So Kent Hovind supports eugenics?

[blutoski]

Also, who is strong? The Warrior that can crush a head with is bare hands, or the feeble philosopher that can shoot him in the face at 100 paces?

This is why these hypotheticals spiral into vagueness. "Strong" isn't a meaningful term in genetics. "Best adapted"? That varies with the environment, which for humans is constantly changing because we're an intensely social species.

 

[TheAdversary]

'Evidence please.

Show me an egalitarian society where "the strong" are enslaved, or subjected to something like Lakota Sun Dance.'

Western society. And for examples of the strong being enslaved and forced to perform useless rituals of weakness look no further
than psychiatric centers. (shudder) mindfulness (/shudder)
Unfortunately even though there exists evidence in spades for the egalitarian disaster, it's all filtered out due to egalitarian brainwashing.
All I can do is expose its unscientific nature and hope someone listens.

 

[TheAdversary]

'Show me an egalitarian society where "the strong" are enslaved.'

And besides the actual physical evidence that comes from seeing Western society degenerate, I think this is actually true per definition.
Egalitarianism IS enslavement of the strong. You're asking me to show you a round circle.

 

[TheAdversary]

A further example. In my country they're trying to figure out how to handle radicalized people, who may have returned from Syria, or who want to go
there to fight etc. One of the ideas they're toying with is preemptively locking them up in psychiatric centers.
This is wrong on many levels.
Firstly, psychiatry is used to get rid of political dissidents. This is such a enormous red flag ... such a enormous warning sign that there's something
fundamentally wrong ... almost a jewish star.
And nobody objects to this because ... psychiatry has already been used for this purpose for such a long time, it really makes no difference. All
the mechanisms are already tried and tested; It was already going in that direction anyway. They have long since been considering anti-Western
attitudes as insanities, so not even the 'science' has to change.
That the system is oppressive despite of its mildness, a Mild Despotism as Tocqueville has called it, then becomes apparent : Because of the fact
that there is NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER necessary to start locking people up for the wrong political ideas. They were doing that already anyway.

 

[TheAdversary]

So the oppression comes from the mind and social sciences that consider egalitarian political sentiments 'science'. All political
enemies of egalitarianism are immediately 'scientifically' declared 'insane'. And there's not even a despot at the top enjoying all of this
absolute oppression! It's simply the most ridiculous of all political systems : slave-caste only!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Egalitarianism coupled with advances in technology ensures a higher chance of survival for those unfit otherwise. If this is taken too far, the unfit
will not be removed properly from the gene pool. The effect of natural selection is lessened. If this is taken too far, mankind is indeed in danger of
degenerating into useless sacks of ****.
That is, egalitarianism the way it is implemented now using medical technology does at least try to ensure equal results. People who can't reproduce, can still reproduce, for example. Or people who would have died otherwise from cancer or hereditary defects can still pass on their genes.

Until the introduction of pain-free dental care we were evolving to have less wisdom teeth.

Use of anesthetics in dentistry removes natural selection and ensures all humans who can afford dental care have equal right, conveniences and health with to pass on defective or obsolete genes without selective pressure applied.

 

[hecd2]

So the oppression comes from the mind and social sciences that consider egalitarian political sentiments 'science'. All political
enemies of egalitarianism are immediately 'scientifically' declared 'insane'. And there's not even a despot at the top enjoying all of this
absolute oppression! It's simply the most ridiculous of all political systems : slave-caste only!

It's like going back a hundred years in time and reading an echo of "the Passing of the Great Race".

 

[TheAdversary]

'It's like going back a hundred years in time and reading an echo of "the Passing of the Great Race".'

A hundred? I'm going back thousands of years!

 

[TheAdversary]

Slave morality is so absurd it requires extensive brainwashing. So extensive that it has already been going on for thousands of years starting
with Christianity, roughly speaking. Almost all of the religions are slave-religions preaching submission to some ultimate cosmic despot.
This society is simply the limit of this : Complete denial of Willpower by 'scientific' mandate. It's the ultimate submissive religion.
I think this master-slave morality interplay might be the consequence of some natural law concerning free will. And that free will
and master morality will make a comeback in the near future.

 

[TheAdversary]

I specifically say free will AND master morality because the philosophers who think free will can return without a fundamental change in the moral
framework are deluded hippies. It's a change in the concept of liberty and that usually requires a revolution.
And in this case, because the degeneracy process has to be compensated for, probably an equal exaggeration in the other direction.
An exaggeration in the direction of anti-egalitarianism to counter the exaggeration in the egalitarian direction.
So if you think anti-egalitarianism, in all its manifestations, is evil ... you will seriously dislike this.

 

[TheAdversary]

'I always find amusing that the eugenics idiots never consider the possibility that, under "natural" selection pressure, they would be one of the
large majority that didn't make it to 16...'

This is circular reasoning because you already have to assume eugenics proponents are idiots in your argument that eugenics proponents are idiots.
Talk about idiocy! Even if you assume that all eugenics proponents really are idiots, this sentence is still invalid because of its circularity.

 

[tyr_13]

A further example. In my country they're trying to figure out how to handle radicalized people, who may have returned from Syria, or who want to go
there to fight etc. One of the ideas they're toying with is preemptively locking them up in psychiatric centers.
This is wrong on many levels.
Firstly, psychiatry is used to get rid of political dissidents. This is such a enormous red flag ... such a enormous warning sign that there's something
fundamentally wrong ... almost a jewish star.
And nobody objects to this because ... psychiatry has already been used for this purpose for such a long time, it really makes no difference. All
the mechanisms are already tried and tested; It was already going in that direction anyway. They have long since been considering anti-Western
attitudes as insanities, so not even the 'science' has to change.
That the system is oppressive despite of its mildness, a Mild Despotism as Tocqueville has called it, then becomes apparent : Because of the fact
that there is NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER necessary to start locking people up for the wrong political ideas. They were doing that already anyway.

Those 'wrong political ideas' are 'using violence to enforce our rule on others'. You think this is strength, but it's weakness. You call this a 'wrong political idea', and it is that as well, but that's like saying they executed a man for breaking and entering, leaving out the murder they also committed.

Your values are now selected against in your environment, which is not a 'strength'. The strong will oppose your values, and somehow you complain that this is evidence of slavery and suppression of the strong. If they are strong they are not oppressed by definition. Did you mean 'otherwise strong'? Why are you so upset that there isn't a despot at top? Why are you discounting the strength of the compassionate, the unifies, and the peaceful, which is now overcoming the weakness of personal violence and individualized oppression, as strength? If it was not strong, it would not be 'winning'. But it is.

At any rate, it certainly isn't science and better for the politics section, or religion and philosophy.

 

[Megalodon]

No, that is not circular reasoning, it's an insult. I describe people who defend eugenics as idiots, and follow up with an example to illustrate why I believe that description is correct. Obviously the point of the post went over your head, but well... baby steps... after all, you do defend eugenics.

 

[TheAdversary]

The ruler of such an egalitarian absurdity is an absurdity : An empty throne, capable of chaos only. The incarnation of Pure Chance.
This is why the West, as a whole, is capable of destruction only. They tried to get rid of all tyrants ... and they ended up with that.
A faceless tyrant of Pure Chance, the opposite of Willpower.
This is why I dislike the 'peaceful' : They aren't so peaceful. Taken to extremes, they end up ruining everything.
And this is why I would prefer a despot at the top : At least there would be some semblance of Willpower.
Egalitarianism is a conundrum; It's actually a worst case scenario for those who prefer Master Morality, wherever they might be on the
hierarchy, high or low. Without inequality, Willpower cannot be formulated and it is Willpower that ultimately defines Strength.

 

[TheAdversary]

'No, that is not circular reasoning, it's an insult. I describe people who defend eugenics as idiots, and follow up with an example to illustrate
why I believe that description is correct. Obviously the point of the post went over your head, but well... baby steps... after all, you do
defend eugenics.'

So you start with an insult. And why you believe that is based on a circular argument, since you already have to assume the conclusion, that eugenics
proponents are idiots. Otherwise the argument about natural selection doesn't make sense. They're idiots and that's why they don't make it, right?
So you're already assuming the conclusion there, einstein.
Yeah, the point of the post was just to insult, because you think you can get away with an insult when it's about something you think is so
obviously wrong that no argument is needed. Another group consensus/slave morality thing. The need to fit in etc. To assure yourself.
But you're incapable of formulating a sound counterargument, regarding actual content. You're limited to insults. Try it!

 

[MikeG]

'No, that is not circular reasoning, it's an insult. I describe people who defend eugenics as idiots, and follow up with an example to illustrate
why I believe that description is correct. Obviously the point of the post went over your head, but well... baby steps... after all, you do
defend eugenics.'.........

Are you having trouble with the Quote function?

It really is very simple: click the Quote button in the bottom right hand corner of the post you want to quote, and then type your reply in the box underneath the passage you are quoting. You can edit what appears between the quote tags, typically done to remove the stuff you aren't answering.

Not using the quote function is seriously bad manners, given that you aren't attributing people's words correctly, and people are unable to immediately see the entirety of the quoted person's text. Please amend your ways.

 

[TheAdversary]

Hey, don't misrepresent me! Now it looks like I'm the person who wrote the first sentence!

 

[MikeG]

You see the problem now?

 

[Megalodon]

So you start with an insult. And why you believe that is based on a circular argument, since you already have to assume the conclusion, that eugenics
proponents are idiots. Otherwise the argument about natural selection doesn't make sense. They're idiots and that's why they don't make it, right?

I stated a fact, didn't make an argument, circular or otherwise. Anyone proposing eugenics tend to think they would be the ones doing the culling, not the ones to be composted.

When they try the "naturalist" argument, they also tend to believe that they would have been in the lucky 40% of the population that would make it past 16. Personally I don't like those odds.

So you're already assuming the conclusion there, einstein.
Yeah, the point of the post was just to insult, because you think you can get away with an insult when it's about something you think is so obviously wrong that no argument is needed. Another group consensus/slave morality thing. The need to fit in etc. To assure yourself.

Of course it's obviously wrong. Our species is a gregarious one. If one thing made us great and successful was the way we treat the weaker members of our society ("weaker" changing in definition depending on the environment we were set in).

Today, with so many of the "weaker" members of society surviving and breeding we have the longest and best lives that any humans lived in history. So much that I wouldn't change my middle-class existence for that of a king 200 years ago.

Our accomplishments are now beyond those of the gods of antiquity, and our knowledge and power grows faster with each year that passes.

For anyone but a spoiled brat with power fantasies these facts are obvious.

 

[TheAdversary]

'Anyone proposing eugenics tend to think they would be the ones doing the culling, not the ones to be composted.'

Disregarding your convoluted reasoning methodology of the insult/fact circular argument, can I assume that this is the supposed fact? I'll concentrate
on that then :
Yes, it's an elitist philosophy. I'm an elitist. This is not a counterargument to what I'm saying at all because my whole argument is to show that egalitarianism
leads to a worse situation than would ever be possible under even the most dreadful despot.
You should find a counterargument to that, it's not enough to just state that an elitist philosophy is bad.
That usually works in the general population because anti-elitism is an unquestionable dogma, but not in this case.

'When they try the "naturalist" argument, they also tend to believe that they would have been in the lucky 40% of the population that would make it past 16.
Personally I don't like those odds.'

See above. You just don't like elitism. Probably because you're a coward. But the worship of weakness that happens as a consequence of this, is WAY WORSE.
You don't like the odds? Following the egalitarian way will _certainly_ lead to degeneracy. I don't like _those_ odds. I'd rather take my chances
with the Masters. I prefer that to nanny-state cowardice.

'Of course it's obviously wrong. Our species is a gregarious one. If one thing made us great and successful was the way we treat the weaker members of our
society ("weaker" changing in definition depending on the environment we were set in).
Today, with so many of the "weaker" members of society surviving and breeding we have the longest and best lives that any humans lived in history.
So much that I wouldn't change my middle-class existence for that of a king 200 years ago.
Our accomplishments are now beyond those of the gods of antiquity, and our knowledge and power grows faster with each year that passes.'

Suggestive, egalitarian propaganda. 'Man is a social animal'-nonsense. (Man is a sadistic animal, idiot. Can we please be honest with ourselves?)
We are so great ... greater ... greater than the GODS!!! And our knowledge ... vast like oceans. Great is our Empire. (But with an empty throne ...)

But why is elitism so 'obviously' wrong? Can you elaborate without the suggestive egalitarian propaganda?

'For anyone but a spoiled brat with power fantasies these facts are obvious.'

Yes, it's very obvious when you just insult someone you don't agree with. (The Gay Science. (Gay=Happy)) Then it becomes very obvious in your head.
Like I said, insults is all you have.
And propaganda. Can you tell me what's so 'obviously' wrong about elitism? Because for me, it's the opposite :
For anyone but a depraved degenerate indoctrinated by slave morality the way of the Will to Power is obvious.
And I've argued clearly why I think that way while you have done nothing but rely on group consensus, which is to be expected from a slave.
(Also, the fact that you use 'spoiled brat', insinuating immaturity, is another nanny-state/slave-morality staple.)

Sorry about my manners of quoting. I like to remain Pure Text ASCII 7-bit as much as possible.
Mind my manners, while I gently continue advocating genocide.