Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

The Grauniad

I didn’t know renowned was a synonym for derided.

35 Comments

  1. NickM says:

    Did you notice that the advert on that page was for Galaxy Chocolate? Not hair shirts.

    That was unfiskable nonsense except I have to say one thing. If 1/7 people are hungry now I suspect that is a much smaller proportion than a 100 years ago or a 1000 or 10,000.

  2. David Gillies says:

    Is this cunt still on about overpopulation? Jesus, the sheer chutzpah of these people. If I had proven, seriatim, that I was a complete fuckwit and none of my predictions had ever, ever come within a billion miles of reality, I’d crawl into a hole and hope people would stop mocking me in a few decades or so. He’s got a worse predictive record than Mystic Meg. And he’s a repulsive racist, to boot. Why do I say that? Because by definition the billions of people that won’t be born if he and his disgusting misanthropic colleagues get there way will almost all be in Asia and Africa. He’s on record as being revolted by the mass of humanity he saw on a trip to India, and as thinking it would be better had they not been born. Better for whom, Ehrlich, you utter, utter cunt? Better if human-hating Leftists like you had all been aborted. He’s a fucking entomologist, for God’s sake. He studies butterflies. His field of research has nothing, nothing to say about human beings. Message to Ehrlich: FUCK OFF AND LEAVE US ALONE.

  3. David Gillies says:

    Aah, I feel better now. And of course [...colleagues get their way...].

  4. Von Neumann says:

    Can libertards ever reconcile their latent Social Darwinism ( the Calvinistic interpretation of natural inequality) with their putative love for “freedom”? I guess not. Free will obviously does not exist, which means that the act of “valuing freedom” is meaningless in every way. Trying to conserve the planet is merely to engage in the obvious. To counter this impulse is an unnatural delusion, product of sick, atomized and selfish minds. Millions starve throughout the world and a reasonable policy of population control even if it involves coercion is the ethical thing to do. Not maximizing “freedom”. The funny thing is that people who are against coercion towards the poor are the exact same who lasciviously fantasize about the poor starving to death in an act of separating the the chaff from the wheat (exalting Darwin). Robustness, sustainability, reducing suffering are far greater values. Reducing the population to manageable levels and fostering a symbiotic relationship with the environment, simple and plain. This is the wave of the future. Mass sterilization is probably a good thing along with redistribution form the genetically lucky to the genetically unlucky. In the meantime, programs to improve the living conditions and genetic qualities of the general population would be shrewdly pursued. We would understand that success (individual and societal) is merely blind luck and would look with compassion at those who lost the game of probabilities. Improving genes of the future generation and taking care of this one. In the future everyone will understand this fact and primitive ideas like libertarianism would be disposed of. We might not get utopia but we will get clarity. Eugenics, not social Darwinism.

  5. john in cheshire says:

    Why don’t these cretins ever lead by example. By doing so, they would solve so many problems for us normal people.

  6. Lynne says:

    The Graun’s circulation is dropping faster than knickers at a bungabunga party. And little wonder. It can’t go under fast enough…

  7. Mr Ecks says:

    Von Nutman–

    The existence of scum like you makes me wish the eco-freaks win and the human race does get wiped out.

  8. CountingCats says:

    Mr Ecks,

    Because there are some people who annoy you you want everyone to die?

    Really?

    Me included?

    How does that statement make you any different to him?

    The bloke is a both a Malthusian and a eugenicist, sure. It has only taken eugenics sixty years to recover from the shock of its proponents seeing the effects of its implementation in Germany and the occupied territories, and the Malthusians never do acknowledge the consistent failure of their forecasts. Still, that’s no reason to show them the misanthropic attitudes they so often display towards the rest of us.

    Anyway, how does an ad hom insult defeat his argument?

  9. RAB says:

    That would Alfred Von Neumann then would it?

    What me care?

    The trouble with the Man and Superman, Nietzschian Shavian, Fabian view of the world is that once man has been replaced by superman, well genetics says that there is always going to be some supermen who are less “Super” than others, then the whole looking sideways at each other shit starts again.

    I think Humanity is doing just fine thanks Von, 7 billion of us or not.

  10. zack says:

    Well, at least he’s up front about the evil he would like perform, unlike most greenies.

    If Mark is still with us, Von Neumann is the reason why man libertarians and conservatives dislike much of the environmental movement; they don’t disown people who think that ‘the environment’ must be saved, so humanity must be destroyed.

  11. Von Neumann says:

    “The existence of scum like you makes me wish the eco-freaks win and the human race does get wiped out.”

    This is juvenile. I’m driven by what I believe are the best of intentions. If can prove to me that my proposed course of action would lead to greater suffering, I would revoke them immediately. But I predict you are unable to.

    “I think Humanity is doing just fine thanks Von, 7 billion of us or not.”

    Really? Resources are infinite? Humans can’t mess up the environment? Nobody is starving right now? The great pacific garbage patch an hologram?

    “It has only taken eugenics sixty years to recover from the shock of its proponents seeing the effects of its implementation in Germany and the occupied territories”

    Eugenics is not social Darwinism. Nazi Germany installed a racial social Darwinian policy (we must kill the weak, defend the purity of race) whereas I lean more to eugenics (improving the genetic composition of the population), it does not require any specially draconian measures, or even coercion (just pay certain people to get sterilized, they’ll take the money believe me).

    “The trouble with the Man and Superman, Nietzschian Shavian, Fabian view of the world is that once man has been replaced by superman, well genetics says that there is always going to be some supermen who are less “Super” than others, then the whole looking sideways at each other shit starts again.”

    You fail to understand. I don’t ascribe moral superiority to the most “fit”but merely recognize the material benefits of being born smarter, stronger, healthier, etc… In a cutthroat libertarian society it’s obvious that some people will be left behind with no possibility of lifting themselves up just because of the genes they ended up getting by the whims of nature. A man with an IQ 85 would most certainly starve. He could never produce enough to guarantee his own subsistence. Do you know how many people score that or lower? Around 16% of the population. Yet I’m a monster because I want to reduce the number of would be indigents? Or that I want the ones that are already here to not suffer needlessly? As opposed to “unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?” as your good friend Rothbard succinctly put it. Yeah, and I’m the scum.

    “they don’t disown people who think that ‘the environment’ must be saved, so humanity must be destroyed.”

    Never claimed that. You are engaging a straw-man.

  12. zack says:

    von neuman: never claimed that. you are engaging a straw-man
    ————–

    really? you didn’t right
    ——————
    Trying to conserve the planet is merely to engage in the obvious. ….. Reducing the population to manageable levels and fostering a symbiotic relationship with the environment, simple and plain
    ——————

    while at the same time claiming that the ‘unfit’ need to be prevented from breeding, and claiming that free will is an illusion so claims about freedom and liberty are rediculous?

    This is claim is even more ironic since you engaged in a strawman argument yourself
    ————-
    The funny thing is that people who are against coercion towards the poor are the exact same who lasciviously fantasize about the poor starving to death in an act of separating the the chaff from the wheat
    ——————–

    and in the paragraph directly before you accused me of using a strawman.

    On the other hand, maybe hypocrisy be a better word.

    ——————
    Eugenics is not social Darwinism.
    ——————

    in one sense you are right – Social Darwinism was a phrase invented by Eugenicists to slander their critics – to claim that those who opposed the breeding of humanity like cattle of standing in the way of progress; to paint those that who didn’t want to have the government controlling one of the most intimate aspect of their lives as some kind of backword, superstitious rubes.

    ——————
    Nazi Germany installed a racial social Darwinian policy (we must kill the weak, defend the purity of race) whereas I lean more to eugenics (improving the genetic composition of the population),
    ——————

    The Nazi’s race policies were directly inspired by the policies of American Eugenicists; they said that unless they undertook an aggressive policy of ‘racial hygiene then Germany risked leaving America as the world’s racial leader (Lifton, RJ. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide New York: Basic Books, 1986)

    Concerning concerning concern for the poor, the great Eugenicist Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) opposed charity because she saw it as an obstacle “to weed out the feeble and unfit…. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have been born.”
    And who were the unfit in here eyes? Why those “Non-Aryan people [of the United States are] a great biological menace to the future of civilization”, going so far as to call blacks “human weeds” (Elvin, J. “Did Mother of Free Love Urge Selective Breeding?” Insight on the News 12(1996):18.)

    the fact of the matter is that there was alot less space (practically none) between the Eugenicists and the Nazi’s then you claim.
    —————–
    it does not require any specially draconian measures, or even coercion (just pay certain people to get sterilized, they’ll take the money believe me).
    ——————

    what happens when they don’t “take the money”? We experimented with this in America in the past (one of the great shames of my country), and when the eugenicists found out that many people wouldn’t ‘just take the money’, what do you think they did? Through their hands up in the air and say ‘we tried’? Don’t be silly! They got laws passed that gave them the power to **forcefully sterilize** the ‘unfit’. But no, you’re right, eugenicists don’t need/want to use coercion. History is wrong, never happened, move along, nothing to see here.

    ——————
    if can prove to me that my proposed course of action would lead to greater suffering, I would revoke them immediately. But I predict you are unable to.
    ——————

    The Holocaust? Or how about China’s one child policy? Where women are taken out of their homes by the police and forced to have abortions against their will? Or the banning of DDT (a ban which was put in place largely thanks to claims by Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring that it was thinning the egg shells of birds; claims which we now know were largely false, if not out right fabricated), a chemical that could be used to prevent the horrible suffering and death of millions in Africa? just to name the big ones from last century.

    But no, your right, we’re just cruel blood thirsty barbarians who love to see the suffering of our fellow men/women; Ehrlich was proven correct, we ran out of all the various metals in the 80′s and 90′s; we ran out of oil in the early 2000′s; the global death rate has skyrocketed; we’re in the begining of a new Ice Age, etc, etc, etc. All claims to the contrary are lies printed by the Corporitist Cabal that runs the world. Now please go fuck off.

  13. Von Neumann says:

    zack ( or anyone here),

    would you prefer to be born with an 85 IQ or not to be born at all? Do you believe one can achieve any degree of human dignity with such a handicap? I’m being 100% serious here, I’d like to see an honest answer.

  14. zack says:

    von neumann: Do you believe one can achieve any degree of human dignity with such a handicap?
    ————————–

    Yes; there is a man with downs syndrome in my town who lives a dignified life – he works at a gas station, and takes care of his elderly mother after that. Is he a Steve Jobs, or Richard Branson? No, bu not everybody is. People can live in quite dignity, despite handicaps. The fact that you, apparently, think that some human lives are either worthless or less valuable then other is more damning towards you then it is towards those of us who value all human life.

    Also, if you had your way, then people like Helen Keller or Judith Scott would’ve been killed before they were born. If there was a way to determine, with 100% accuracy, that someone would develop some physical or mental disorder that made them ‘genetically unfit’, would you support aborting the child who tested positive? If so, then that means you would’ve killed Vincent Van Gogh, Steven Hawking, Lou Gehrig, Steven Nash, and maybe Issac Newton.

    The fact is that **we don’t know and can’t know** who will be great men, and who will be monsters. Hitler was born perfectly healthy, and was healthy most of his life; his cousin (supposedly) was autistic – according to the principals of eugenics Hitler should live and his cousin should’ve been killed. I don’t think that many people, if they had to choose one to live and one to die young, would take that proposition.

  15. zack says:

    Also just realized that I didn’t answer your first question – I would rather be born with an IQ of 85 then not be born at all – I’d rather have at least have a chance of doing some good, even if it just taking care of my elderly mother.

    Also, I have a serious question for you: the government can’t pick the winners and loosers in the market, has a horrible track record in that regard; what makes you think it (or you) can accurately predict the winners and loosers in *life*?

  16. CountingCats says:

    Zack,

    Now please go fuck off.

    Um, not quite your position to give that order.

    von Neumann,

    You are welcome here, although expect robust and informed debate.

  17. NickM says:

    The elephant in the room here is of course what IQ actually measures or what disability means. And what it means over time as treatment progresses etc. There are multiple amputees from the ‘stan and Iraq running marathons. i couldn’t do that.

  18. zack says:

    sorry Cats, let my myself get wound up, let my emotions get the better or me, and blew up. And I’m sorry von neumann, that was nasty and uncalled for on my part.

    That said, I still think that everything else I wrote stands on it own.

  19. Von Neumann says:

    Fair enough.

    “the government can’t pick the winners and loosers in the market, has a horrible track record in that regard; what makes you think it (or you) can accurately predict the winners and loosers in *life*?”

    not everyone with an high IQ will become an world class physicist or an important CEO, but no one with a low IQ will. A policy does not have to be 100% accurate to be efficient.

    “think that some human lives are either worthless or less valuable”

    Isn’t that the logical conclusion of the “poor people are leeches” Randian view of the world? That is conservatism in a nutshell: the belief that your position in the meritocratic status pole determines your worth as a human being.

  20. CountingCats says:

    I do not regard myself fit to make the judgement as to whether someone elses life is so worthless as to preclude them from having one. That you do so regard yourself is all I need to know to do everything in my power to keep your hands away from the levers of power.

    God man, have you no idea how arrogant you sound? Picking and choosing which lives are worth living and which aren’t. Who died and made you God?

    I was fortunate enough to be born with an IQ greater than 85, so I can’t judge whether I would have prefered oblivion. Although from my observation people like that still enjoy the sunshine and the smell of flowers, and sitting having a burger with friends. I am left feeling that they regard their lives worth living, so who am I to disagree?

    In a cutthroat libertarian society

    Well, you clearly know little of Libertarian thought or morality, so why are you happy to show it? Besides, you are the one who wants to remove what you see as failures from society completely, so to accuse libertarians of wanting a cutthroat society is a bad case of pots and kettles, at the very least.

    Where you see yourself as compassionate, I see you as vicious, murderous and completely lacking compassion.

  21. Von Neumann says:

    “I’m sorry von neumann, that was nasty and uncalled for on my part.”

    No problem :)

  22. CountingCats says:

    Isn’t that the logical conclusion of the “poor people are leeches” Randian view of the world?

    I’m not aware that anyone here is a Randian, I certainly am not. Nor is Conservatism Randian, don’t conflate the two. Nor, from my limited understanding, is Rand Randian in the manner you use here. So whether that is a Randian point of view is a pointless argument here because we tend not to subscribe to the Randian point of view.

    Poor people aren’t leeches, where did you pick up that nonsensical claim? Or is it projection on your part? In my experience, only leeches, those who choose to leech, are leeches.

  23. zack says:

    von neumann:Isn’t that the logical conclusion of the “poor people are leeches” Randian view of the world? That is conservatism in a nutshell: the belief that your position in the meritocratic status pole determines your worth as a human being.
    —————————

    That’s were you’re wrong – that’s not the libertarian or conservative view at all. Libertarians and Conservatives have no problem with private charity – infact, studies show that conservatives (not sure about libertarians) actually give MORE to charity then do liberals. We just think that the government is not the best or most efficient way of doing those things – that private groups and individuals who are closest to the problem(and not some beureaucrat who treats it as a job to check the boxes on form a-1 subjection x) know how to deal with it best.

    The fact remains that libertarians and conservatives think that each individual is born with certain innate dignity, worth and unailenable rights – and that those rights are best preserved and respected by a government that stays withing certain limited and prescribed boundaries. The fact that it often botches things outside those boundaries is just another reason to oppose them.

    ——————
    von nuemann: A policy does not have to be 100% accurate to be efficient
    —————————

    Just because something is efficient does not make it morally right. The fact remains that you are denying that people have individual worth, that they should be judged by their ‘fitness’; that, in effect, not all men are created equal, and that those who are less equal have less rights then those who are more – that it is therefore morally acceptable to deny them these rights as society sees fit. The greatest evils in history have been comitted by people who share this view; the Holocaust, the Holodemore, segregation, the Cultural Revolution, the Cambodian Killing fields. The fact that you don’t see that is, frankly, depressing and infuriating to me. I’m done this thread.

  24. Von Neumann says:

    “wants to remove what you see as failures from society completely”

    I feel the need to clarify this. I understand eugenics have a bad name but eugenics policy does not necessary mean killing fields or anything of the sort.

    Here is a truncated version of my world view:

    - Genetic determinism is essentially correct.

    - The best predictor of individual success is IQ (see:http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html)

    -The best predict of material abundance and human flourishing in a given
    society is the average IQ of its inhabitants (see: IQ and the Wealth of Nation, the methodology may be questionable but the correlation is undeniable).

    -IQ may not MEASURE intelligence but they only need to CORRELATE with it to be useful.

    - People would always prefer to have a high IQ in contrast with a low one.

    - The ability to calculate what portion of the society is capable of tasks of varying complexity can help us to conceptualize the necessities and impossibilities of social policy.

    - A market is essentially the sum of all human processing power in it. Smarter people more efficient markets make.

    -Prediction markets work better with smarter people.

    - Every act that we ascribe to individual volition and therefore firmly adequate to stand before moral judgement is only the result of an environmental and genetic cause. Therefore to solve any problem we must either change the environment or the genes.

    - Blaming a person for being a psychopath, poor, rich, an addict, etc is akin to blaming your car for not working properly or for no being as fast as a Ferrari. Of course, criminals still have to be arrested and so on.

    - Politics are not personal beliefs, but merely strategies human adopt to help them achieve their goals.

    - Libertarianism as many different forms: in America it is a reaction to racial income redistribution (form whites to blacks) and in Britain it is used as a signaling mechanism, to signal wealth or strong possibility of wealth. Certain parts of conservatism are also used to signal high rank. (this is a very concise analysis for simplicity sake).

    - Humans always pick (and with good reason) bread over “freedom”.

    - People unfortunate enough to be born with deleterious genetic mutations or characteristics will be doomed to live in squalor and permanent near starvation. The the only way to prevent this is with redistribution of wealth in exchange for sterilization. ( It is not a moral judgment on poor people merely a pragmatic one. I have deep compassion for the unlucky).

  25. Von Neumann says:

    Please forgive the sporadic spelling errors

  26. Whangadude says:

    I honestly thought Von Neumann was being sarcastic when I was reading his 1st post, but by the gods that man is evil but he just doesn’t realise it.

  27. CountingCats says:

    Von Neumann,

    Do you notice? You refer to Libertarianism as cut throat, but the universal reaction here to your proposed policies is disgust and revulsion at what we see, amongst other reactions, as your lack of compassion and contempt for people.
    Might I suggest that you see here a need to reconsider your presumptions about what libertarianism is, and why we hold these views?

  28. Von Neumann says:

    This conversation has become tiresome, and I should probably leave it to its inevitable death,but while perusing your fine blog I noticed this rather curious statement in a post titled “Casting False Pearls Before Real Swine”. Here it is transcribed verbatim:

    “The first came from actually living in rough areas and the realization that at least some of the underclass deserved gassing like TB ridden badgers.”

    And there we have it folks. It is incredibly predictable, because sooner or later all that talk about freedom and individual rights comes down to simple and violent hatred for the poor and disadvantaged. I never actually seen such candour before though, I must admit and even tip my hat at such honesty.

    So no Mr.Counting Cats I need to exert no effort in a reconsideration of libertarian/conservative thinking.

    The underclass is not caused by government policy or liberalism or welfare or whatever but by genes and genetics. Some people are just born less smart, unable to think ahead, more prone to crime, etc, etc…. My solution this is benign eugenics, your solution is Zyklon B and starvation (it’s personal choice that shape our life after all, those people should have had picked better genes, so they deserve it). Of course this is never stated upfront, the likes of you cannot afford to appear callous.

    That’s why you need this virulent belief in free will, and self-determined individuals. Your hate demands it. Thinking that that homeless guy is just the result of a unfair universe just doesn’t spike and stir the hate quite like the belief that he merits such precarious condition on the account of “life choices”. That is also at the origin of the distaste for all things environmental. The belief that man is just another gear in nature, just particles bumping into each other, kind breaks into the hate sessions.

    The question about “would you rather be born stupid or not be born at all” was suppose to make you realize that some people have no dignified place in society, much less so in a libertarian, you are what you earn, society. I am unaware of any economic principle which guarantees employment to someone with a low IQ. And as technology gets more complex what low IQ means changes. Today it’s 80, tomorrow 90, maybe the day after that 110 and so forth, more people unable to earn enough to subsist. But I already realized the free market solution: let them die. I still see my solution a more humane.

    Cheers

  29. zack says:

    so, what set you off was one obviously hyperbolic (non serious/exaggerating for effect) sentence from 3 years ago? And if you had actually bothered to read the comments, you see that Nick was reprimanded for it!

    Granted Nick and some others thought that no one would be dense enough to miss the sarcasm, but I guess they were wrong. F*** me sideways with a broom, I thought I had seen it all! And to just clarify, that was hyperbole, I don’t actually wish to f*** with a broom, sideways or any other way.

  30. Von Neumann says:

    People always speak what they believe in the form of a joke to guarantee plausible deniability. In fact, the following comments to the post have that certain tone of “not too loud or they’ll hear it” to it.

  31. Von Neumann says:

    Anyway, this conversation has descended into “You Suck”"No, YOU Suck” ricocheting insults against each other, so I’m going to have to call it quits.

  32. NickM says:

    Hell, people take all my utterances seriously all the time!

    I don’t believe in genetic determinism in terms of intelligence – surely environment plays a role and of course regression towards the mean – what is intelligence that anyway? It’s not a multi-tool.

    I’m a complete dunce at languages but I’m a damn fine mathematician. I know people who are the exact opposite. It makes the World go round. As to eugenics. Nay, nay and thrice nay! Do I need to explain why? Apart from anything else does not a child conceived in an act of love have a better chance in life than one calculated to be a good ‘un by some white-coated derangers of science who act like pseudo-scientific match-makers?

  33. zack says:

    von neumann: That’s why you need this virulent belief in free will, and self-determined individuals. Your hate demands it. Thinking that that homeless guy is just the result of a unfair universe just doesn’t spike and stir the hate quite like the belief that he merits such precarious condition on the account of “life choices”. That is also at the origin of the distaste for all things environmental. The belief that man is just another gear in nature, just particles bumping into each other, kind breaks into the hate sessions.
    ——————–
    Yes, that’s it, all libertarians or conservatives hate the poor and those less fortunate – all this talk about freedom and liberty is just a smoke screen; we oppose environmental policies not because we think they’ll be ineffectual or counterproductive, but because we don’t want anything to stand in the way of our desire to see others suffer. You’ve seen through it, you know us better then we know ourselves.

    Also, IQ and genetics are the key to success and happiness; never mind that not all geniuses have made great contributions to society, and that history is replete with examples of people of average or lower intelligence and ability revolutionizing the world; no it’s all about having proper breeding.

    On one hand, you have an ideology that says that people have free will, that they can overcome any disadvantages that may exist in their lives and achieve great things. That the best environment for them to do that is one that maximizes freedom while protecting thier rights from infringment; and that if help is needed, it should be given freely, both out of respect for the rights of others, and the belief that a centralized beuracracy will never be as effective as action from those closest to the problem – that, indeed, it is often counterproductive.

    On the other hand, you have an ideology that says that there is no free will, that everyone’s genetics is destiny, those who are unfortunate enough to come from bad backgrounds have no hope of making a living and are just a drain on societies resources. Thus they should be prevented from breeding and creating more of themselves. Society should transfer wealth to them just so they can slowly die in some measure of comfort until the time comes when they are no longer a burden.

    One ideology has roots going back to the enlightenment and has produced, when implemented, the most amazing and bountiful flowerings of human ingenuity, growth and respect for human dignity in history. The other ideology goes back to the French Terror, and has produced amazing amounts of human suffering. One says that if we allow people the greatest freedom feasible great things will happen, even if they are not perfect; the other says we can achieve an ideal society if we could just eliminate those undesirables (whether they’re the bourgeoisie/capitalists, the genetically unfit, or whatever). If you don’t see why society as a whole has rejected your ideology, then I don’t know what to say except none are so blind as those that refuse to see.

    —————
    Anyway, this conversation has descended into “You Suck””No, YOU Suck” ricocheting insults against each other, so I’m going to have to call it quits.
    ————–

    I do believe that the arguments that I and others have made, while very snarky (at least mine have been), have amounted to more then ‘you suck’ – they’ve been based on fact and focused on refuting the false claims that you make about libertarianism. If you wished to maintain respectful debate, then you should have refrained from insisting that we’re all hateful bigots who like to see others suffer.

    And just to explain my snark to Cats – while you were right to call me on cursing him out earlier, I don’t believe that arguments that effect to slander others deserve respect, and thus the snark. If you think that I have stepped over the line, please just let me know and I will hold back from it in the future.

  34. CountingCats says:

    Casting False Pearls Before Real Swine

    I had totally forgotten about that contretemps, although reading the comments Nick was delivered of politely worded but firm reprimand by both IanB and myself.

    I do say, von Neumann, if you can’t see a difference between Nick’s obviously intemperate hyperbole and your calmly presented proposal to judge and wipe from the gene pool individuals you consider too unfit to breed then you really are as cold as your chilling words sound.

    When it comes to zyklon B, it is your proposal which is headed down that road, not a philosophy which is based, in its essence, on respecting people sufficiently to acknowledge that they are capable of making their own decisions, without forced intervention by myself or others.

    I would also point out, that my words there, rather than invaliding what I have said here, reinforce them. So, if you think that posting invalidates my position here than you clearly haven’t bothered reading what I said.

    Nick, see, told you that comment would one day come back and bite us on the bum. It’s given this and any other grinning little Mengele out there the chance to say yah sucks boo.

  35. Lynne says:

    Von Neumann – I possess an above average IQ and have benefited from a tertiary education. By your standards that makes me a fit person to survive. By your standards I compare very favourably against, say, a very poor, uneducated African bushman. However, if you remove me from my environment and transplant me into the bushman’s environment with nothing but the IQ I stand up in, I would die very quickly without help. At that point I’d be very grateful that some Malthusian genius hadn’t called in the ethnic cleansers to rid the world of these aberrations to the human genome.

    Intelligence is relative to environment. My degrees in English and Archaeology might stand me in good stead on some London street but would mean bugger all if stranded in the Kalahari with no water and no food. If I had to chose between keeping bushmen who are so marvelously adapted to their environment or intellectual snobs like you who believe poor people have no worth then I’m afraid you’d lose.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: