in an extreme sense and hopefully you understand why it's so illogical to just fly off the handle about it. It's not gonna happen. No one has the balls to do it. While I believe it would work (with general tweaking of certain parts), I have serious doubts that I'd ever be able to go through with something like that myself.


What I've often preferred is for a major calamity to actually strike--asteroid impact, super-flu pandemic, supervolcano eruption--anything, really. Something to kill off the vast majority of the world population (something like 4-5 billion people) so that the remainder can start anew with the right focus. The only thing is, there needs to be someone left over in the ashes with the right vision, otherwise it all leads down the same slippery slope again. And that, again, would be a thread-derailing topic--I'm one of the people who would welcome doomsday so long as I survived. And I'm sure I will survive. I'm just crazy enough to make it.


Rest assured, I know the difference between the lofty psuedo-mad-scientist ways to fix the world (massive destruction of Islam and religious places) and the minor ones that would do much less good, but still be on the right track (get elected, make the necessary changes step-by-step).
_________________
Check out Opinionhated from Amazon-Kindle

Top
 Profile  
Sir_General_Flashman
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:23 am
Posts: 363
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 12:05 pm 
 

Resident_Hazard wrote:
Napero wrote:

Resident_Hazard wrote:
But if it's something like going into Iraq to root out WMD's without better intelligence--something that would not benefit the country (US) as a whole, then the Generals should have full veto power.


I thought that two or three years ago, you supported invading Iraq without any reservations, and GW Bush with the sole exception of his views on creationism. I must be mistaken?



Damn, you're a negative person (mildly referencing the part of the post I deleted to save a bit of space). I would never give the military higher control or make it a legislative branch, only veto power if higher ranking officials feel that a certain non-defensive war would be too costly in lives and money. That's fucking it. You really only read what you wanted to see and all of it was terrible. That makes my knee-jerk reactionism look like a thought-out elegy.


Back in the day, I did support the Iraq war as getting rid of Saddam was a good idea. However, Bush went about it all wrong and misused the intelligence (there were reports of many trucks heading into Syria and gosh, I wonder what was on those). The Iraqi people have gone out of their way to show that they do not like peaceful resolution or civility, and now, the war is going on too long and costing too much with too little good coming from it. Keep in mind, I never said that I joined the Army to fight for freedom that Iraqis don't even give two shits about, nor did I join for some greater glorious American purpose--often times, I look at the sorry state of this country and am disgusted that this and these people are what I'm supposed to defend. I joined to give my family a better life because we were in a crisis moments from destroying our lives completely. I'm taking a lot of benefits, and I'll be giving back next year when I'm called for.


I never outright supported Bush, however. I preferred him over Gore and viewed him as the less sucky of two douchebags when it came to the 2004 election. I view the hardcore anti-Bush people as bandwagon fools spouting rhetoric, but I don't hardcore love the guy. I've also complained about how poor our choices for Presidential candidates have been the last few elections. Bush is a mediocre president at best and does some things all wrong. He filled his cabinet with yes-men where his father was much, much smarter and filled his cabinet with differing viewpoints and opinions so he could make better and more educated decisions.


Kudos on your memory. But you might want to watch yourself on your hyper-reactive responses.



Note: I've never been all that specific on what method there need be to minimize the population of the world to move to a more peaceful, utopian, scientific future. Waging war against all the people holding back the human race as a whole is illogical, impossibly costly, and do I even need to mention the political disagreements heading in? I doubt it, since your leg is probably still spasming from your initial reaction. Surely you understand the differences in opinion.

For now, the most logical course is to get into politics and change things from the inside. Follow Teddy Roosevelt's classic example of a man who cared about making things better for the future (as he did in his conservation of the natural wonders of America). Wipe out obsolete ways and laws. Give freedom back to people, streamline now-broken systems (such as family court, education, corrections), give veto power to military officials so as to limit some of the control of the President, impose term limits on politicians and lower their pay. Things of that nature.

Most of what I say is hypothetical in an extreme sense and hopefully you understand why it's so illogical to just fly off the handle about it. It's not gonna happen. No one has the balls to do it. While I believe it would work (with general tweaking of certain parts), I have serious doubts that I'd ever be able to go through with something like that myself.


What I've often preferred is for a major calamity to actually strike--asteroid impact, super-flu pandemic, supervolcano eruption--anything, really. Something to kill off the vast majority of the world population (something like 4-5 billion people) so that the remainder can start anew with the right focus. The only thing is, there needs to be someone left over in the ashes with the right vision, otherwise it all leads down the same slippery slope again. And that, again, would be a thread-derailing topic--I'm one of the people who would welcome doomsday so long as I survived. And I'm sure I will survive. I'm just crazy enough to make it.


Rest assured, I know the difference between the lofty psuedo-mad-scientist ways to fix the world (massive destruction of Islam and religious places) and the minor ones that would do much less good, but still be on the right track (get elected, make the necessary changes step-by-step).


Don't say the Iraqi people don't want to be safe, the majority want civilization and peace and a few nut jobs mess it up.

But you're right the world needs another plague, which I predict will come with in the next 100 years.
_________________
red_blood_inside wrote:
I forsee a new metal style called Death-Grind-Power-Ranger-Potter of the rings, and its kvltnes and tr00ness will be beyond this world

Top
 Profile  
The_Count
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:04 pm
Posts: 407
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 1:19 pm 
 

Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
Don't say the Iraqi people don't want to be safe, the majority want civilization and peace and a few nut jobs mess it up.

But you're right the world needs another plague, which I predict will come with in the next 100 years.


It is a bit more than a few, All the same I get your point. Still the "few" screw the process up and thus they all must suffer, such is the way of things.
_________________
Thorgrim_Honkronte wrote:
I'd be more than welcome to take on the jihadists. If they think they are the only ones who know how to make home made bombs and use guns... well they know nothing about redneck America.

Top
 Profile  
Napero
GedankenPanzer

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 8398
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 4:46 pm 
 

R_H, there's a good reason why the military has never been given any political power in most successful nations; it's not for them to question why, but to do or die. There's the holy three of legislative, juridical and executive powers in most western nations, and that's the way that has worked in those nations that have endured longer than a few decades. Changing that is stupidity, even if it's just a veto. "Could you people invade the country next to us, they are mean?" "Nah, can't be arsed to go, that's not beneficial..."

Think about it for a while. If a soldier wants to use his wisdom in that kind of matters, he can resign and try politics; giving institutional political power to those with the most powerful means to enforce virtually anything is insanity, and if you look at the US Constitution, that's one of the most important reasons the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Giving any decisions for the military to make is a direct violation of the principles of representative democracy.
Resident_Hazard wrote:
Bush is a mediocre president at best and does some things all wrong. He filled his cabinet with yes-men where his father was much, much smarter and filled his cabinet with differing viewpoints and opinions so he could make better and more educated decisions.

Replace "mediocre" with "destructive and idiotic" and we competely agree. Maybe you people in the USA can't see what kind of damage the Monkey Boy has done to the reputation of your nation, and how he has managed to do that despite the huge influx of international goodwill after the 9/11. He has ruined the economics, screwed up every international environmental initiative there's been ever since he stepped into office, and works for Jesus. Hell, for example, his adminstration took away all federal support from family planning programs that teach anything but abstinence. Jesus told him, I tell you, and now folks in Africa are screwing without condoms.

However, you are not completely credible with your opinions here. First you advocate killing loads of Muslims and bombing the holy places of Islam, and when I reply to your ideas with obvious sarcasm, I'm a knee-jerk reactionist? Gimme a break.

Resident_Hazard wrote:
Kudos on your memory. But you might want to watch yourself on your hyper-reactive responses.

Thank you for your advice, kind sir, I appreciate it. I will definitely watch my tongue in the future.
_________________
Chest wounds suck (when properly inflicted).
-Butch-

Top
 Profile  
DrSeuss
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:23 pm
Posts: 261
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:58 pm 
 

goatmanejy wrote:
Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
These are only a few of the criticisms I have. I think RH's proposal is utterly absurd, impractical, and ironically, utterly contrary to the humanistic principles of the West that many westerners view as our crowning achievements.

Couldn't agree more. I'll add that it's also very simplistic and juvenile, the kind of thing teenagers who just found out about Nietzsche say to sound all misanthropic and rebellious.


Yes, its very nietzche-esque. Its pretty impractical and simplistic as well, but I find it hard to imagine a juvinile being ruthless enough to approve of genocide. I attend a private school, so...


No... I don't see how Nietzsche advocated the genocide of "sub-humans"

The only thing nietzschean about this is the subjective morality that was brought up in this discussion. If you thought it was Nietzsche-esque, you've grossly misread his writings, go read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil again.

I agree with Osmium, you summed it up very well.
_________________
Resident_Hazard wrote:
As a side thought, I never equated pot with extreme music since pot makes one mellow and extreme music is better suited to DOING THE DEW AND BEING EXXXTREME. *sips Mountain Dew* RRRRAARRRHGGGGHHGGH!!!!

Top
 Profile  
Black_Metal_Elite
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 4:23 pm
Posts: 23
PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 11:48 pm 
 

Sir_General_Flashman wrote:

But you're right the world needs another plague, which I predict will come with in the next 100 years.


If something like the oil peak happens or happened, along with a global climate change... anyone on the fringe ends will die quickly.

People ship stuff over to Africa to help keep them alive, if that fades they'll be in more trouble then before.
_________________
If you take what I say seriously, you are stupid.

Top
 Profile  
FenrirsWrath
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 6:37 pm
Posts: 84
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 2:47 am 
 

Resident_Hazard wrote:


I don't mean to come off as jaded, and in fact, believe that overall, my views are largely positive as the end result would more than make up for the path getting there. In my opinion, the human race should move toward advancement--scientific, intellectual--peaceful. In my view, there are too many groups and people and countries working against advancement. Destroying them outright would be the fastest way to move to a newer, cleaner, better, smarter, world. Human viewpoints need to change. Religion should be discouraged. Too much focus on a mythical, unproven afterlife and not enough focus on living today, or bulding a better tomorrow for our children. People who choose petty warfare over human advancement, selfishness over selflessness, and clinging to obsolescence over moving toward advancement are problems. They are holding humanity back as a whole. Killing off all these people would be considered genocide. But if it reduces overpopulation, destroys counter-productive faiths, people, and ideas; and if it moves humanity as a whole to work together for a brighter, smarter future, then I think it's a small price to pay for moving forward.


You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, and you can't make a utopia without breaking a few skulls. Crude, but it's a working analogy.


So, what guarantee is there that the after-population (after whichever event wipes out all undesirables) will move correctly into a utopia? The terribleness of the past event is the key. Europe was a good, though misguided example after World War I: They built up the League of Nations with a focus on maintaining peace because the awfulness of the war instilled them to do so. The problem was they failed to see that, sometimes, that peace needs to be maintained with force. The other problem was, WWI did not kill enough of the world. The aftermath of any major catastrophic event will no doubt (with a margin for error, so "no" is not definite) be large groups dedicated to peaceful futures, and smaller groups dedicated to their own, perhaps violent or backwards-moving, goals. Those moving into a peaceful, intellectual future need to be aware that even after a near collapse of humanity, some leftover undesirables would still need to be cleared out.



I understand the irony of my view that we handle all these little marauders and genocidal nations with a much bigger genocide. They're just killing smaller groups of people back and forth over a long time, I think we should just wipe out all of those types in one fell swoop.



Finally, what do I think is a model future utopia? Japan. Japan is a country where science and intellectual advancement are very important. They are the technological leaders of the world. Europe and America are technological leaders as well, but both Europe and America have too many instances where politics fuck everything up. Part of this comes from, in my view, too many ethnic backgrounds mixed together not working in the mix. In Japan, it's one people, one background, one race and they tend to work together to advance everyone. Japan is one of the safest countries in the world where crime is considered. America is a very bad example. We have practically forced integration here that muddles everything. Humanity needs to work as a whole to advance into the future, but in my view, it works better when ethnic groups stick with their own. Why? I'm not exactly sure. It could be that when you have a room of all Japanese scientists, they are more likely to work together without harboring secretive racial views on one another. You get a mix of people, and racism will no doubt find it's way into a place where it doesn't belong. My experience for this comes from the Army where, during training, there were three primary ethnic groups: Whites, blacks, and hispanics. Rather than working together easily, there was always racial tension.


Why is the idea of technology and world peace the idea of the masses' (including you) utopia ? The only goal of technology is to create more leisure time which only creates unhappiness by making people focus their energies on being not bored or on abstract thoughts and inventions which have no bearing on the real world. All your scientific advancements and intellectual thoughts you or anyone else could and can muster do not make your life meaningful. Hitler wont even be remembered in a thousand years from now, and even if you cured AIDS, cancer and found concrete proof that Jesus existed, I promise you one day you will still be forgotten so it will still all be for naught. How many kings,philosophers,emperors or mass murders are forgotten already? At least 99% by most of the population and even the text books written by your important scholars.
A real utopia would be living in a "primitive" fashion where your existence is about survival. Procuring food,breeding and warring to survive. You do not have time to be depressed or worry about these social dregs in society you all care so much about. They would simply die out. Your technology and the preposterous idea of civilization is what lets them exist.
The third world countries are not the source of the problem in my opinion but all the peoples who base their life on material wealth and useless contraptions they are told are needed by capitalists propaganda which you all (including me) are tricked into doing abstract useless work (white collar) or the work to let the white collar workers live comfortably and survive which they either cannot (usually the case) or choose not to do. While the poor leech off each while living a parasitic life usually based around hedonistic values while being religious so they can hope for a wondrous afterlife.

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9311
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:09 am 
 

Napero wrote:
First you advocate killing loads of Muslims and bombing the holy places of Islam, and when I reply to your ideas with obvious sarcasm, I'm a knee-jerk reactionist? Gimme a break.

Yeah, I found that funny too... your post was very calm and mild-mannered and you asked a perfectly legitimate reaction, but R_H insists that it's "knee-jerk" reactionism... then again, he likes to accuse others of what he is guilty the most, so go figure. :)

DrSeuss wrote:
The only thing nietzschean about this is the subjective morality that was brought up in this discussion. If you thought it was Nietzsche-esque, you've grossly misread his writings, go read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil again.

I'm probably to blame for this misunderstanding... when I brought up Nietzsche, I only meant that the post sounded like some ignorant kid who had just found out about Nietzsche (you know, those "I am such a nihilist" kids who don't quite understand what they read) and suddenly thought extreme misanthropy was cool. I didn't mean to suggest that Nietzsche advocated genocide or anything like that, though some folks followed up on that line of thought for some reason.

Top
 Profile  
Viral
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:04 am
Posts: 1891
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 2:57 pm 
 

Resident_Hazard wrote:
Wiping out the people and many Islamic Holy Sites seems drastic but necessary. When the Conquistadores did this to Native American people, they essentially destroyed the ability for their customs and faiths to continue with any real strength. Granted, some of those customs and beliefs did survive, but in very minimal ways. Islam is not like Christianity or Judaism. It is more than a religion that people partake in on Sundays. They worship four times a day and it is under harsh indoctrination which often advocates the very things civilized people view as barbaric or part of humanity's ignorant past. This isn't the loving faith of Jesus where he was essentially the Ghandi of his time. I'll put it a way that most of the more liberally-minded on here might like: Islam is a religion if a more wicked version of George W. Bush started it. Bush was not afraid to go to war and being a former Texas Governor, had no problems letting criminals be executed in the prisons. This, to many is an out-dated view--many feel that execution is a form of punishment we should be "evolved" beyond. This is Islam. It is a way of life that in many ways, continues to live in obsolete, uncivilized times and unlike the Jews and Christians, it clearly cannot be adapted to a modern, scientifically-minded, civilized world. The base teachings are too strong and too old. In order to make a world free of religion, it and many (if not most) of the people therein need to be killed off and many of those holy sites need to be destroyed. I'll say it like this, when Islam is considered in the same category as ancient Egyptian or Mayan faiths--when it is viewed as "just a faith people used to believe in" and is an archaelogical curiosity--then we're on the right track for a better world. The same goes for all religions, but especially the "big three."

You, like a lot of other like-minded Americans believe the Middle East is one of the biggest sources of trouble for your country, but you cannot see that you people are the biggest threats to your own selves. America's conquest of the Middle East is not to wipe the terrorists and make the Middle East a more stable region (in fact the presence of Americans have made it even more unstable), it's your own paranoid, delusional sense of imperialism. As the Muslims say, the greatest war is not outside of you, but inside of you. Internal conflict was one of big reasons for the fall of Rome and many other great empires throughout history and it will be the same thing that will tear America apart as well. So continue your pursuit of the terrorists, the country will just keep exhausting more and more money and resources into this war until the cost is too great and it implodes.
_________________
The_Beast_in_Black wrote:
Sathanas_BM wrote:
The biggest influence of Swedish Death Metal is In Flames.

That's not right. That's not even wrong. It's so fundamentally inaccurate that I think it may well be incorrectable.

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8676
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 3:25 pm 
 

Viral wrote:
So continue your pursuit of the terrorists, the country will just keep exhausting more and more money and resources into this war until the cost is too great and it implodes.


Absolutely, but islamist extremism must be dealt with some way. I also think that should come from within, but there is no way to get through to the moderates to spark this internal revolution.

Top
 Profile  
Viral
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:04 am
Posts: 1891
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 3:47 pm 
 

rexxz wrote:
Viral wrote:
So continue your pursuit of the terrorists, the country will just keep exhausting more and more money and resources into this war until the cost is too great and it implodes.


Absolutely, but islamist extremism must be dealt with some way. I also think that should come from within, but there is no way to get through to the moderates to spark this internal revolution.

Agreed.
_________________
The_Beast_in_Black wrote:
Sathanas_BM wrote:
The biggest influence of Swedish Death Metal is In Flames.

That's not right. That's not even wrong. It's so fundamentally inaccurate that I think it may well be incorrectable.

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8676
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 3:49 pm 
 

I would be all for combat against actual terrorist organisations, though. Anyway I'm sure this is off topic... I think there was a thread made just for this thing not too long ago actually.

Top
 Profile  
Viral
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:04 am
Posts: 1891
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 3:52 pm 
 

rexxz wrote:
I would be all for combat against actual terrorist organisations, though. Anyway I'm sure this is off topic... I think there was a thread made just for this thing not too long ago actually.

I know. I was just responding to that one post of his.
_________________
The_Beast_in_Black wrote:
Sathanas_BM wrote:
The biggest influence of Swedish Death Metal is In Flames.

That's not right. That's not even wrong. It's so fundamentally inaccurate that I think it may well be incorrectable.

Top
 Profile  
Noobbot
Mors_Gloria + Thesaurus

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:48 pm
Posts: 426
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:15 pm 
 

FenrirsWrath wrote:
Why is the idea of technology and world peace the idea of the masses' (including you) utopia ? The only goal of technology is to create more leisure time which only creates unhappiness by making people focus their energies on being not bored or on abstract thoughts and inventions which have no bearing on the real world. All your scientific advancements and intellectual thoughts you or anyone else could and can muster do not make your life meaningful. Hitler wont even be remembered in a thousand years from now, and even if you cured AIDS, cancer and found concrete proof that Jesus existed, I promise you one day you will still be forgotten so it will still all be for naught. How many kings,philosophers,emperors or mass murders are forgotten already? At least 99% by most of the population and even the text books written by your important scholars.
A real utopia would be living in a "primitive" fashion where your existence is about survival. Procuring food,breeding and warring to survive. You do not have time to be depressed or worry about these social dregs in society you all care so much about. They would simply die out. Your technology and the preposterous idea of civilization is what lets them exist.
The third world countries are not the source of the problem in my opinion but all the peoples who base their life on material wealth and useless contraptions they are told are needed by capitalists propaganda which you all (including me) are tricked into doing abstract useless work (white collar) or the work to let the white collar workers live comfortably and survive which they either cannot (usually the case) or choose not to do. While the poor leech off each while living a parasitic life usually based around hedonistic values while being religious so they can hope for a wondrous afterlife.


In your endless rant, you seem to have forgotten something: the notion of a utopia is subjective. Mine, for instance, is something most others would consider quite the antonym of a utopia. Mine is a mutualist/individualist anarchic society with intelligent people coexisting nicely, surrounded by despots and chaos. Is it possible? Not terribly so, no. Unless the despots are either paradoxically benevolent, or the society I would mostly dwell within manages to repel them, it would crumble quickly. And is it realistic or probable? Definitely not! And neither is yours. Eliminating modern socio-economic structures would be easy enough, but ensuring future generations never return to it is another thing entirely. The only reason I see primitivism as a step back, in fact, is due to the reality of our children, somewhere along the line, developing similar societies from the relics of the past.

Napero wrote:
R_H, there's a good reason why the military has never been given any political power in most successful nations; it's not for them to question why, but to do or die. There's the holy three of legislative, juridical and executive powers in most western nations, and that's the way that has worked in those nations that have endured longer than a few decades. Changing that is stupidity, even if it's just a veto. "Could you people invade the country next to us, they are mean?" "Nah, can't be arsed to go, that's not beneficial..."

Think about it for a while. If a soldier wants to use his wisdom in that kind of matters, he can resign and try politics; giving institutional political power to those with the most powerful means to enforce virtually anything is insanity, and if you look at the US Constitution, that's one of the most important reasons the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Giving any decisions for the military to make is a direct violation of the principles of representative democracy.


Wait, do you actually oppose gun control? If so, you're one of a few Europeans I've heard/seen actually say something along those lines. And yes, I am very much opposed to gun control myself.

But that aside, I do agree that alotting any monopoly of force, on an already powerful entity, invites not but a domineering, omnipresent militaristic dictatorship. The military should remain the government's mindless peons as they are, not the law enforcement and legal process. Or, as others would say, they should not be the judge, jury, and executioner.


Napero wrote:
Replace "mediocre" with "destructive and idiotic" and we competely agree. Maybe you people in the USA can't see what kind of damage the Monkey Boy has done to the reputation of your nation, and how he has managed to do that despite the huge influx of international goodwill after the 9/11. He has ruined the economics, screwed up every international environmental initiative there's been ever since he stepped into office, and works for Jesus. Hell, for example, his adminstration took away all federal support from family planning programs that teach anything but abstinence. Jesus told him, I tell you, and now folks in Africa are screwing without condoms.


I can't find anything wrong here.

You know, other than the extent of anthrocentric climate change and the existence of a welfare state, it seems we share many commonalities ideologically.

Black_Metal_Elite wrote:
Sir_General_Flashman wrote:

But you're right the world needs another plague, which I predict will come with in the next 100 years.


If something like the oil peak happens or happened, along with a global climate change... anyone on the fringe ends will die quickly.

People ship stuff over to Africa to help keep them alive, if that fades they'll be in more trouble then before.


The problem is, most of the "aid" supplies, whether financial or actual food, are piped directly to warlords and dictators, leaving very little (if any at all) to help the citizenry as it is intended. The dictators and the like increase in wealth and strength, while the average person suffers, and often genocide occurs.

Top
 Profile  
Napero
GedankenPanzer

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 8398
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:24 am 
 

Noobbot wrote:
You know, other than the extent of anthrocentric climate change and the existence of a welfare state, it seems we share many commonalities ideologically.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you are unlikely to find a tree-hugger more in favour of gun control than me on this website. What I meant with my amendment reference was that the idea of separating the military power from political and executive branches is older than the US constitution, just to point out that giving the military a veto over anything is a bad idea. While the amendment about the right to bear arms certainly had other implications and objectives, too, this was certainly one of them.

The only European here I know is against gun control is josephus. In my opinion, everything but the guns used for hunting should be illegal for ordinary citizens, including low caliber target practice pistols (but possibly excluding air guns). They are not needed for any purpose whatsoever.
_________________
Chest wounds suck (when properly inflicted).
-Butch-

Top
 Profile  
TheJizzHammer
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:47 pm
Posts: 1201
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 3:10 pm 
 

This is a half and half for me.

I generally value human life, no matter the race, religion, sex, or presence of defects like mental retardation.

However, there are some people out there that are just so bad for this world, and as you mentioned, there is a huge population issue, something I've been pondering lately. Sometimes I'm for mass death, other times I'm not. I go back and forth a lot.

Something tells me that we really need to thin out the herd, something else tells me that life is life and should be held in high regard.
I'll figure something out.

Top
 Profile  
Noobbot
Mors_Gloria + Thesaurus

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:48 pm
Posts: 426
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:18 pm 
 

Napero wrote:
Noobbot wrote:
You know, other than the extent of anthrocentric climate change and the existence of a welfare state, it seems we share many commonalities ideologically.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you are unlikely to find a tree-hugger more in favour of gun control than me on this website. What I meant with my amendment reference was that the idea of separating the military power from political and executive branches is older than the US constitution, just to point out that giving the military a veto over anything is a bad idea. While the amendment about the right to bear arms certainly had other implications and objectives, too, this was certainly one of them.

The only European here I know is against gun control is josephus. In my opinion, everything but the guns used for hunting should be illegal for ordinary citizens, including low caliber target practice pistols (but possibly excluding air guns). They are not needed for any purpose whatsoever.


I had my hopes up and you smashed them. But then again, it is very rare to find a collectivist who is in favor of any brand or shred of individualism. ;) I suppose it's because they're polar opposites or near about.

Top
 Profile  
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:38 pm 
 

greysnow wrote:
Try not to become unemployed for any extended time. You might end up as a defective, degenerate and general scumbag who only ever exists to depend on welfare. You'll be excess humanity with no rights. If you have your way, you might even be slated for forced sterilization, and be thankful that you're not slated for killing off. (That would, after all, be rather crude. Sterilization is so much more elegant.)

This kind of reactionary, bourgeois, self-righteous, social Darwinist classist elitism makes me sick. (Maybe that's a borderline ad hominem; I think it's just calling it what it is.) I won't even try to argue human rights here, since if that is a meaningful concept to you at all, it appears that you want to reserve them for your chosen segment of the population. So all I can say is that I hope you never find yourself on the other end of the stick.


I wasn't saying that people were intrinsically degenerate by virtue of being unemployed, but degenerate, stupid people won't naturally be at an advantage. I am certainly not immune from unemployment, but I doubt I would turn to starting on people for my own amusement.

Whilst in theory you have a point, you should take a visit to the UK. Not Buckingham Palace or anywhere like that you might take on a pleasant excursion, but the really shitty parts. People I know of a leftist, socialist disposition such as yourself have had their patience tried at the backward behaviour they've seen. Youth attacking firemen for doing their job, or beating the shit out of ambulance staff who had just come to pick up their mate who had just fallen over and smashed his head open on the pavement, do not curry my sympathy just because of their economic "misfortune" which according to what I have observed has a lot to do with them and previous generations just not applying themselves at school. I used to hate such a "smug, social darwinist" perspective, but I've stopped lying to myself about how I feel. Maybe I am that way, but I wouldn't say smug, I'd say angry because I don't like the status quo, I don't like being on edge, nobody does. I've tried social constructivism but it was too circular for me.

This sort of thing doesn't happen at a flick of a button like being unemployed, it's ingrained into entire generations of people. Stupid people breed with stupid people and because of the sexualisation of modern society, this is happening at an alarming rate, and the thing about stupid people is they don't think to use contraceptives (despite how much teachers rabbit on about it in comprehensive schools) or have any long-term foresight about what it means to have to look after children so when they end up having them, they can't be fucked to keep their eye on them, and what's worse is half the time the father isn't present. Though the breakdown of the family is an entirely new tangent of discussion. But I personally believe the UK is facing a dysgenic crisis which has run parallel with the deterioration in family and community values. I seriously don't care how horrible such a view is because that is what is apparent to me from my humble perspective. With that in mind I think I'm more serious about instilling some new values into society rather than genocide which I only think about on a "what if?" level.
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
greysnow
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:01 am
Posts: 378
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:49 pm 
 

@NeglectedField: Too tired today to give you a really well-considered answer, but I'd like to point out that Britain especially seems to have the problems you point out, at least in Europe. I think this is because you never quite got rid of the class system.

Read any account of the social mores in the East End in the 19th century, and you will see it was actually worse then than it is today. Working-class people don't normally share middle-class values, especially if it's an "ingrained" working class where upward mobility or "posh behaviour" can be seen as treason to your peers.

And your complaints sound entirely typical of Victorian "betterment" proponents. I can only see the same game being acted out again here. Even your theoretical ruminations on sterilization have Victorian precedents:

Wikipedia wrote:
In Britain, eugenics never received significant state funding, but it was supported by many prominent figures of different political persuasions before World War I, including Conservative Arthur Balfour, the future Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Fabian socialists such as George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells.[5] Furthermore, its emphasis was more upon class, rather than race.[61] Indeed, Galton expressed these views during a lecture in 1901 in which he placed the British society into groups. These groupings are shown in the figure and indicate the proportion of society falling into each group and their perceived genetic worth. Galton suggested that negative eugenics (i.e. an attempt to prevent them from bearing offspring) should be applied only to those in the lowest social group (the "Undesirables"), while positive eugenics applied to the higher classes. However, he appreciated the worth of the higher working classes to society and industry.
_________________
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:00 pm 
 

Napero wrote:

However, you are not completely credible with your opinions here. First you advocate killing loads of Muslims and bombing the holy places of Islam, and when I reply to your ideas with obvious sarcasm, I'm a knee-jerk reactionist? Gimme a break.



I'd like to think that if it was obvious sarcasm that I would've caught it. I'm one of the few people online that doles out sarcasem without the use of smileys or that stuff.

If it was obvious, I apologize for missing it, but usually I catch this stuff. Although, I thought that sarcasm was generally considered "unwelcome" (for lack of a better term) in the Symposium--so I don't expect to see it in here.


I'm just going to overlook the whole "opinions on Bush" argument/conversation because outside of the US, most countries only got certain points of view on our generally lackluster leadership (if you can call politicians leaders, when they're job is supposed to be little more that elected representatives). The Bush arguments and whatnot are just a very tired topic on the Archives, and internet in general--that dead horse was whipped to powder ages ago. Also, he isn't really the point of this thread--Bush, I mean. I was using him as an example earlier, nothing more.
_________________
Check out Opinionhated from Amazon-Kindle

Top
 Profile  
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:37 pm 
 

greysnow wrote:
@NeglectedField: Too tired today to give you a really well-considered answer, but I'd like to point out that Britain especially seems to have the problems you point out, at least in Europe. I think this is because you never quite got rid of the class system.

Read any account of the social mores in the East End in the 19th century, and you will see it was actually worse then than it is today. Working-class people don't normally share middle-class values, especially if it's an "ingrained" working class where upward mobility or "posh behaviour" can be seen as treason to your peers.

And your complaints sound entirely typical of Victorian "betterment" proponents. I can only see the same game being acted out again here. Even your theoretical ruminations on sterilization have Victorian precedents:

Wikipedia wrote:
In Britain, eugenics never received significant state funding, but it was supported by many prominent figures of different political persuasions before World War I, including Conservative Arthur Balfour, the future Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Fabian socialists such as George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells.[5] Furthermore, its emphasis was more upon class, rather than race.[61] Indeed, Galton expressed these views during a lecture in 1901 in which he placed the British society into groups. These groupings are shown in the figure and indicate the proportion of society falling into each group and their perceived genetic worth. Galton suggested that negative eugenics (i.e. an attempt to prevent them from bearing offspring) should be applied only to those in the lowest social group (the "Undesirables"), while positive eugenics applied to the higher classes. However, he appreciated the worth of the higher working classes to society and industry.


I can't remember saying anything about sterilization explicitly. What is needed before anything else is attempted, is a change of societal values.

However it is sad that social groups don't like to behave in a way that's associated with the upper classes for fear of rejection by their peers. I think it's explainable from a psychological perspective but there's nothing reasonable about such an attitude IMO. So you're right in that the class system doesn't do any such thing help. But, to what extent is the class system a construct? I don't think there's an easy way to tell.

My only quarrel with eroding any class system is that it always ends up getting taken too far, an egalitarian perspective is not a good one. For example since they tried to cram as many people as possible into universities I've noticed a higher proportion of people who clearly aren't suited to an academic environment at all and clearly don't enjoy that side of it. Some people aren't cut out for academia.
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
Axel_Sikth
Metalhead

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:30 am
Posts: 910
Location: Hong Kong
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:02 am 
 

I think I'll just let human nature take its course. The human race will eventually destroy itself, something I predict that will happen in my lifetime. Until then, I'll just sit back and relax.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BloodSacrificeShaman and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group