So Kent Hovind supports eugenics?

[MikeG]

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

So, I completely wasted my breath telling you how to use the quote function. OK, so we'll have to use other means to get you to use the forum properly, I guess.

 

[Belz...]

Apparently Kent Hovind (the same Kent Hovind would claims the theory of evolution leads to genocide) thinks that find we applied biblical law and executed not only murderers but also homosexuals, adulterers, disobedient kids etc, we would be getting rid of people with "mean genes" and have a more docile society.

Ironic, given that he is arguing for mass murder.

Maybe we should get rid of Hovind. Didn't he go to prison?

 

[Belz...]

Sorry about my manners of quoting. I like to remain Pure Text ASCII 7-bit as much as possible.

Why? Do you live in 1997?

It's obnoxious to read your posts this way. Use the quote button or don't be surprised if people ignore you entirely.

 

[TheAdversary]

Only very few people are ever going to listen to me anyway. This is because I'm advocating Master Morality or Elitism. My words are for the few, not the masses.
If the masses are put off by trivialities, I don't give a flying ****. And for the few that are actually listening : They'll be glad that someone is
actually saying what they've been thinking/feeling as well. And they are not going to be put off by trivialities.
In fact, it's the emphasis on trivialities while the big picture goes to disorder that is typical of the egalitarian disaster.
That's why I mentioned the empty throne, the despot of Pure Chance. Of absence of Willpower. The big picture of everyone just bickering about trivial things is
nothing but randomness. So the hypothetical guy at the top of the hierarchy of an egalitarian society is someone capable of random acts only.
An absolute despot that just does random acts. Even Hitler is to be preferred to this abomination!
Hitler might have been irrational, but at least his behaviour wasn't completely random. Imagine random commands, maybe even changing mid-sentence. Imagine that
for a despot! That's the result of egalitarianism.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 10. Please revisit the Membership Agreement to which you agreed on joining this forum.

 

[Nonpareil]

Only very few people are ever going to listen to me anyway. This is because I'm advocating Master Morality or Elitism.

I can think of at least one other potential explanation.

 

[Brian-M]

Sorry about my manners of quoting. I like to remain Pure Text ASCII 7-bit as much as possible.

Okay, there's an established alternative if you want to quote someone using only pure 7-bit ASCII text.

You simply put [quote="User Name"] at the start of the quote, and [/quote] at the end of the quote.

For example:

[quote="TheAdversary"] Mind my manners, while I gently continue advocating genocide. [/quote]

That makes is clear and unambiguous that you're quoting someone else, exactly who you're quoting and were the quote ends. The rest of the forum members would appreciate the effort.

 

[Megalodon]

I will use a counter-argument when you come up with an argument. Until now you have nothing but assertions that are at odds with reality...

 

[TheAdversary]

I will use a counter-argument when you come up with an argument. Until now you have nothing but assertions that are at odds with reality...

I'm presenting an extraordinary case. So the burden of proof is on me. This is why my posts are very elaborate lots of times. Because I need to explain it
carefully. And when asked for the extraordinary evidence, I have always been able to provide it. Sure, the argument isn't perfect, but no argument
ever is.
Now, you don't have to agree. You can ignore me completely if you want. But if you make the strong claim that my idea(s) are incorrect, you need to be
able to back it up. It's a well developed idea and I'm not reversing the burden of proof. I did my bit. A sound counterargument consists of either finding a flaw
in the facts, or in the deductions, the logic. Otherwise, it's just a vacuous statement. You need to be able to tell me exactly what assertions are at odds
with reality, according to you.
But please first read carefully what I'm actually saying. I get the idea that you're just dismissing it out of hand. And then you really don't know what you're
talking about and you're just shouting. Not very rational ...

 

[tyr_13]

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.

I'm presenting an extraordinary case. So the burden of proof is on me. This is why my posts are very elaborate lots of times. Because I need to explain it
carefully. And when asked for the extraordinary evidence, I have always been able to provide it. Sure, the argument isn't perfect, but no argument
ever is.
Now, you don't have to agree. You can ignore me completely if you want. But if you make the strong claim that my idea(s) are incorrect, you need to be
able to back it up. It's a well developed idea and I'm not reversing the burden of proof. I did my bit. A sound counterargument consists of either finding a flaw
in the facts, or in the deductions, the logic. Otherwise, it's just a vacuous statement. You need to be able to tell me exactly what assertions are at odds
with reality, according to you.
But please first read carefully what I'm actually saying. I get the idea that you're just dismissing it out of hand. And then you really don't know what you're
talking about and you're just shouting. Not very rational ...

Again, none of this tangent is science, and is philosophy, religion, and politics.

You have not presented a rational argument. I've found few of your assertions which are correct in the least, or even related to each other, so the argument itself is of no predictive value. It's in the category of 'not even wrong'

But for example, the highlighted is simply false. There is absolutely no need for inequality for willpower to be exercised, it can even be 'formulated' internally, and further general egalitarianism and western philosophy cannot and does not eliminate power differentials in all contexts. Plus willpower does not define strength, and even if it does, having the ability to enforce your desires or worldview through violence and having the willpower not to is a much, much greater strength than using violence. That's why the people you abhor for not having strength or virtue could easily destroy those you consider 'strong'; cooperation is just that much stronger than ruling. Your idols are actually weak, but their adversaries just don't want to destroy them. Those you are being critical of are strong enough, and have enough willpower, for the self-imposed challenge of wanting to convince rather than rule. It's courage to risk not getting everything you want, although it's also trivially true that it produces better results for everyone.

Trying to bring this back to the subject and science, cooperation is a huge evolutionary advantage. It has been selected for, and continues to be selected for, for all of human history. We are communal animals, and it works damn well.

 

[fuelair]

And Hovind is a noted creationist (as well as FMOTL wannabe) so he doesn't believe in natural selection.

Hovind is clearly a product of unnatural selection.

 

[fuelair]

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.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to comply with rule 10. Please type all swear words out in full and correctly spelled - if they are on the forum's naughty list they will be automatically censored. In the public sections of the forum ( SMMT is a
public section), do not attempt to circumvent the autocensor by replacing characters or by the use of creative spellings.

And who's a naughty boy here?????!!!!!

 

[Megalodon]

Egalitarianism coupled with advances in technology ensures a higher chance of survival for those unfit otherwise.

Assumes facts not in evidence. "Unfit" is a completely subjective term, and it is completely dependent on the environment. Since you don't know what the environment would be if not for technology, that assertion is unprovable, and disregardable.

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 ****.

The only evidence that you present for such degeneration is the quality of your posts.

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.

I wonder why you didn't vent against vaccines or antibiotics... Millions of people reproduce every year due to those advances. What is so special about their DNA? I propose that anyone advancing this argument knows that they are, in all probability, alive today because of it. That makes it "necessary" technology.

And why limit it to medical technology? Without modern agriculture a large chunk of people would have never been. Good luck making stupid rants about how the population is going to hell when your grandparents starved to death.

 

[Megalodon]

This is why egalitarianism became irrefutable. Because of disasters from the past. But then mankind went too far into the other direction and egalitarianism going too far is its own disaster. A far worse one.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

The problem is that natural selection is compromised so that people who couldn't survive before, can even thrive now.

And people that had it better before now have it worse. Case in point, asthma is an overreach of your immune system, that is very helpful when your body has parasites. The immunosuppression caused by the parasites is compensated by the mutation. When sanitation enters the picture, the "strong" are now left up the proverbial creek.

But this comes at a price eople who in previous times could survive, the strong, now have a hard time properly surviving and passing on their genes. It's the people who,simplified and for the sake of argument, posses the 'warrior-gene'.

Blah blah, facts not in evidence, appeal to emotion, reliance of the argument on earlier false permises...

This society prefers nice and docile, and considers warrior gened people mentally ill.

Assumes facts not in evidence, and apparently you never watched TV... docile...

It's not a taboo in present-day academic settings to explicitly state that the 'warrior-gene' needs to be removed/exterminated. They call it a 'bad gene'.

A lot of things are not taboo in academia. Like the overwhelming majority of subjects.

But in doing that, they're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The warrior virtues will consequently also disappear. Virtues like Courage and Honour.

Assumes that courage and honour are directly linked to the warrior gene, which is laughable... Hilarious, really.

This society prefers to breed people who are nice and docile, but also lack warrior-virtues like that completely.

Again, someone missed every action movie, series, book, play, puppet-show or folk song. Docile...

That leads to the kind of person that would look in the other direction when their best friend is attacked, but later go to the hospital and say they're going to 'care' for them.

Assumes facts not in evidence...

A whole society of people like that? In my opinion, that's a disaster. Backstabbing, lying, virtueless cowards only.
And, the concept of mental health needs to be adapted to this. So a backstabbing coward is seen as sane, and a courageous soldier is seen as mentally ill.So the concept of health is skewed as well.

Assumes facts only existent in your head...

Anti-egalitarianism has led to disaster in the past, yes, but nothing compared to the egalitarian disaster that's going on as we speak. But time will tell ...

Assumes facts rectally extracted...

 

[Megalodon]

The extermination of the 'warrior-gene' from Western society is the reason for radicalization, terrorism, school shootings etc.

AFNIE... and it's dumb...

The social and mind sciences should adapt to a broader view of morality such as presented in Genealogy of Morality, which turns out to be the most scientific theory of morality ever presented.

You have no idea what "scientific" means, do you?

Moral Psychologists can never derive their notions of right and wrong from anything else than group consensus, and that's not very scientific, but it's exactly what Genealogy of Morality claims : slave morality only ever follows from group consensus. The only morality that can be rationally justified is one based on freedom of choice. Obviously, otherwise a wrong choice is simply impossible. This leads to master morality or the Will to Power being the only sane possibility for a moral framework. And examples of master moralistic psychology can be found in the Godfather movies.

Teenagers first encounter with Nietzsche is always a riot...

 

[Megalodon]

An anti-egalitarian system is hard on the weak, preferring people to be strong and to become stronger. The weak do not fit in.

For variable values of "weak" and "strong".

An egalitarian system is hard on the strong, preferring people to be weak and to become weaker. The strong do not fit in.

In an egalitarian system the "strong" have, on average, the same troubles as the weak... thus the term egalitarian.
If the "strong" cannot cope with the pressures of such an environment, then why call them "strong"?

The problem is that the weak on average show more cruelty to the strong than vice versa due to the lack of virtue in the weak, making the egalitarian oppression problem far worse for its victims.

AFNIE...

 

[CapelDodger]

Teenagers first encounter with Nietzsche is always a riot...

 

[Megalodon]

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.

It's not an elitist philosophy, it's a stupid power fantasy by people who don't fit in this society, and prefer to blame it on the society while disregarding the historical and scientific knowledge available.

You should find a counterargument to that, it's not enough to just state that an elitist philosophy is bad.

Not really, since your "argument" until now is gibberish for 'an elitist philosophy is good'.

That usually works in the general population because anti-elitism is an unquestionable dogma, but not in this case.

Yes, you are special... I've noticed.

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.

Ah, the old equivalency between bravery and stupidity... how adequate.

Picture this: 60% of everyone you know would have died before they were 16. Now consider this, that number is actually much greater, since 60% of your grandparents would not have survived either.

To look at this and think that you would prefer that kind of "natural selection" is at best foolish, and at worse evil.

And now the clincher: All of the advances of science and technology that you are ranting about are as much "natural selection" as the twig the chimpanzee uses to catch termites. The world changed... adapt or perish.

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.

Are you a slave, to wish for 'masters'? All that bravado and you only want a daddy figure that will tell you how high to jump... pathetic.

Suggestive, egalitarian propaganda. 'Man is a social animal'-nonsense. (Man is a sadistic animal, idiot. Can we please be honest with ourselves?)

You calling someone an idiot is like a puddle complaining the tree is wet.
Man is a social animal... to prove this is like proving that the sky is blue: go to the window and look out.

We are so great ... greater ... greater than the GODS!!! And our knowledge ... vast like oceans. Great is our Empire. (But with an empty throne ...)

Show me a god with a 50 Megaton yield and I will consider your objections.

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

So I should explain without referring to reality? I'll give it a go: elitism sucks for everyone that is not on top. It is a problem as it is in our society, so exacerbating the problem would be asinine.
But what you propose is some sort of "naturalistic elitism", in which someone would have to decide who lives or dies, who reproduces or not. That is not only asinine, is immoral. And I use 'immoral' in the Utilitarian way, as in much more people would suffer than otherwise.

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.

Try again, now sober... What I said (and you incompetently quoted) was not an insult, just an extrapolation based on previous encounters.

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.

You talk about slave morality while fantasizing with 'masters'...

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.

Really? I'm a slave because you wrote stupidities and I pointed them out?

(Also, the fact that you use 'spoiled brat', insinuating immaturity, is another nanny-state/slave-morality staple.)

I'm sure you are very mature for your age

 

[Megalodon]

I'm presenting an extraordinary case. So the burden of proof is on me. This is why my posts are very elaborate lots of times.

Lace weaved out of poo is no less stinky.

And when asked for the extraordinary evidence, I have always been able to provide it.

You presented no evidence, only ridiculous assertions.

Now, you don't have to agree. You can ignore me completely if you want.

No. You might wish I did, but no. Children even younger than you might be reading this and be impressed by the elaborately debited manure.

But if you make the strong claim that my idea(s) are incorrect, you need to be able to back it up.

Just did. My initial posts were simpler and just as accurate as the tiresome wading through your sludge.

It's a well developed idea and I'm not reversing the burden of proof.

Well developed in the same sense that I find well developed stuff in my son's diapers.

A sound counterargument consists of either finding a flaw
in the facts, or in the deductions, the logic.

The facts were imaginary, the deductions non-existent and the logic should be directed to a battered shelter.

Otherwise, it's just a vacuous statement. You need to be able to tell me exactly what assertions are at odds with reality, according to you.

Pretty much all of them.

But please first read carefully what I'm actually saying. I get the idea that you're just dismissing it out of hand.

Yes, I understand that you find your misunderstanding of evolution, overextension of Nietzsche and general lack of empathy so brilliant that nobody that read it would dismiss it... but it is rubbish, and can be dismissed with that single word.

 

[TheAdversary]

+Megalodon

The 'this is not evidence' counterarguments are now asking for unreasonable evidence on my part. You can continue that indefinitely and the whole
argument will degenerate into bickering about trivialities. It's not about assessing the evidence fairly, you just really don't want to hear it.

More suggestive stuff like 'How can you believe that, it's so OBVIOUSLY untrue'. The suggestivity hides the absence of content.

More insults, insinuation of immaturity etc. Yeah, the nanny state hates Nietzsche. And a very effective way to discredit someone is by using shame tactics.
Insinuating immaturity is nice and toxic. The insinuation of immaturity always follows those who argue for elitism in this society, but it's just projection.
What is mature? You call my ideas 'power fantasies' but what is your proposed alternative? Utterly trivial willpower? The complete absence of sexual Willpower
nanny state expects of you? No thanks, not form me. I want to thrill with the Joy of Life and Death! I desire the extreme limit! I rape, rave and rend!

A point by point for something that resembles a counterargument :

'So I should explain without referring to reality?'

Start suggestively. This usually means the argument following isn't very strong.

'I'll give it a go: elitism sucks for everyone that is not on top.'

And egalitarianism's solution is : everybody should be at the bottom! Then it will suck for everybody, even the Lords of the Earth. And then everybody's
equally miserable.
Apple became one of the biggest companies in the world due to Jobs not accepting egalitarianism any more.
Jobs became King of Apple, and Apple reigned supreme. Elitism always bad? The vast majority of all great monuments from history wouldn't even be
there if that were true. This is, at least, a enormously oversimplified presentation of affairs. You're blinded by egalitarian brainwashing.

'It is a problem as
it is in our society, so exacerbating the problem would be asinine. But what you propose is some sort of "naturalistic elitism", in which someone would
have to decide who lives or dies, who reproduces or not.
That is not only asinine, is immoral. And I use 'immoral' in the Utilitarian way, as in much more people would suffer than otherwise.'

You know, I can just as well ask for 'evidence ... evidence ... evidence' moving the goalpost ever further until the demand for evidence becomes unreasonable.
Again, because of group consensus you don't have to come up with any evidence at all, while the demand for evidence on me is unreasonable.
And the reason I dislike egalitarianism, why I consider it immoral, is for the same reason : People suffer _more_ under an egalitarian system.
If you want to know why, you can reread my posts. But since I'm under the rule of unreasonable evidence ...

 

[Megalodon]

I've read your posts.

As I've comprehensibly shown, you've got nothing.

Assertions are not evidence. Puerile power fantasies are not a philosophy.

Step up or shut up.