"The poor": kill them

[fallot]

My thrust is that this is an impossible task, requiring such clarity of human communication that the mere conference of this ability would provide a solution to nearly every human ill. It seems extremely difficult even for an individual case. How this would be accomplished  on the level of humanity itself I cannot even begin to consider. However, pursuing an answer in this vein may still be a noble endeavour. I will not reject it merely because it seems superhuman to me, but I don't believe it is an answer. The intent I cannot fault. If you make headway in this regard, I would be extremely interested.

[Cargést]

My thrust is that this is an impossible task, requiring such clarity of human communication that the mere conference of this ability would provide a solution to nearly every human ill. It seems extremely difficult even for an individual case. How this would be accomplished  on the level of humanity itself I cannot even begin to consider. However, pursuing an answer in this vein may still be a noble endeavour. I will not reject it merely because it seems superhuman to me, but I don't believe it is an answer. The intent I cannot fault. If you make headway in this regard, I would be extremely interested.

Possibility extends beyond the reach of humans.  If only we had an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent overseer, who could torture the Jews for ages before killing his own son so as to salvage everyone who listened to what he said...

[Queequeg]

I'm in favor of killing all of the shitty human's. Their material wealth has no bearing on their "worth" to me. I place the junkies in the same dustbin as the thoughtless impulsive rich.

Something or other about Arminass and working the seemingly menial job putting books away at the library for pocket change. If you can support yourself and maintain "honor", who cares?

[~Sidereal]

It's time to stop the grandstanding about "the poor."

There is no "the poor." There are varying income levels which correlate with the degree to which you have your shit together.

It has never taken much to be moderately successful. Go to a job, do the job with attention, and avoid drinking and going to jail.

That's about it.

If you're poor in this country, it's because you're dumb as rocks and/or have impulse control issues. Slavery is better for you (and I'm not talking about any particular racial group here, either; clearly Marilyn Monroe and Anna Nicole Smith would have been happier as (anal) slaves.)

Politicians talk about "the poor" as a way to manipulate us. You can't vote against it if it will help The Sainted Poor, or you're an asshole. It's guilt manipulation like a Jewish grandmother or teenage girlfriend. Fuck that. Let the poor die so I don't have to deal with this.

Every stupid stay-at-home useless person likes to talk about the plight of the poor. Who are these poor? Well, fuck if they know, or care. They want some "cause" in their sofa-bound, self-pitying, weep-at-LMN movies kind of lives.

Kill the poor. End the drama. Move on. Some people fail and they're happier huffing gas.

You might be a really great guy around the traps Sir, but on here, you are what you write, and what you write is truly FUCKED!

You call yourself a nihilst but you have no understanding of social/human realities - that human beings might have evolved to be compassionate.

Now i don't really care about the poor, but If you think everyone who cares about the downtrodden are 'stay-at-home useless persons' then how do you explain bill gates, mother teresa, ghandi, jesus, fuck me... this list goes literally on and on. You are literally useless compared to these people, whether you agree with them ideologically or not they have done and will most likely shape the world with their wills to heights that will stretch into space compared with you. 

Can i do the unspeakable and ask how old you are? Don't go on angered diatribes about liberalism or what I have done wrong in asking this quesiton, just asnwer it honestly and in an upright fashion. It normally wouldn't matter. Normally the content of posts should be all that matters, but becauase the content of your posts is constantly at such an immature emotional, reactionary level, and considering how much they no doubt turn off intelligent people from these forums... I think this is of importance.
 

[Archidamus]

"You call yourself a nihilst but you have no understanding of social/human realities - that human beings might have evolved to be compassionate.

Now i don't really care about the poor, but If you think everyone who cares about the downtrodden are 'stay-at-home useless persons' then how do you explain bill gates, mother teresa, ghandi, jesus, fuck me... this list goes literally on and on. You are literally useless compared to these people, whether you agree with them ideologically or not they have done and will most likely shape the world with their wills to heights that will stretch into space compared with you."

Active nihilism cuts through the social realities that humans create based on what they think reality should be instead of what it actually is. Misguided compassion is socially retarded in that it slows and reverses intellectual evolution, and has little to no place in a world of conflict and will to power.

Gates: Compassion earns social points resulting in increased sales.

Gandhi, Christ: Equalitarian fucktards who defended useless people who couldn't get their shit together.

Teresa: Probably the type of person, few and far between, who had genuine compassion.  I’m indifferent, as long as her type isn’t politically active.

[~Sidereal]

"You call yourself a nihilst but you have no understanding of social/human realities - that human beings might have evolved to be compassionate.

Now i don't really care about the poor, but If you think everyone who cares about the downtrodden are 'stay-at-home useless persons' then how do you explain bill gates, mother teresa, ghandi, jesus, fuck me... this list goes literally on and on. You are literally useless compared to these people, whether you agree with them ideologically or not they have done and will most likely shape the world with their wills to heights that will stretch into space compared with you."

Active nihilism cuts through the social realities that humans create based on what they think reality should be instead of what it actually is. Misguided compassion is socially retarded in that it slows and reverses intellectual evolution, and has little to no place in a world of conflict and will to power.

Gates: Compassion earns social points resulting in increased sales.

Gandhi, Christ: Equalitarian fucktards who defended useless people who couldn't get their shit together.

Teresa: Probably the type of person, few and far between, who had genuine compassion.  I’m indifferent, as long as her type isn’t politically active.

Conservationist's asserted that people who care about the poor are useless/weak. This is simply incorrect. Your disagreements with ghandi and jesus mean nothing pertaining to the discussion. You might not like them, but they did shit.

I wasn't arguing that just because we have evolved to be compassionate as a species with obvious variation, we categorically should be. I am railing against the lack of understanding at why some people care about the poor.

Abusing those who care about the poor is not going to do much to convince them to 'live and let die'. It's just pointless bullshit. An essay on evolution or how people become poor would be more worthwhile. Where did a rational approach go?

[Archidamus]

[/quote]
Calling those who care about the poor names is not going to do much to convince them to 'live at let die'. It's just pointless bullshit.
[/quote]

I don't think Gandhi or Christ cared as much for the poor as they did about leveling out the rich in wealth or spirit.

[~Sidereal]

I don't think Gandhi or Christ cared as much for the poor as they did about leveling out the rich in wealth or spirit.

Well we're never going to know, because they're dead. they definetely got off the couch.

[Archidamus]

I don't think Gandhi or Christ cared as much for the poor as they did about leveling out the rich in wealth or spirit.

Well we're never going to know, because they're dead. they definetely got off the couch.

Action isn't inherently good. Petitioning for Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instance, is action with counterproductive results.

Compassion:

Unreality - People have emotionally evolved to feel compassion for others who share little in common with themselves.

Reality - The human ego has evolved to the degree that people understand how to use compassion as a means to manipulate others into doing what they want.    

[~Sidereal]

I don't think Gandhi or Christ cared as much for the poor as they did about leveling out the rich in wealth or spirit.

Well we're never going to know, because they're dead. they definetely got off the couch.

Action isn't inherently good. Petitioning for Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instance, is action with counterproductive results.

Compassion:

Unreality - People have emotionally evolved to feel compassion for others who share little in common with themselves.

Reality - The human ego has evolved to the degree that people understand how to use compassion as a means to manipulate others into doing what they want.    

Rubbish. It's not unreality at all. Compassion could easily be an evolutionary by-product of evolving to help kin. In fact there is empirical evidence for this. Your level of scepticism about people's intentions is verging on pathological.

Haidt holds that evolution has shaped maternal brains to be sensitive to the suffering of offspring. In humans, this tendency has been generalized beyond our relationships to offspring. Human beings react to the suffering of other humans, whether child or adult, whether biologically related or not. Humans feel compassion when they see other humans suffer and they are disturbed by cruelty and harm.

--> http://philosophy-in-la.tribe.net/thread/00886af2-5ff4-465f-be7d-eec4d8524dca

Obviously action for the sake of it isn't necessarily good. But you're missing the point I was trying to get across. Those who are motivated by compassion are often useful people, despite what this conservationist thinks, who are often motivated by human nature. Rather than call them useless and other names... focus on changing the attitudes of these useful, creative, willfull people.

[Cargést]

Haidt holds that evolution has shaped maternal brains to be sensitive to the suffering of offspring. In humans, this tendency has been generalized beyond our relationships to offspring. Human beings react to the suffering of other humans, whether child or adult, whether biologically related or not. Humans feel compassion when they see other humans suffer and they are disturbed by cruelty and harm.

--> http://philosophy-in-la.tribe.net/thread/00886af2-5ff4-465f-be7d-eec4d8524dca

As a sweeping statement, this is utter bollocks.  I feel no "compassion" when I see the vast majority of humans suffer; any "compassion" in me is reserved for my family and friends, and others who seem that they would fit into the latter group.

[fallot]

As a sweeping statement, this is utter bollocks.  I feel no "compassion" when I see the vast majority of humans suffer; any "compassion" in me is reserved for my family and friends, and others who seem that they would fit into the latter group.

What quality can we therefore surmise some people possess for you to empathize with them or feel compassion for them? That you know them? Is it something more than that? I can't completely absorb this point of view and see it from your perspective, I am bothered by injustice and suffering in general as well as unwarranted cruelty, but I would like to see it as you do (from you). I have always felt that this is a quality that one should inculcate in themselves, it is a part of being a healthy human being, a quality of Kings. My guess is that a part of it comes from seeing other people as competing entities rather than a part of a human whole or from ignorance of circumstance (and unwillingness, not inability, to put yourself in another's shoes) but this may be wholly inaccurate.

Without meaning to imply anyone here is a sufferer, Asperger's has been described as having an "ultra male" mind. One of its defining traits is a pathological lack of empathy (such that it inhibits the appreciation of social cues that rely on this). Can one possible inference be that at least at some minimum level it is a worthwhile quality?

[Eleison]

There is no suffering in death, wanting to keep everyone alive only prolongs suffering, if you really insist on analyzing the problem from a humanist perspective.

[indjaseemun]

In my opinion this whole "we probably evolved to do x so therfore let's focus on x" is misguided, we should be in charge of what we desire, not evolution. If I feel compassion and do not want to see harm on others then that's it, it doesn't matter if you think evolution made us to do this or that or not.

Imagine a person who by his studies comes to the conclusion that not being compassionate is the best result of all evolution and that it would benefit us as a species, then he sees a guy tied up with honey on his body next to a house of ants and thinks "Uh-oh! Evolution wants me to not care about that, better to flee now before I get compassionate."

[Queequeg]

He obviously should flee, lest a bear happen on the fool who slathered himself in honey and eat them both.