Thinking outside the Box 2

[KhorTose]

Absolutely amazing. Tdperhs, there is absolutely no way anybody can respond to the personal philosophy you lay out above without expending a lot of band width and engendering a lot of hostile thought. After re-reading your words three times, what crept into my mind repeatedly was the thinking emanating from the power levels of Germany of the 1930's.

 

Rather than respond - it'll only create an unpleasant discussion - I simply want to say that I absolutely reject and disagree with many of your notions.

 

Bob, sorry but it takes no bandwidth at all to shoot this down and I do not find his statements too outrages to refute at all. You are correct in that 1930 Nazi germany should come to mind, but not just Germany. What he is espousing is rewarmed eugentics, and its theories were popular all over the world---especially in the good old USA. I think everyone should familar with eugentics just to refute people who advocate it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EugenicsI

 

TdPerhs, I would start with the end and work up. You state 85% of all statistics are BS. Sorry but that is BS and not backed up by any facts on your part--just your personal belief. As a biologist you should already know how a study is or is not, deemed valid. Sorry but that statements makes me question your scientific background. You may have taught biology but you hardly sound like a competent biologist.

Secondly, nature selects based on environment--which any competent biologist should know. Saying a bar boy from a poor country that takes yabba because he is forced into a job that he may hate doing, makes him weak or unfit is also BS. Give me the same bar boy in Amercia with many job opportunities and you may have a highly successfull productive citizen. Biology teaches that environment is one of the most important factors in selection. Most moral ethicist would say, and I agree, that we should make sure that every child has the same chance before we should judge the adult.

Finally, eugentics is weak in that it is still a judgement call. Eugentics would eliminate all homosexuals, as they do not reproduce, but they do contribute to society in a very big way and I can name hundreds of contributions, past and present. So do many of the lame and crippled---Hawkins, Latrec, are two that immediately come to mind. I am not about to endorse any policy that allows others to determine for me and society what is fit and what is not fit. It is clearly a steep slope and once adopted puts us all, gay or not, on a path of destruction. Hell, I may decide tomorrow that if you are not Catholic you are morally unfit and subject to weeding out. Thaiworthy, has already made that judgement about you. Should we put him in charge of your fate?

Yes, we all should know and understand everything about Eugentics and the people who advocate it, and make darn sure none of its adherents are ever put into a position of power. I am not a believer, but the bible does have lessons. I close with Matthew 25:40

 

Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.

[dapitt]

You state 85% of all statistics are BS. Sorry but that is BS and not backed up by any facts on your part--just your personal belief.

 

I am not a believer, but the bible does have lessons. I close with Matthew 25:40

First, I assumed he meant his statistic sentence as sardonic humor.

 

Secondly, I'm not a believer either [and I'm with you on the non-capitalization of 'bible'], but use of a fantasy book as confirmation of an intellectual opinion weakens your position, in my view. Oh yes, I know: this will get some folks stirred-up. And that's sad, indeed.

[dapitt]

And if dapitt or anyone else wishes to reassert themselves again about my initial remark, they are welcome to try it.

 

On the other hand, perhaps the moderator will have the humanity to step in and close this damn thread?

Well, if you need my reassertion, I'll oblige you. My earlier comment to you was addressing your reactionary, visceral response to the original poster, a quality I've noticed in some other of your writings. He had thought-out and communicated an intellectual position; you responded viscerally. But yet, you called into doubt the quality of all of his posts. Sorry, I most always will respect the more 'thought-out' position and reject reactionary lightness.

[Guest thaiworthy]

Well, if you need my reassertion, I'll oblige you. My earlier comment to you was addressing your reactionary, visceral response to the original poster, a quality I've noticed in some other of your writings. He had thought-out and communicated an intellectual position; you responded viscerally. But yet, you called into doubt the quality of all of his posts. Sorry, I most always will respect the more 'thought-out' position and reject reactionary lightness.

 

Dapitt, IMHO, it was not thought out nor was it in any way intellectual. It was callous and dispassionate, which in my view disqualified the poster from any serious consideration of past, present or future postings. I do not write without prejudice, admittedly, but it is a self-defense mechanism, I think, by which I learn. This post of his threw up all sorts of red flags. I would personally prefer to avoid the musings of a man whose character is so blatantly blase. If my post seemed reactionary and visceral, then so be it, you can consider it so, if it amuses you. I am entitled to my "gut feelings," and in retrospect I believe I was more right than wrong. His second post should have convinced you of that, but I can see now it never will. I may not be much in your eyes, Mr. Dapitt, but my instincts have served me well.

 

Geezer, you made a good point. You are absolutely right and I was wrong.

[dapitt]

Dapitt, IMHO, it was not thought out nor was it in any way intellectual. It was callous and dispassionate,...

-----------

If my post seemed reactionary and visceral, then so be it, you can consider it so, if it amuses you.

-----------

I am entitled to my "gut feelings,".....

-----------

I may not be much in your eyes,....

 

"Dispassionate" is precisely a characteristic of an 'intellectual' position!

-----------

No, you do not "amuse" me. Reactionary conversation dismays me.

-----------

Entitled to your "gut feelings", as we all are. But we should just be more circumspect in using them to bolster thoughtful and serious positions.

-----------

"May not be much in your eyes..." I was not, and am not, judging you or your persona. Rather I am commenting on your flippant dismissal of some substantive points raised on a serious topic.

-----------

Sorry for all the 'cut-up' quotes and replies, but damn I've forgotten how to use this 'multi-quote' feature. Gotta work on it some more!

[Guest thaiworthy]

"Dispassionate" is precisely a characteristic of an 'intellectual' position!

-----------

No, you do not "amuse" me. Reactionary conversation dismays me.

-----------

Entitled to your "gut feelings", as we all are. But we should just be more circumspect in using them to bolster thoughtful and serious positions.

-----------

"May not be much in your eyes..." I was not, and am not, judging you or your persona. Rather I am commenting on your flippant dismissal of some substantive points raised on a serious topic.

-----------

Sorry for all the 'cut-up' quotes and replies, but damn I've forgotten how to use this 'multi-quote' feature. Gotta work on it some more!

 

OK. In the interest of goodwill, I do understand what you are saying and why you feel this way. I can only admit to being an emotional person. If it was flippant, then perhaps it was and we can at least agree on that. I am impatient. I am impatient with certain things some people say and it affects me this way. I am very sensitive to what I perceive are outrageous declarations from so-called "intellectuals." If a very young child speaks gibberish to me now, I assume he spoke gibberish earlier and will speak gibberish again a bit later. It isn't even foresight, it's logic. In this case, I just didn't interpret this "gibberish" as substantive. Perhaps I should have kept those thoughts to myself. If that is your definition of "circumspect" then I can accept that. And I hope you accept this reply in the spirit it is intended. I have no hard feelings. Believe it or not, I am really, really trying.

 

Whew! This is work. I am going to read gay ting-tong now because I need a vacation from this forum. Helllloooo, Oogie!

[dapitt]

And I hope you accept this reply in the spirit it is intended. I have no hard feelings. Believe it or not, I am really, really trying.

Oh, absolutely! We are all "a work in progress"! I accept the spirit, and I have no hard feelings as well. Just a thought about those outrageous 'intellectuals': They are often the ones who save us from ourselves.

[Guest tdperhs]

I can't remember the last time I defended my position against those who criticized it, although it may have happened. Normally, once I've made my point, I just move on. However, since I started this thread, I feel an obligation to comment on some very telling points that have been made in opposition to my thesis.

 

1. Bob. I am disappointed that you did not respond more fully. Your posts are usually well detailed and interesting. I find myself agreeing with you 63.21709% of the time. I was taken aback by your allusion to the Nazis. There was nothing in my post that advocated a superior race, culture, or species. My point was that, by using our resources to perpetuate the weaknesses in our species, we are endangering our own life expectancy as compared to other species which maintain their perpetuity by doing just the opposite.

 

2. Khortose. I believe dapitt covered the question of statistics well. Of course it was BS! Have you ever seen a statistic written in prose with two decimal points?

 

I must take issue with your point about the bar boys and yabba. I know at least six male escorts in West Hollywood and maybe one of them does not use meth or coke. Even in the land of opportunity, some still do not get or fail to take advantage of opportunities and seek solace in other sources. These boys put out exactly the same way the boys do here, most regretfully. The only differences are: W.H. boys do not dance in bars, they advertise in newspapers and on the net, and the price - West Hollywood boys get $200 a clip. I am not advocating doing away with these boys or even arresting them. In fact I like having them around. I am advocating respecting their choices, letting them have what they want. If that will destroy them and they know it, it is none of anybody else's freaking business.

 

I think your references to Hawking and Lautrec support my position more than yours. These are bootstrappers who were determined not to be losers. Hawking said it for both of them when he wrote, "I was again fortunate that I chose theoretical physics, because that is all in the mind. So my disability has not been a serious handicap." (The italics are mine.)

 

Environment? A point for you - in the long term. Genetics in the short term.

 

As to Eugenics. I am not espousing any such thing. I am simply predicting that constantly keeping the weaker members of our society from self-destruction will, over time, reduce the quality of the species. It is simple cause and effect. If I am espousing anything it is that the commission of a victimless crime is nobody's business but the perpetrator's. And how do we deal with people who hurt themselves? We put them in prison with hardened sociopaths. Boy, that'll mainstream them. However, I did find your discourse on eugenics to be both enlightening and comprehensive, but it left me wondering how it applied to my last post until I reviewed it and realized that I mentioned how some species will destroy those members who are imperfect. That was a failing of clarity on my part. I do not advocate destroying or depriving people because they do not meet some arbitrary standard. But if Bernard Madoff is contemplating doing a half gainer off the Chrysler Building, I am not going to rush up to him and scream, "Don't do it, Bunky, you have your whole life - in prison - ahead of you." One of the effects of your criticism is that it alerted me that I am getting sloppy with my writing.

 

3. As far as any other negative criticism about my last post, I am like dapitt and " ...most always will respect the more 'thought-out' position and reject reactionary lightness."

 

4. The purpose of Thinking outside the box is to stimulate a discussion about notions of interest to the people who frequent this forum. And I intend to do it again. Gossip and cat fighting can get awfully boring. We have no dearth of intelligent members with skills to express their opinions, and we have a few insecure people who feel that an original idea is a threat to them and resort to personal attacks. Very little progress has been gained by expressing ideas which meet with universal approval.

 

This particular topic came about from remembering a conversation I once had with a man who said, "You know you could lose this desire for sex with men if you really want to." I laughed right in his fly.

[Bob]

1. Bob. I am disappointed that you did not respond more fully. Your posts are usually well detailed and interesting. I find myself agreeing with you 63.21709% of the time. I was taken aback by your allusion to the Nazis. There was nothing in my post that advocated a superior race, culture, or species. My point was that, by using our resources to perpetuate the weaknesses in our species, we are endangering our own life expectancy as compared to other species which maintain their perpetuity by doing just the opposite.

 

Again, there's not enough bandwidth here (nor do I have the time) to lay out my thoughts in any coherent detail. But, in brief (and only covering a couple of points):

 

(1) 63.21709%? Hopefully that's tongue in cheek. If so, funny; if not, you're one strange dude...

 

 

(2) Had you stuck to biological facts (the notion that we humans do certain things that other animals do not), I wouldn't have been shocked as I was with your comments. You're now whitewashing your comments a bit to suggest that you weren't advocating anything. For example only, you rather clearly stated that assistance (to the handicapped, the economically deprived, and terminally ill) is not justified. Or, rather than paraphrase you, I'll quote you exactly:

"The rationale behind this is the hope that, with sufficient time and support,

one may overcome his weaknesses and stride productively among the strong. And on

some rare occasions those practices work. But never with the regularity that would

justify them."

That sir, is not a statement of biological fact but purports to be a statement of your opinion.

 

(3) While I don't agree with your assessment in the first place that only humans extend protections to the weakest members of society (there are myriad examples of mammals protecting the injured and weakest - sometimes youngest - of their troupes), it would seem to me that the difference we "homo sapiens" have with other life forms is the heightened ability to think and, simply, to be the "sapiens" (rational and wise) we name ourselves. I don't feel the need to justify (economically or otherwise) special protections and benefits we provide for the weakest among us as I believe it's a moral (or, perhaps better put, an ethical) imperative. It's what we do and, by and large, it's what sets us apart from lower animal forms. We safeguard kids because they don't have the capacity (physically or emotionally) to safeguard themselves, we provide for handicapped parking, we provide special education for the mentally challenged, etc.

 

As I noted, I was so shocked by what you appeared to be saying that I went back and re-read it several times to make sure I didn't misread it (or failed to pick up some sarcasm or humor). I don't think I did.

[KhorTose]

My point was that, by using our resources to perpetuate the weaknesses in our species, we are endangering our own life expectancy as compared to other species which maintain their perpetuity by doing just the opposite.

 

Well, I don't know where to start exactly. First let me say that your post is very well written and thought out,. I also enjoy a good intellectual discussion on these boards, and wish to thank you for starting this thread. Part of me thinks Mr. dapitt should jump in here with his own thoughts on this issue rather then just doing critiques, but what the hell, I am game to a good debate. Why a debate? Why, because we are still not quite on the same page on this issue.

 

 

 

I am going to start with the point you say you are making cited above. Your point sounds good, but it terribly vague. Who the heck are those who we

[Guest lester1]

Tdperphs says that he must be careful because his writing is getting sloppy. I think it is very good 98.67% of the time but do agree that it needs tightening up in places. I cant quite work out how to go back to the very first post of his on this thread to check but still remain in the reply box, but I am sure it suggested that it is perfectly OK for barboys or anybody else to take hard drugs. Several took issue with this rather bold and short statement. A later post of his changes and qualifies this abrupt point of view into one that suggests that its OK as long as the weaker members of society that they presumably are know of the dangers of their act, hence allowing them to potentially kill themselves, and that their addiction does not harm anybody else.

 

I agree with that insofar as a totally enclosed indulgance with drink drugs tobacco etc that just effects an individual doesnt need a bunch of hand wringers leaping in and rescueing the person involved. (although I would prefer to belong to a society where that happens than one where it doesnt). What gets my goat is the idea that their crime of indulgence doesnt involve third parties. Just off the top of my head, drugs can lead to family breakdown, street crime, avoidable car accidents, diversion of valuable resources,mental illness and all the other cliches we know of.

 

TD then undertakes the risky business of expanding his point of view into what will constitute the best survival strategy of a species. Put bluntly (which he is good at), I can agree with nearly all of what he says. He suggests that Homo Sapiens are the only species that do not follow the basic laws of survival of the fittest. I am not sure that he likes this. How dare 'Man' be so contrary as to ignore what is good for them. Of course, Man is not ignoring anything, but merely responding to feelings hard wired into his psyche (biology or religion, who cares), just as a carnivore will kill a deformed baby at birth.

 

I am not sure that I like it either. What annoys me about the great debates we have on global warming, food supply, running out of fossil fuels and all the other global scares is that the single great determining factor in when the planet becomes unable to sustain us, which is often carefuly not mentioned, is that there are too many people living. PD would have it that survival of the fittest theory would have birth control laws in place yesterday and what is even wrong with a bit of an enforced cull. A few junkies killing themselves is to be celebrated, surely.

 

Lets wait a few more decades and see if yet another Ethiopian famine arouses whoever has taken the place of Bono to quite such the same degree,

TD has done us all a favour by raising what is basically a head vs heart debate. The trouble is that we are always going to have both of them sitting on our shoulder.