What’s your take on this article?

[Caduceus]

http://www.corrupt.org/act/interviews/weev

I find him to be immensely intriguing.

And in terms of what’s better for us a species in the long haul, I agree with everyone point he makes.

But on a moral level, bold ideas like these are taking some getting used to.

Share This

[Ken]

I tried but there is a reason that sophomoric and anarchist fit together so well. If you want to read philosophy, start with Locke, Hobbs and maybe Spinoza.

His ideas are neither bold nor new. They are beaten to fit into the emerging frame of online as community though.

Eugenics has been tried. It requires thinking of some humans as non humans. If you find that admirable in some way, I hope you can get over it the same way I got over “Atlas Shrugged” a few weeks after I read it.

Reading history might help too. Howard Zinn might be a good choice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn#A_People.27s_History_of_the_United_States

If you want to see what different political world views contribute to the “long haul” read “The Authoritarians”

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

and pay special attention to the experiments using the “global change game”

Share This

[datamuse]

Well, I agree with him about Fortuny…

But that’s about it.

Share This

[Caduceus]

They are entirely new to myself, rather stated the way they were.

And history is the precise reason I believe these to work, because they have in the past.

They have been since rejected and now we’ve only advanced technologically, which isn’t doing us a lot of good as a species.

You can read all the books you’d like my friend, just because the authors you’re reading have books, doesn’t make them any more of an authority than anyone else. It’s simple enough logic to figure out why.

I think you should read my comments again, you mistook them the first time around.

Share This

[datamuse]

You can read all the books you’d like my friend, just because the authors you’re reading have books, doesn’t make them any more of an authority than anyone else. It’s simple enough logic to figure out why.

Really? Then what, in your opinion, does constitute an authority? I’m genuinely curious to know.

Share This

[JoB]

Caduceus,

I was part of the generation that didn’t trust anyone over 30.. i believe Ken was as well. as such… this idea of throwing out all possible “established” positions is nothing new to us.

Nor is the basic material in the article you referenced.. tho i do admit some of the packaging is new. i don’t think Loki was much referenced in my day:)

I am afraid Eugenics is so last century… but it does go along with your admiration for Hitler’s political prowess…

However, it doens’t go along with some of the latest research into those we now call disabled.. which points out that many of today’s disabilities are partnered with a novel approach to both the arts and data manipulation… those disabilities are tied to what we label genius.

And that’s what we know now… about one small segment of our population that was once institutionalized and marginalized. What about what we don’t know?

Eugenics assumes that we know what qualities/talents are necessary for the successful evolution of the human race… yet those that would have been applied at the turn of the last century would have left us ill prepared for this one.

evolution doesn’t require human input.. selective breeding does.

As for dismissing the authors Ken referenced… have you followed his links before dismissing them?

If you expect others to respect you.. and actually read the material you link to, you have to accord them the same respect.

and who knows, you might actually find ideas you haven’t come across there.

just food for thought.

Share This

[Caduceus]

JoB I was simply commenting on what he said; which had more to do with his assumptions on my position on these topics.

I’m not looking for people repeating what has already been said I am asking for the individual opinions of the people who browse this forum. (Note the topic of this thread)

I see no connection between eugenics and a politician accomplishing __ many goals that he set out to. (regardless of who the politician was, or what the goals were)

Perhaps you’ve been mis-reading my comments as well?

If someone is born with two penises, no legs, a detrimental health dis-order leading to death if not medicated, death at birth, mental retardation etc That is not genius.

The point to eugenics is to weed out that which isn’t helpful in our genes.

People who have no personal experience in a specific matter rely on second hand sources and poorly written history to claim their “expert” status. That in no way makes them an authority, granted they know more than the average Joe might about [insert subject here that pre-dates our current society].

The point in me “dismissing” his authors was I wasn’t asking for references, I want individual opinions and free-thought flowing from the minds of the people on this board. Again, hence the title of the thread.

And JoB if people would read what I’m linking/writing we wouldn’t have to constantly discuss who mis-understood what and why.

Not that I don’t appreciate Ken’s input, I recognize he’s giving me an opportunity to educate myself, but I was specifically asking for the opinions of everyone here. And I admit the first time a read Ken’s comment I took offense because at first glance it came off as extremely condescending, thus my response.

Share This

[Author]

Posts