So Kent Hovind supports eugenics?

[TheAdversary]

Egalitarians always want their morality to be scientific. It always comes down to 'man is a social animal', when survival of the fittest is the most
important evolutionary principle. Sure, without cooperation, between cells or individuals in the group, an animal or group of animals can't even exist.
But ultimately the rule of survival of the fittest must be obeyed otherwise the system cannot be evolutionary stable.
For example, Ants in an ant colony have to work together for resources, building etc. But only one male drone gets to mate, the others die. It's about which
rule ultimately has precedence. So the rule of not going against natural selection is more important than cooperation, if you want a species to survive.
Contradict this, and you immediately contradict natural selection as the very basis of evolution. And that idea, that natural selection, the survival
of the fittest, is the most essential backbone of evolution has so much evidence going for it that I struggle to understand how 'scientific' egalitarians
can ever justify their philosophy. Except, of course, if they're simply brainwashed by egalitarian propaganda.

 

[TheAdversary]

So, basically, my argument has the full evidence for natural selection behind it. Want more evidence? Is that even possible?

 

[TheAdversary]

I've read your posts.

Most of the information contained therein was filtered out by your egalitarian brainwashed mind. You just got triggered because I upset your sentiments.

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

You've comprehensibly followed up every sentence I wrote with an insult, intellectual dishonesty and more egalitarian propaganda.
'But it's not scientific because man is a social animal'-nonsense. I've already explained this.

Assertions are not evidence.

Your demands for evidence are unreasonable. Your own theory would have fallen long ago under those requirements. The only reason it's unfairly
balanced like that is because of group consensus. You don't have to come up with any evidence at all, since the group agrees with you.
But this should be an honest argument, but I guess that's not possible.

Puerile power fantasies are not a philosophy.

Nanny state brainwashing and shaming tactics.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove name-calling

I've already explained that nanny-state morality is absence of sexual Willpower.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0

TheAdversary, I have edited your post to add the quote tags as well as to remove some civility breaches. Please use the quote tags when quoting other people, whether by typing them out or by using the quote button, as otherwise your posts are very hard to parse. Also, we have members here who use screen-readers due to visual impairment, and if you do not use the quote tags your posts will make little sense to them. Thank you for your anticipated co-operation in this matter.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Megalodon]

Egalitarians always want their morality to be scientific. It always comes down to 'man is a social animal', when survival of the fittest is the most important evolutionary principle.

Survival of the fittest is an incorrect statement. What you observe is the survival of the fit enough. Which of course is essential for the species survival, since it assures the genetic diversity necessary when the environment changes.

And of course, even if it was correct, it isn't contrary to the fact that man is a social animal. in fact, human social behaviour is exactly what gave us the evolutionary advantage to get where we are.

But ultimately the rule of survival of the fittest must be obeyed otherwise the system cannot be evolutionary stable.

AFNIE.

For example, Ants in an ant colony have to work together for resources, building etc. But only one male drone gets to mate, the others die. It's about which rule ultimately has precedence. So the rule of not going against natural selection is more important than cooperation, if you want a species to survive.

Hogwash... cooperation is exactly what makes an ant species fit enough to survive in their environment. Particular traits will be selected for or against within the population, depending on the environmental conditions, but the cooperation will always be present, or the ants will not survive.

Contradict this, and you immediately contradict natural selection as the very basis of evolution.

No, only your incorrect conception of what evolution entails. You insist on not grasping that "fit" and "unfit" depend on the environment. What you are defending is the change of the environment so that a few unfit individuals can be successful.

You do this by droning about inexistent genetic mechanisms and social conspiracies... overall a very poor effort.

Except, of course, if they're simply brainwashed by egalitarian propaganda.

You should have chosen to shut up...

 

[MikeG]

........Contradict this, and you immediately contradict natural selection as the very basis of evolution........

You do know that this isn't the only selection pressure present in evolutionary terms, don't you? Why then is the only one that you bring up? Does it particularly suit your argument, whatever your argument is?

 

[Megalodon]

Most of the information contained therein was filtered out by your egalitarian brainwashed mind. You just got triggered because I upset your sentiments.

Can't filter out what is diluted to homeopathic levels.

You've comprehensibly followed up every sentence I wrote with an insult, intellectual dishonesty and more egalitarian propaganda.

And yet you have nothing to show.

'But it's not scientific because man is a social animal'-nonsense. I've already explained this.

You asserted the opposite... might as well have said the sky is green.

Your demands for evidence are unreasonable.

Yeah, the mean fish and his unreasonable demands that you back up the manure you spout. And that mean reality getting in the way too...

Your own theory would have fallen long ago under those requirements. The only reason it's unfairly balanced like that is because of group consensus.

... and reality.

You don't have to come up with any evidence at all, since the group agrees with you.

And yet I can, for every assertion of fact I've made. That you can't do the same says much.

But this should be an honest argument, but I guess that's not possible.

So because you are incompetent I am dishonest? But at least you are true to our beliefs, if at first you don't succeed, blame the playing field and hope for the best.

Nanny state brainwashing and shaming tactics. You're immature. I've already explained that nanny-state morality is absence of sexual Willpower. If I'm immature in the eyes of nanny's little boys ... ah well.

Your words are a better illustration than what I could ever come up with

 

[TheAdversary]

You do know that this isn't the only selection pressure present in evolutionary terms, don't you? Why then is the only one that you bring up?
Does it particularly suit your argument, whatever your argument is?

Because it is the most important principle. It has precedence over cooperation, even though cooperation is also necessary. I mentioned precedence.
And if all anti-egalitarian mechanisms are removed, that would be like the body not getting rid of defective cells. You'd rot to death, if that were the case.
Natural selection isn't the only principle, but it's the most important one. It's the rule that counters entropy. Without it, there wouldn't be any
life at all. The physical world doesn't naturally tend to order, it tends to disorder. Natural selection exploits disorder.
I'm actually currently working on a computer program that uses genetic algorithm based on ... you guessed it ... natural selection. It really works!

 

[TheAdversary]

So, returning to my original argument, from an objective perspective, disregarding political beliefs, which theory is more scientific? Which theory is more
in concordance with fact, the one based on natural selection, or the one going directly against it?
So eugenics is less wrong than egalitarianism. Eugenics is an overly simplified theory but egalitarianism is simply contrary to what we know about evolution.
'Man is a social animal' is politics, not science.
My political view is that, in modern society, man is a two-faced animal. Social on the outside, but sadistic within. Egalitarianism creates the perfect
conditions for the slimy two-faced sadistic psychopath. A consequence of the essentially two-faced nature of egalitarianism.

 

[TheAdversary]

So, my theory assumes the truth of thermodynamics. (Lots of evidence for this.) From that, it follows that something like natural selection is necessary to
have any sort of development of complexity at all. (Lots of evidence for this. This is essentially the theory of evolution. All the other stuff is mere details.)
And then it becomes complex, but the main principles remain the same, since ... the laws of thermodynamics don't change. (Anything I say here not backed by
evidence?) So if natural selection is compromised too much nothing counters the physical worlds tendency to disorder. And then the machine will break. (This
just naturally follows. Can you tell me what's wrong with this argument? If you go against it, you're contradicting both thermodynamics and natural selection.
What branch of 'science' do you subscribe to, then? Egalitarian anti-science, that's what!)

 

[TheAdversary]

Everything in this world, when left alone, will break. No matter how well you organize a machine, there's no way to engineer it to never break. The best
way to make something last 'forever', for as long as possible, is to give it the ability to copy itself. Then disorder, the tendency for everything to break,
is even usefully employed because the defective mechanisms are removed by it. From this it follows that natural selection is a better and longer-lasting
organizational principle than mere cooperation. In fact, how can cooperating machines, which implies some complexity, ever exist at all without having
evolved from simpler machines by natural selection? So natural selection is the main organizational principle. If that's compromised, the entire machine
is compromised including its 'cooperative' parts. You get degenerated cooperation which is not a bad way of describing modern society. What I mentioned
before about the slimy two-faced psychopath. Egalitarianism is an evolutionary disease.

 

[TheAdversary]

So you can say that if natural selection isn't necessary for evolutionary stability, then the natural tendency of the physical world wouldn't be towards more
disorder. So egalitarianism really contradicts thermodynamics. And you know what you need to do with a theory that contradicts thermodynamics!
And that's really the gist of it. It's the fear of this scientific truth, the truth of entropy, that leads people to disregard natural
selection, survival of the fittest, (or Master Morality,) as a founding principle.
To keep the scientific method pure, we need to get rid of all unscientific tendencies leeching into it. Not just homeopathy, quack medicine and conspiracy
theories but also political propaganda whether it be from the Chinese Communist Party, or from Western Egalitarian Extremists.
And in modern day academia it is now the case that your career is in danger when you criticize egalitarianism in any way. Just ask Tim Hunt.

 

[TheAdversary]

Your words are a better illustration than what I could ever come up with.

I'm researching this problem. I'm familiar with the patterns. One of the patterns is that if anyone, anyone at all, argues for a Nietzschian point of view,
the insult that comes from egalitarians is always related to 'emotional immaturity'. It seems as if the egalitarian, or rather, feminist, version of maturity,
is diametrically opposed to that of the Master Moralist who defines the concept more in terms of self-development and improvement than in terms of
compliance to some feminist role model. This is because egalitarian extremism really boils down to feminist extremism.
My theory predicts this pattern. So the fact that the same kind of insult always comes up, just proves my point. Thanks!

 

[TheAdversary]

Yeah, the mean fish and his unreasonable demands that you back up the manure you spout. And that mean reality getting in the way too...

So my theory follows from entropy. Thermodynamics. And it says that in a world where everything tends to disorder, something like natural selection is necessary
to have any complex biological system at all. This is backed by innumerable amounts of evidence, you can say I'm simply restating the present-day backbone of
scientific knowledge. And then I make a simple deduction : If natural selection, the principle that counters disorder, doesn't work properly or is compromised,
degeneration must be the result.
Demanding more evidence than is required for Thermodynamics and Natural Selection leads to absurdity. You wouldn't be able to assert anything at all any more
if the demands for evidence are beyond those of Thermodynamics. That kind of unreasonableness, that your own reasoning processes would not survive, is a logical
fallacy. (But you're no stranger to logical fallacies, you started with one!)
And then insults ... insults ... and more insults ... suggestive egalitarian propaganda :

Man is a social animal... to prove this is like proving that the sky is blue: go to the window and look out.

And immediately utterly hypocritical, proving that egalitarianism is hypocrisy :

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

Atomic bombs are not very social and cooperative. What was that about the 'social animal'?

And, of course, the staple of anti-egalitarians :

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

You're also calling me a child, somewhere else. Maybe also because of my screen name TheAdversary? Does that sound like a teenager? Maybe I should have chosen
a more mature screen name like FluffyBunnyPigeon. Maybe I'd fit in better.

 

[hecd2]

So my theory follows from entropy. Thermodynamics. And it says that in a world where everything tends to disorder, something like natural selection is necessary
to have any complex biological system at all. This is backed by innumerable amounts of evidence, you can say I'm simply restating the present-day backbone of
scientific knowledge. And then I make a simple deduction : If natural selection, the principle that counters disorder, doesn't work properly or is compromised,
degeneration must be the result.
Demanding more evidence than is required for Thermodynamics and Natural Selection leads to absurdity. You wouldn't be able to assert anything at all any more
if the demands for evidence are beyond those of Thermodynamics. That kind of unreasonableness, that your own reasoning processes would not survive, is a logical
fallacy. (But you're no stranger to logical fallacies, you started with one!)
And then insults ... insults ... and more insults ... suggestive egalitarian propaganda :



And immediately utterly hypocritical, proving that egalitarianism is hypocrisy :



Atomic bombs are not very social and cooperative. What was that about the 'social animal'?

And, of course, the staple of anti-egalitarians :



You're also calling me a child, somewhere else. Maybe also because of my screen name TheAdversary? Does that sound like a teenager? Maybe I should have chosen
a more mature screen name like FluffyBunnyPigeon. Maybe I'd fit in better.

Displays a woeful ignorance of the Theory of Evolution and the mechanism of Natural Selection. Is completely at odds with reality. Makes claims entirely unsupported by facts. Is maudlin in its complaints. Yearns sentimentally after a lost paradise that never existed.

 

[Megalodon]

So my theory follows from entropy. Thermodynamics. And it says that in a world where everything tends to disorder, something like natural selection is necessary
to have any complex biological system at all.

So we should add thermodynamics to the list of things you are comfortable with mentioning while knowing next to nothing about...

You need energy to increase the complexity of a system. If it goes to biological or not has nothing to do either with complexity or evolution.

This is backed by innumerable amounts of evidence, you can say I'm simply restating the present-day backbone of scientific knowledge. And then I make a simple deduction : If natural selection, the principle that counters disorder, doesn't work properly or is compromised, degeneration must be the result.

A stretch to call it a deduction, and with wrong premises, but let's ignore that for now. A deduction goes from the general (your hypothesis=the human species is degenerating) to the particular (prediction of observations by the hypothesis).

So let's check on the degeneration of the human species (on average):
-are our numbers dwindling? No, actually overpopulation is a concern.
-are we getting smaller and atrophied? No, human population is growing in size.
-are we dying sooner? No, life expectancy as never been higher.
-are we getting dumber? No, the number (and percentage) of Bachelors, Masters and PhDs was never higher.
-is our quality of life diminishing? An arguable point, but I am of the opinion that we never had it better.
-Is Science and Technology slowing down? No, exactly the opposite.
-Is Art and Culture slowing down? No, exactly the opposite.

Maybe you can illustrate what you mean by degeneration?

Demanding more evidence than is required for Thermodynamics and Natural Selection leads to absurdity. You wouldn't be able to assert anything at all any more if the demands for evidence are beyond those of Thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics... Natural selection... you keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

That kind of unreasonableness, that your own reasoning processes would not survive, is a logical fallacy.

Try me... Unlike you, I can back all my assertions of fact with evidence.

(But you're no stranger to logical fallacies, you started with one!)

No, it was not a logical fallacy. I never claimed the argument was invalid because you are stupid. I claimed that people that defend eugenics are stupid, and proceeded to explain why your argument is dumb.

And then insults ... insults ... and more insults ... suggestive egalitarian propaganda :

Poor you... maybe you need to adapt to the harsh environment of public discussion?

And immediately utterly hypocritical, proving that egalitarianism is hypocrisy

A couple of points:

There was no hypocrisy in the juxtaposed sentences. Both are factual, and one doesn't invalidate the other.
The fact that we are organized in families, towns, cities, countries, football clubs, shows beyond a doubt that we are social animals. Your failure to grasp this is baffling.
The fact that we are organized enough to harvest nuclear fusion is more evidence that we are a social animal. You seem to be under the impression that "social" means "pacifist"... Unsurprisingly you are wrong.

Atomic bombs are not very social and cooperative. What was that about the 'social animal'?

See above. Do you have any idea... no, of course you don't. There is an immense amount of social cooperation that goes into developing a nuclear weapon. Contrary to what you seem to think, we didn't level up one day and were now able to manufacture them.

You're also calling me a child, somewhere else. Maybe also because of my screen name TheAdversary? Does that sound like a teenager? Maybe I should have chosen a more mature screen name like FluffyBunnyPigeon. Maybe I'd fit in better.

It's hilarious that you think your name as anything to do with it.

 

[TheAdversary]

Displays a woeful ignorance of the Theory of Evolution and the mechanism of Natural Selection.

Then I'd really like to hear your theory because last I checked, my ideas about Natural Selection are no different than Darwin's.
I can also show you my C++ source code for evolutionary algorithms. (I use differential evolution on data projected to a Hilbert space using
a wavelet transform. In this way, the distance between the vectors is a measure of closeness to the solution.)

Is completely at odds with reality.

Reality? That's why we have the scientific method. To attemp objectivity. The theory of Natural Selection originally came from Darwin, and was
basically confirmed by seeing it directly in action, especially after the discovery of DNA. That's my 'reality' on this. What's yours?

Makes claims entirely unsupported by facts.

Except that I use the established theory of evolution as basis as well as the established theory of thermodynamics.
And I'm not in any way deviating from them. I'm just clarifying that natural selection is necessary because the physical world tends to
disorder. Then such a mechanism is required. That's just standard Darwinism, but I say it in my own way. I put my own emphasis on it by
highlighting the natural selection/entropy relation. And from that follows : remove natural selection, machine cannot function.
There isn't anything wrong with the facts. They're the same. What's wrong with my emphasis? My deduction? My conclusion?

Is maudlin in its complaints.

If mankind continues in this egalitarian direction, the machine will break. Mankind will degenerate and go extinct.
(The problem is of course that, a lot of you reading are the degenerates. I have to go to such great lengths to explain the most basic science
and logic to you. That's the degeneracy. For your sake, it's better if I'm not successful at communicating my ideas and attempting to find like-minded
individuals. You'll never accept my theory of eugenics because you're among the ones to be removed, probably.)

Yearns sentimentally after a lost paradise that never existed.

Doesn't exist yet. That's why we need to create it. But first this egalitarian holocaust problem needs to be fixed.

See? These are counterarguments!!! They address content.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0 and rule 12

 

[TheAdversary]

Ok, Megalodon's last post did address content, but I didn't see it yet. But he's just veering off into the completely absurd now.

 

[TheAdversary]

'Maybe you can illustrate what you mean by degeneration?'

You're a marvelous illustration! You start with a logic fallacy, and you fall further and further into absurdity. That last post about energy and
complexity was just gobbledegook. You're incapable of basic scientific logic, but you use all of those expensive sounding academic jargon.
It's hilariously absurd. That's the degeneracy.

 

[MikeG]

Because it is the most important principle. It has precedence over cooperation, even though cooperation is also necessary. I mentioned precedence.
And if all anti-egalitarian mechanisms are removed, that would be like the body not getting rid of defective cells. You'd rot to death, if that were the case.
Natural selection isn't the only principle, but it's the most important one. It's the rule that counters entropy. Without it, there wouldn't be any
life at all. The physical world doesn't naturally tend to order, it tends to disorder. Natural selection exploits disorder.
I'm actually currently working on a computer program that uses genetic algorithm based on ... you guessed it ... natural selection. It really works!

So obviously you've never heard of sexual selection, for instance.

 

[MikeG]

'Maybe you can illustrate what you mean by degeneration?'

You're a marvelous illustration! You start with a logic fallacy, and you fall further and further into absurdity. That last post about energy and
complexity was just gobbledegook. You're incapable of basic scientific logic, but you use all of those expensive sounding academic jargon.
It's hilariously absurd. That's the degeneracy.

Who are you quoting here? Your repugnant refusal to quote properly spoils any chance of following your argument. This is probably your aim, rather than a byproduct of this self-centredness of yours.