James Watson about left wingers :

[Kraenen]

By getting rid of the weak we favour the process of evolution, Einstein

Kind of funny you mention Einstein. I'm not sure he would've been favored by your traditional evolutionary scenario of fighting for the next meal and where only the strong survive.

[Deleted]

By getting rid of the weak we favour the process of evolution, Einstein

What is the definition of "weak" then, Penrose?

Are you weak if you do not possess physical strength? Or if you are unintelligent? Or if you are sickly? Or if your neck isn't long enough to reach the leaves on the trees in the local forest? Or if you are not capable of running fast enough? Or if you are not capable of surviving in water? Or if you are not capable of surviving prolonged in a -30 °C environment? Please, I am awaiting a definition of "evolutionary weak", but I am, of course, well aware you won't be able to provide one, since there is no such definition.

Also, how do you "favour the process of evolution", a stochastic process? Do you also favour the process of rolling dices, when the dices are always rolling?

[Felya]

Urgh... Why is that always a topic that has to come up now and then?

Because people's view of history comes from action movies. We have always been pack animals and through social evolution we got to the way they are. Those who are on welfare or lower class, comprised a far greater density of people. This is what lead to the advent of socialism. The reason for welfare and similar, isn't really to put everyone on the same level, but prevent the sort of numbers in the lower classes that would destabilize society.

I like to think of it through a guillotine. The more people at the bottom, the higher the blade rises. Until a point where the blade can go no higher, to drop on the throat of the upper class.

- - - Updated - - -

By getting rid of the weak we favour the process of evolution, Einstein

May I have a link to that quite? Sorry, Google doesn't return that being attributed to Einstein. My google skills are failing...

[Mihalik]

By getting rid of the weak we favour the process of evolution, Einstein

So you would want to get rid of this guy...



Or Einstein himself? He had Aspergers.

Isaac Newton. Had Epilepsy.

Thomas Edison had a learning disability that he didn't overcome until his early teens. He couldn't read until he has like 12 or something.

John F. Nash was Schizophrenic. And not a mild version of it.

These people literally fucking fundamentally changed our understanding of our nature and our environment and taken leading roles in ushering in the modern age.

[Deleted]

So you would want to get rid of this guy...

<Hawking>

Would have posted this, had he replied "yes" to the "sickly" .

[Bumkin]

What is the definition of "weak" then, Penrose?

Are you weak if you do not possess physical strength? Or if you are unintelligent? Or if you are sickly? Or if your neck isn't long enough to reach the leaves on the trees in the local forest? Or if you are not capable of running fast enough? Or if you are not capable of surviving in water? Or if you are not capable of surviving prolonged in a -30 °C environment? Please, I am awaiting a definition of "evolutionary weak", but I am, of course, well aware you won't be able to provide one, since there is no such definition.

Also, how do you "favour the process of evolution", a stochastic process? Do you also favour the process of rolling dices, when the dices are always rolling?

Obviously if humanity decides to adopt an evolutionary doctrine for their society, serious discussions have to made in order to establish who is fit to live and who isn't, obviously we're not gonna kill ppl for being short or ugly, i'd say the "weak" are those who can't or refuse to contribute to evolution of humanity both culturally and biologically

Oh and also stop thinking you're smart, if you're a leftist it's pretty obvious you aren't a very brilliant person, both you and that Mihalik guy.

[Super Kami Dende]

I think the major problem with the far leftist kids of today (which parallels with a lot of Older far right wings) is their inability to take responsibility for their own fuck ups in life.

Whilst old school right wings used to blame their horrible luck on silly things like Religion and such, Leftist People try to blame their shortcomings on anyone that is currently doing well.

Hence why Rich White Males are such a massive target, they've done well for themselves but because of that people think there is some massive conspiracy that means anyone else can't do well for themselves because of retarded reasons like "Patriarchy" or shit like that.

I find the biggest issue atm is there are Women, "minorities" and people with different sexualities that fail at doing something and instead of standing back and thinking "oh what can I do personally to make myself better" they think "I AM SPECIAL/AMAZING! HOW COULD I FAIL! IT MUST BE SOME SORT OF OPPRESSION!!"

- - - Updated - - -

So you would want to get rid of this guy...

I would say Weak isn't only a physical thing, since that dudes mind is stronger than 99.999% of people. Just how I would say some roided up muscle-head would be Weak likely in an intellectual way.

[Kalador]

Obviously if humanity decides to adopt an evolutionary doctrine for their society, serious discussions have to made in order to establish who is fit to live and who isn't, obviously we're not gonna kill ppl for being short or ugly, i'd say the "weak" are those who can't or refuse to contribute to evolution of humanity both culturally and biologically

Oh and also stop thinking you're smart, if you're a leftist it's pretty obvious you aren't a very brilliant person, both you and that Mihalik guy.

Yeah that's seems super clear.... I hope you're not on the panel discussing cause you seems to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[Deleted]

Obviously if humanity decides to adopt an evolutionary doctrine for their society, serious discussions have to made in order to establish who is fit to live and who isn't, obviously we're not gonna kill ppl for being short or ugly, i'd say the "weak" are those who can't or refuse to contribute to evolution of humanity both culturally and biologically

Oh and also stop thinking you're smart, if you're a leftist it's pretty obvious you aren't a very brilliant person, both you and that Mihalik guy.

I find it quite entertaining how you accuse me of being a not very brilliant person, yet you think evolution is a "doctrine" one can adopt. As I said, it is a stochastic process, and as such it is impossible to manipulate in any way, clearly I am not the one who is incapable of grasping what that means.

May I recommend that if you attempt to invoke scientific theories to justify your abhorrent personal beliefs, you should first understand how the scientific method works, then understand the core tenets of said theory, which you clearly have not done.

[Shadowferal]

Obviously if humanity decides to adopt an evolutionary doctrine for their society, serious discussions have to made in order to establish who is fit to live and who isn't, obviously we're not gonna kill ppl for being short or ugly, i'd say the "weak" are those who can't or refuse to contribute to evolution of humanity both culturally and biologically

Oh and also stop thinking you're smart, if you're a leftist it's pretty obvious you aren't a very brilliant person, both you and that Mihalik guy.

I don't think much of your contribution to evolution so far.
Into the tiger pit with you. If you survive, I'll reconsider my opinion.

[Felya]

What is the definition of "weak" then, Penrose?

Are you weak if you do not possess physical strength? Or if you are unintelligent? Or if you are sickly? Or if your neck isn't long enough to reach the leaves on the trees in the local forest? Or if you are not capable of running fast enough? Or if you are not capable of surviving in water? Or if you are not capable of surviving prolonged in a -30 °C environment? Please, I am awaiting a definition of "evolutionary weak", but I am, of course, well aware you won't be able to provide one, since there is no such definition.

Also, how do you "favour the process of evolution", a stochastic process? Do you also favour the process of rolling dices, when the dices are always rolling?

Through civilized history it has most often been due to control of resources, backed by a connection to a greater power. The strongest went to war... The smartest was more tricky, because confirming the top's status got you a seat close to the thrown, while confronting it got you into a sanitarium. It was never really strength or intelligence. It would be hard to find a point in history, where power of the top was derived from either physical, mental or cognitive prowes. In fact, due to the familiar ties of power, the inbreeding of royalty usually resulted in some of the weakest and possibly dumbest, having the most power.

As is, I cannot say much about intellect, as that's pretty hard to pin point. But, I'm pretty sure I can kick the shit out of most who would be placed in the top 100 most powerful people right now.

[Daerio]

I would say Weak isn't only a physical thing, since that dudes mind is stronger than 99.999% of people. Just how I would say some roided up muscle-head would be Weak likely in an intellectual way.

I would say weak doesn't have an objective measurement. You should be careful to suggest that society should kill off all the weak; you are likely among that group whether or not you prefer to believe it. You aren't going to be judged by your standards; you're going to be judged by someone else's standards, and you may be found... wanting.

[Kalador]

I would say Weak isn't only a physical thing, since that dudes mind is stronger than 99.999% of people. Just how I would say some roided up muscle-head would be Weak likely in an intellectual way.

OP would have probably killed the guy tho... as he was costing a lot of money to society when he was young because of he's sickness.

[Thage]

Gotta love the far right, no empathy.

The worst thing Ayn Rand did (aside from write some godawful, badly-written novels that are too busy jerking off to their own internal philosophies and messages) is give sociopaths and Machiavellian narcissists an excuse to point to for their behavior so they could frame it as a philosophy.

[Deleted]

Pick your social darwinist trope characteristic here, as seen in fiction, sometimes close in real life.

[Mihalik]

Oh and also stop thinking you're smart, if you're a leftist it's pretty obvious you aren't a very brilliant person, both you and that Mihalik guy.

Well you are self evidently a genius of the moronic variety, disconnected from political affiliation.

But that is a moot point.

How do you determine who and who can and can't contribute to society either culturally or "biologically" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean)?

Any significant contribution made is a product of years of investment placed in the upbringing and education or training of individuals. None of us are born with a set of skills and none of us really know what we are good at. We can have specific biological predispositions, but it doesn't mean that is the best route to follow.

The point is, that we rarely know how and when would an individual make a contribution.

Would have you let Isaac Newton die when he had his first epileptic episode as a child?

Would have you killed Stephen Hawking at the onset of his degenerative disease in the 60's a good 20 to 25 years before he could produce his most significant works?

Would have you not invested effort in the difficult education of Thomas Edison as a small child when it was realized he couldn't learn to read because he was partially deaf?

[Wildberry]

This thread is coming along wonderfully.

OP misuses a James Watson quote as a "basic-bitch" criticism of socialism.

MMO-Champion's brigade of rational thinkers respond to obvious bait, and feel superior for dismantling a shitty argument.

Everyone ignores what James Watson was actually talking about.

Bonus points for the early allusion to the Holocaust.

[Aggrophobic]

For example people who are useless to society and even more than that they leech it, welfare recipients, in an evolutionary society they would be dead, either because they couldn't provide for themselves or because somebody stronger killed them for whatever reason

How about the son of a rich person that is born with a genetic disease that is treatable but it costs a lot. That person lives but if the same person was born to a poor family then he deserves to die, is that how you see it?

In a evolutionary society you could be dead because I wanted your sandwich and you were not quick enough to dodge that arrow. Thankfully, we here in the west have come a long way since then and the average person is doing a lot better because of it.

Also, Evolution does not "reward" the strong or even the smart. It "rewards" the one that adapts the best to whatever environment they live in. If living of social welfare gives someone a better shot at getting more offspring than that is the "best" way.


If you'd rather fight for your life over pretty much anything, though I'm sure there are places in the world where you could do so. How about a permanent trip to Antarctica? Maybe you could start your own little colony there?

[Felya]

The worst thing Ayn Rand did (aside from write some godawful, badly-written novels that are too busy jerking off to their own internal philosophies and messages) is give sociopaths and Machiavellian narcissists an excuse to point to for their behavior so they could frame it as a philosophy.

Machiavelli gets a bad rap. I didn't find the Prince to be that enlightening. It seemed very common sense... Even though I got told by an old lady on a train that I'm reading the devil, after I gave her my seat while reading it...

[Deleted]

What is the definition of "weak" then, Penrose?

Are you weak if you do not possess physical strength? Or if you are unintelligent? Or if you are sickly? Or if your neck isn't long enough to reach the leaves on the trees in the local forest? Or if you are not capable of running fast enough? Or if you are not capable of surviving in water? Or if you are not capable of surviving prolonged in a -30 °C environment? Please, I am awaiting a definition of "evolutionary weak", but I am, of course, well aware you won't be able to provide one, since there is no such definition.

Also, how do you "favour the process of evolution", a stochastic process? Do you also favour the process of rolling dices, when the dices are always rolling?

You're weak when you drag your surrounding down while they focus on a given direction in whatever they pursuit.