100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: Conservationist on November 19, 2011, 05:03:53 AM

Title: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Conservationist on November 19, 2011, 05:03:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: fallot on November 19, 2011, 05:24:05 AM
Pure fantasy.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: diesel on November 19, 2011, 06:16:45 AM
Why should we preserve the psychopathy on top though? Can we trim that off too?
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Eleison on November 19, 2011, 06:19:56 AM
Modern social problems can only be solved from the top-down, as it were.  It would require the formation of an intellectual elite to alter the direction that the western world has taken, although even this is probably no longer possible.  All of the problems attributed to the 'proles' by many members of this site, only came into existence because the aristocracy became decadent and failed to carry out its duty.  1789 would never have happened if not for the fact that the French aristocracy was completely corrupted, although that does not mean it was in any way justified.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: diesel on November 19, 2011, 06:27:26 AM
This is not a good thing to post on this site, but i doubt the poor are genetically inferior. I think one of the most contributing factors is  that on average they consume the absolute lowest caliber of food. Whenever i go by these fast food places i just think of crack/meth houses. that's essentially what they are. most of the supermarket is poison too.   
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Eleison on November 19, 2011, 06:31:06 AM
This is not a good thing to post on this site, but i doubt the poor are genetically inferior. I think one of the most contributing factors is  that on average they consume the absolute lowest caliber of food. Whenever i go by these fast food places i just think of crack/meth houses. that's essentially what they are. most of the supermarket is poison too.   

This is patently false, if you cannot provide scientific evidence then it is simply a ridiculous statement.  Differences of caste have always existed and they correspond directly to the innate qualities of the human being.  You blame secondary causes, this is typical behavior of the worst kind of leftists, as if they could ever have occurred without a primary cause.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: lafindumonde on November 19, 2011, 06:59:22 AM
I make a lot of money off really stupid and gullible people. If you kill them all off, who will buy my useless junk?! You'll wreck my lifestyle dude!
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Goluf on November 19, 2011, 08:57:49 AM
This is not a good thing to post on this site, but i doubt the poor are genetically inferior. I think one of the most contributing factors is  that on average they consume the absolute lowest caliber of food. Whenever i go by these fast food places i just think of crack/meth houses. that's essentially what they are. most of the supermarket is poison too.  

This is patently false, if you cannot provide scientific evidence then it is simply a ridiculous statement.  Differences of caste have always existed and they correspond directly to the innate qualities of the human being.  You blame secondary causes, this is typical behavior of the worst kind of leftists, as if they could ever have occurred without a primary cause.

Why would he need to provide scientific evidence to make a statement that begins with "I doubt"? If you're questioning the putridity of fast food, check this out:

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/nutritionfacts.pdf

If you're questioning whether this contributes in any meaningful way to the plight of lower classes, I would implore you to research it, as I don't know either. In any event, I read diesel's post more as a suspicion than a statement, especially since he formulated it with "I think".

The only (well, not the only...) claim needing evidence here is yours. Differences of caste may always have existed, but to say that they correspond directly to the "innate qualities of the human being" does not follow. This would mean that in all instances of caste division (let alone a visible caste system) everyone behaved in the way prescribed to, predicted by, or expected of them by their caste, which you yourself proved incorrect in your previous post when you detailed how the French aristocratic class became "corrupted".
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: diesel on November 19, 2011, 09:50:33 AM
It is still at the suspicion stage because I haven't had time to research it fully. Most of what the average shmuck knows about nutrition is the 4 food groups, which is just the FDA making recommendations based on which agricultural ties it has and what it would like to monetize most (dominantly the grains). Most people who haven't had any wake up calls like diabetes even ignore the less than ideal 4 food groups, especially in their formative years, so it's below medicrity like cheerios and butter and an apple a day. people are eating garbage. Health to most people is a matter of being fat or not being fat. This CAN'T be a good thing. All those years, from the placenta, early childhood, adolescence, then adulthood- think about how neglecting health could fuck that up, and the outcome on the efficiency of the brain. We  get human beings that are functional enough to be paper shuffling office drones, cashiers, and janitors but are somewhat docile and empty in nature who develop heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension by 45.  yet, theres fast food sprouting up on every street corner to soothe and comfort all lower class troubles, and also to employ these people. Warm and welcoming golden arches. this stuff is crack manipulated to trick our bodies into craving it.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Humanicide on November 19, 2011, 12:07:35 PM
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.

I'm reminded of that Dead Kennedy's song.

Your statements are mostly agreeable, but I should point out those who are poor because of situations beyond their control (foreclosure on a home that could not be prevented because of a low paying job, etc) - I see no reason to eliminate someone of good caliber simply because they have fallen upon hard times.

Otherwise, the correlation between the poor and a guilt trip is quite accurate. Charitable organizations do their best to make you feel like shit whenever you don't donate, whether actively or subtly. It's irritable. I'd rather donate to a museum or park so maybe my money will actually be of good use as opposed to feeding one bum one meal on one day which accomplishes nothing.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Spectrum on November 19, 2011, 04:53:35 PM
Why should we preserve the psychopathy on top though? Can we trim that off too?

We should, but that is too Marxist for the right-wingers (ANUS included).
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: istaros on November 19, 2011, 04:58:35 PM
Conservationist, I make way more money than you and I'm dumb as a rock - even "rocks," being multiple in nature, have a higher IQ count than I. How now, brown cow?

Also, please refrain from using insensitive terminology when referring to the unfortunate. It's pronounced "the po'."

Otherwise, the correlation between the poor and a guilt trip is quite accurate. Charitable organizations do their best to make you feel like shit whenever you don't donate, whether actively or subtly. It's irritable. I'd rather donate to a museum or park so maybe my money will actually be of good use as opposed to feeding one bum one meal on one day which accomplishes nothing.
Have you tried actually saying any of this to their faces? Say, for example, the bell-ringing Santas in front of mall doorways, etc.? Great fun.

Health to most people is a matter of being fat or not being fat. This CAN'T be a good thing. All those years, from the placenta, early childhood, adolescence, then adulthood- think about how neglecting health could fuck that up, and the outcome on the efficiency of the brain. We  get human beings that are functional enough to be paper shuffling office drones, cashiers, and janitors but are somewhat docile and empty in nature who develop heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension by 45.  yet, theres fast food sprouting up on every street corner to soothe and comfort all lower class troubles, and also to employ these people. Warm and welcoming golden arches. this stuff is crack manipulated to trick our bodies into craving it.
It is fascinating how modern society has managed to make high-energy-value nutrition the easiest to acquire in effort. This idea, and the trule unbelievable impact it has on our species, doesn't seem to get much attention. And even when it does, people don't seem to realize just how huge of a change it is. It's a complete reversal of what we evolved for. Once upon a time, in order to get any significant amount of protein or fat, you had to spend a *lot* of time and effort making spears, setting traps, organizing hunting parties, and running. All finalized by the very real possibility of simply being trampled or gored after an ill-timed thrust. No brains or marrow for you. And now, well, just walk into a fucking grocery store. What more research do you need? You could feed yourself for a whole year on just a few bucks if all you ate was ramen noodles, which have what is probably the lowest nutrition-to-energy ratio of anything, ever. You'd probably get more micronutrients by swallowing radioactive isotopes. And by year's end you'd probably be in less pain, too.

I don't see this as some sort of manipulation, though. Corporations only exist to give consumers what they want. Of course, once you actually SAY that out loud, everyone has to get up in arms and start camping out in city parks because they didn't get a complementary blank check from Macintosh upon graduation from their shitty community college with a degree in Pre-Surrealist Feminized Art Theory as Interpreted via Kerouac & Friends.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Serra on November 19, 2011, 10:27:22 PM
Let me add to the discussion by saying that caste has never been proved by scientific evidence (at least not the kind of microscope-and-formulas that passes for science these days), but by the direct observation of human nature that anyone unprejudiced and with a healthy judgement can do. You don't need a bunch of statistics to prove everything under the sun.

In my view, the only "poor" that are toxic to society are those that are unable to stand on their own, and are constantly needful of the aid of others (people, organizations, capacitation programs, banks) in order to get on with their lives. To judge it by income is very relative. I bet most people here are either unemployed or at the struggling stage of their lives. I am of the second group, and if solely considered by income then I'm poor by my country's standards, and much more so by those of any first world country. And yet I can stand very well on my own two feet because I have needs that are easy and cheap to satisfy, I'm not a frivolous fool, and I save all the money I can, so that at the end of the month I'm always with cash in my pocket.

As for nutrition, I don't presume to be an expert on the subject, but I have designed my own diet based on my needs, and I have been doing quite well with it. And I buy my food, just like anyone else. The thing about healthy nutrition is that it takes a fair amount of will to persist in it and deny to oneself many foods that are tempting but won't do much good. And this the people don't want to know about, because most have no will, except to do what's absolutely necessary to sustain themselves, their families, and buy the crap that momentarily fills the void in their hearts.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: fallot on November 20, 2011, 05:43:06 AM
I cannot look at those in a worse state than me and think "they just didn't try hard enough". Who truly desires a life of destitute complacency? This is a view which I have seen only in those of youth and privilege; and American poor people for some reason. It is not easy, nor does it sound very noble to admit that your own successes may be a result of circumstance. How can I desire anything but to even out some of the worst injustices? Even in this thread, half-agreements abound... how can you point out circumstance on one hand and then agree with the point? Is it only circumstance in your anecdotes? If some are worthy, what then? Their lot is as the poor fools?

Evolution is not a benevolent positive force, we do not evolve towards what is "good", merely towards what suits continued existence in the environment. Embracing the "natural" is about as much a lie as blindly embracing any other system or ideology. With our intellect we transcend, at least partially, the bounds of our own evolution. It's so easy to speak in pseudo-scientific babble about what is healthy and what isn't; as has been demonstrated at least once, it is perfectly possible to have a healthy diet only eating McDonalds. And yet how can you blame those that subsist on energy dense trash because that's all they have? The answer is to hate/pity these people because they "can't stand on their own two feet"?

On a personal/offtopic note; I have been led here by Metal, by the DLA, by the only place and group of people that seem to appreciate Metal as art on the internet that I have been able to find. While there is a kernel of truth in everything, conclusions are reached which I cannot agree with. The overall picture is negative and distasteful. It doesn't make a statement, it doesn't do anything, it sits there and shooes away those that would embrace at least this art. Is this what is desired? Why do you preach to those whose eyes are open? I don't mean to snipe from the sidelines at whatever this website has achieved, but over the years of reading it (for the metal) and trying to introduce people to it, this has been a constant frustration. If there is an alternative that I've been missing, perhaps I could be pointed to that.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Eleison on November 20, 2011, 07:23:27 AM
The only (well, not the only...) claim needing evidence here is yours. Differences of caste may always have existed, but to say that they correspond directly to the "innate qualities of the human being" does not follow. This would mean that in all instances of caste division (let alone a visible caste system) everyone behaved in the way prescribed to, predicted by, or expected of them by their caste, which you yourself proved incorrect in your previous post when you detailed how the French aristocratic class became "corrupted".

The caste system is the traditional (and best) model for describing qualitative difference between human beings.  It has existed in virtually all traditional civilisations in some form or another, suggesting that it possesses a degree of universality.  Of course there are exceptions, as there are with any system, but exceptions do not disprove rules and it is an extremely biased logic which claims otherwise.

And yet how can you blame those that subsist on energy dense trash because that's all they have? The answer is to hate/pity these people because they "can't stand on their own two feet"?

The inherent bias of your entire statement is revealed here, it's perfectly possible to eat reasonably well for very little money in Western countries, it is only lack of intelligence/impulse control which prevents people from doing so.  It's like people here have been trying to say, McDonalds doesn't make people stupid, it exists because it is demanded by idiots.

As a side note the people who provide such products are also imbeciles.  They are the 'false elites', lower quality human beings who were elevated to positions of power after the collapse of traditional institutions.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: istaros on November 20, 2011, 07:38:30 AM
Evolution is not a benevolent positive force, we do not evolve towards what is "good", merely towards what suits continued existence in the environment. Embracing the "natural" is about as much a lie as blindly embracing any other system or ideology. With our intellect we transcend, at least partially, the bounds of our own evolution. It's so easy to speak in pseudo-scientific babble about what is healthy and what isn't; as has been demonstrated at least once, it is perfectly possible to have a healthy diet only eating McDonalds. And yet how can you blame those that subsist on energy dense trash because that's all they have? The answer is to hate/pity these people because they "can't stand on their own two feet"?
Fuck off and die. Who cares whether evolution is good? Who said it is? It doesn't matter if it is good or not, what does matter is that your body is not designed to exist on calories alone. You cannot synthesize your own vitamin C or calcium, two name just two out of very, very many examples. If you change the ingredients without changing the formula, you're going to get a fucked-up result. Pointing out this obvious fact does not make one "biased in favor of the old ingredients," but it does make you a fucking tool. Which is reinforced by your subsequent moping about how the po' can't find vegetables, and how good McDonald's is. I bet you're South American.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: fallot on November 20, 2011, 08:13:16 AM
Not designed to? Okay. In any case, it's the truth that the western poor feed on these more out of necessity than desire or apathy. The point is not at all that McDonalds is good, rather that the nuance of choice in these nations does not exist for everyone. Even on a McDonalds menu, what can you possibly pick that is efficient in terms of your energy requirement? Too little will not suffice. The poor of other nations are not in similar straits because they literally starve. The jab at nature was not a rejection of the truth that exists there, but a rejection of it as absolute truth.

What would lead you to think I'm South American? I'm curious.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: FIAT on November 20, 2011, 11:06:24 AM
The only (well, not the only...) claim needing evidence here is yours. Differences of caste may always have existed, but to say that they correspond directly to the "innate qualities of the human being" does not follow. This would mean that in all instances of caste division (let alone a visible caste system) everyone behaved in the way prescribed to, predicted by, or expected of them by their caste, which you yourself proved incorrect in your previous post when you detailed how the French aristocratic class became "corrupted".

The caste system is the traditional (and best) model for describing qualitative difference between human beings.  It has existed in virtually all traditional civilisations in some form or another, suggesting that it possesses a degree of universality.  Of course there are exceptions, as there are with any system, but exceptions do not disprove rules and it is an extremely biased logic which claims otherwise.


I would like to add that when speaking of the notion of castes, both in terms of intrinsic human differences in potential spirituality and a corresponding institutionalization, it is important to correctly the cause-and-effect relationship between the two: spirituality determines caste, not the other way around. The castes correspond to differing levels of spiritual potential (imagine a vertical axis), just as the races correspond to various psychosomatic possibilities (horizontal axes): this is the traditional view. What can be called "natural castes" persist even with the disintegration of the institution.

Apropos I will leave you with a quotation from Frithjof Schuon's "Survey of Integral Anthropology," remarking also on the somewhat problematic phenomenon of genius:

Quote
It is not of institutionalized--hence necessarily approximate--castes that we wish to speak here, but of natural castes, those based on the intrinsic nature of individuals; the institutional castes are merely their legal applications, and in fact they are more often symbolical rather than effective as regards the real potentialities of persons, above all in later times; nonetheless they have a certain practical and psychological justification, otherwise they would not exist traditionally.

The essential point here is that mankind is psychologically differentiated by gifts and by ideals: there is the ideal of the sage or the saint, then the ideal of the hero; next the ideal of the respectable and "reasonable" average man, and finally that of the man who seeks no more than the pleasures of the moment, and whose virtue consists in obeying and being faithful. But, aside from men who are psychologically homogeneous, there is also the man "without a center," who is capable of "all and nothing," and who is readily an imitator and also a destroyer. Let us hasten to add, however, that in this world there are distinctions and shades of difference in everything, and that if we must take note of inferior human possibilities it is not in order to pronounce verdicts upon individuals; for "what is impossible for man, is possible for God."

We mentioned "gifts" above, and this allows us now to consider the phenomenon of talent or genius. First of all, it is all too clear that genius has value only through its content, and is even of no worth in the absence of human values which ought to accompany it; and that consequently, it would be better for a "great man" with a problematical character to have less talent and more virtue. The cause of genius is a hypertrophy or supersaturation due to heredity or, as the transmigrationists would say, to a certain karma, hence to the merits or demerits of a former life, as the case may be. The karma is in any case benefic when it is the vehicle of spiritual values or when it gives rise to them; obviously, the great sages and saints of all traditional climates were men of genius--but they were not merely that, precisely.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Goluf on November 20, 2011, 01:37:19 PM
The only (well, not the only...) claim needing evidence here is yours. Differences of caste may always have existed, but to say that they correspond directly to the "innate qualities of the human being" does not follow. This would mean that in all instances of caste division (let alone a visible caste system) everyone behaved in the way prescribed to, predicted by, or expected of them by their caste, which you yourself proved incorrect in your previous post when you detailed how the French aristocratic class became "corrupted".

The caste system is the traditional (and best) model for describing qualitative difference between human beings.  It has existed in virtually all traditional civilisations in some form or another, suggesting that it possesses a degree of universality.  Of course there are exceptions, as there are with any system, but exceptions do not disprove rules and it is an extremely biased logic which claims otherwise.


I would like to add that when speaking of the notion of castes, both in terms of intrinsic human differences in potential spirituality and a corresponding institutionalization, it is important to correctly the cause-and-effect relationship between the two: spirituality determines caste, not the other way around. The castes correspond to differing levels of spiritual potential (imagine a vertical axis), just as the races correspond to various psychosomatic possibilities (horizontal axes): this is the traditional view. What can be called "natural castes" persist even with the disintegration of the institution.

Apropos I will leave you with a quotation from Frithjof Schuon's "Survey of Integral Anthropology," remarking also on the somewhat problematic phenomenon of genius:

Quote
It is not of institutionalized--hence necessarily approximate--castes that we wish to speak here, but of natural castes, those based on the intrinsic nature of individuals; the institutional castes are merely their legal applications, and in fact they are more often symbolical rather than effective as regards the real potentialities of persons, above all in later times; nonetheless they have a certain practical and psychological justification, otherwise they would not exist traditionally.

The essential point here is that mankind is psychologically differentiated by gifts and by ideals: there is the ideal of the sage or the saint, then the ideal of the hero; next the ideal of the respectable and "reasonable" average man, and finally that of the man who seeks no more than the pleasures of the moment, and whose virtue consists in obeying and being faithful. But, aside from men who are psychologically homogeneous, there is also the man "without a center," who is capable of "all and nothing," and who is readily an imitator and also a destroyer. Let us hasten to add, however, that in this world there are distinctions and shades of difference in everything, and that if we must take note of inferior human possibilities it is not in order to pronounce verdicts upon individuals; for "what is impossible for man, is possible for God."

We mentioned "gifts" above, and this allows us now to consider the phenomenon of talent or genius. First of all, it is all too clear that genius has value only through its content, and is even of no worth in the absence of human values which ought to accompany it; and that consequently, it would be better for a "great man" with a problematical character to have less talent and more virtue. The cause of genius is a hypertrophy or supersaturation due to heredity or, as the transmigrationists would say, to a certain karma, hence to the merits or demerits of a former life, as the case may be. The karma is in any case benefic when it is the vehicle of spiritual values or when it gives rise to them; obviously, the great sages and saints of all traditional climates were men of genius--but they were not merely that, precisely.



Thank you for describing this division between natural caste and institutionalized caste. In light of these definitions, let me clarify my original statement:

The only (well, not the only...) claim needing evidence here is yours. Differences of caste may always have existed, but to say that they correspond directly to the "innate qualities of the human being" does not follow. This would mean that in all instances of caste division (let alone a visible caste system) everyone behaved in the way prescribed to, predicted by, or expected of them by their caste, which you yourself proved incorrect in your previous post when you detailed how the French aristocratic class became "corrupted".

The caste system is the traditional (and best) model for describing qualitative difference between human beings.  It has existed in virtually all traditional civilisations in some form or another, suggesting that it possesses a degree of universality.  Of course there are exceptions, as there are with any system, but exceptions do not disprove rules and it is an extremely biased logic which claims otherwise.

It may be the best method for describing qualitative difference between human beings, but saying that a caste in a caste system is a "caste of the soul" is demonstrably false by, as I pointed out, your own example. Nothing you've said here rebuts this.

My aim in attacking your statement was to try to route a convenient mistake you seem close to making; that is to operate from a  merit-based view of humanity, and then to assume that current institutions, because they appear to be merit based actually are.

The institutions that set up such excuses for "caste systems" in our society are equally spiritually impoverished as those that protest it, but I think right now your original post reads as an endorsement of one group in an attempt at salvation from the other. Endorsing greedy, high society, Yankee-educated oil tycoons won't save you from the sub-human drones who work their drills, if you'll allow me to take the comparison into admittedly absurd hyperbole to prove a point, but which your intelligence obviously doesn't require.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: fallot on November 20, 2011, 01:43:34 PM

My aim in attacking your statement was to try to route a convenient mistake you seem close to making; that is to operate from a  merit-based view of humanity, and then to assume that current institutions, because they appear to be merit based actually are.


Indeed, this is an easy mistake to make.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: istaros on November 20, 2011, 08:37:13 PM
Not designed to? Okay. In any case, it's the truth that the western poor feed on these more out of necessity than desire or apathy. The point is not at all that McDonalds is good, rather that the nuance of choice in these nations does not exist for everyone. Even on a McDonalds menu, what can you possibly pick that is efficient in terms of your energy requirement? Too little will not suffice. The poor of other nations are not in similar straits because they literally starve. The jab at nature was not a rejection of the truth that exists there, but a rejection of it as absolute truth.

What would lead you to think I'm South American? I'm curious.
Because you sound like one. Or maybe an Eastern European.

Yes, designed to. Just as your elbow is designed to pivot your forearm towards your shoulder at a specific angle, and your skin is designed to keep you from getting infected with every disease on the planet within the next few hours. Do you have trouble understanding a statement as truthful as "humans weren't designed to live on calories alone?" Is your anti-elitist screed so dogmatic that you automatically assume that talking about something being designed betrays a belief in a personifiable designER?

As for the idea that the poorer denizens of Western societies feed on empty calories out of necessity, har har. Shitty food that will keep you alive (ramen won't) is only slightly cheaper than buying actual produce, and there are lots of ways to save money even if you don't make much. Some years ago, there was a period of quite a few months during which the only work I had was between ten to twenty hours a week at a rate barely above minimum wage, with no prior savings to make that period any easier to get through. I still made ends meet. It's not that hard to exercise self-control and sacrifice some of the things people take for granted. Man up, folks.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: fallot on November 21, 2011, 02:04:07 AM
"I survived for a few months, alone, on minimum wage, therefore the poor are weak."

"Anti-elitist" is strange to hear. I would think the quality of empathy, of desiring better for your fellow man, would be a heroic quality. Can anyone read this thread and think "elite"? It's not about some great liberal equalizer but... fuck the poor? No, fuck you.

I still don't precisely follow the Eastern European origin part.

Edit:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379704001503
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862004001200011&script=sci_arttext&tlng=e
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040105071229.htm
http://w3.fmed.ulaval.ca/chaireobesite/education/docs/AT_Art2_Drewnowski-Poverty-EDensity.pdf

Particularly the last link.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Cargést on November 21, 2011, 02:58:30 AM

My aim in attacking your statement was to try to route a convenient mistake you seem close to making; that is to operate from a  merit-based view of humanity, and then to assume that current institutions, because they appear to be merit based actually are.


Indeed, this is an easy mistake to make.

... Really?  It seems to me to be the largest, shiniest pitfall at the bottom of the hill on which I'm standing, with neon signs pointing towards it saying "IT'S A TRAP".

As far as killing the poor goes, does this extend as far as ascetics, who willfully renounce material wealth?  Or are they not considered poor?

Rather than simply agree to kill the "poor", surely we should just kill those who are so poor of spirit that they can make nothing for themselves?  Certainly, there are many who could accumulate wealth, but choose not to.  Similarly, plenty enough successful people are absolute cretins.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: fallot on November 21, 2011, 03:05:34 AM
That does not make it any less easy of a trap to fall into though, anything that supports your preconceptions is easier to stray towards. Little struggle is required.

Can you identify those that would be poor of spirit?
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: I disagree on November 21, 2011, 08:50:49 AM
This is such a typical "far" right view of society. To reduce the success of society in terms of monetary allotment, to me, is such an obvious mistake. It assumes a few things.

1. The rich are rich because they are intellectually superior, and have worked hard to achieve what they have instead of sitting around hoping for money to land in their laps unlike everyone who is "poor".

2. The rich are independent from the poor. I doubt there are very many that are rich without making others poor. In societies that have a larger amount of rich people, are likely to also have a disproportionate amount of those who are poor.

3. Only "poor" people are alcoholics and go to jail. The only difference is that the rich have the means to buy their way out, while the poor would rot in jail.

Quote
If you're poor in this country, it's because you're dumb as rocks and/or have impulse control issues.

So by this logic, if you are rich, you aren't dumb as rocks and/or have impulse control issues? Are you kidding me? Turn on the TV or radio, you'll have a great place to start for finding examples of the stupid/impulsive rich.

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

Bullshit. This assumes that the more income you have, the more you have your shit together. A more accurate statement would be the degree to which your income supports your lifestyle. There are varying degrees to which people's fuckups destroy their lives or are just a minor inconvenience.

You aren't going to get rid of the couch-sitting, glue sniffing, inbred poor by simply killing them. The rich, or even the moderately wealthy are so by making others poorer.

The OP's thesis assumes that the status quo in the U.S. gives everyone the same opportunities and advantages, and it is up to each individual to make a choice to be successful or be a waste of space.

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. People can be poor because the live in a shitty system, they can also be poor because they are fucked up and continue to make bad choices. It is never all one or the other.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: fallot on November 21, 2011, 09:25:31 AM
The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. People can be poor because the live in a shitty system, they can also be poor because they are fucked up and continue to make bad choices. It is never all one or the other.

This view is not conducive to casual indictment or statements of ideology.

We'll talk about the poor. Then we'll talk about "the poor" (substituting monetary wealth for "spiritual" or "intellectual" wealth). Then we're right back at square one.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Dinaric Leather on November 21, 2011, 11:52:55 AM
I still don't precisely follow the Eastern European origin part.
I hope you are giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he is so ignorant as to confuse a South American attitude with an Eastern European one, he is either incredibly ignorant or simply insulting you. He appears pretty bright so he must be just acting like an asshole. He's probably a Germanic of some flavor enraged at his own peoples decadence, so he takes his rage out on people like the Pole and the Argentine, who despite being less wealthy, are relatively culturally intact.

As an aside, anyone who would say there is an Eastern European attitude or a South American attitude is a dumbass and definitely an outsider to these areas. Poles and Romanians have little in common and an Argentine and a Peruvian have even less.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: fallot on November 21, 2011, 03:02:33 PM
The intent to insult was quite clear, however I am genuinely curious about the meaning.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Veritas on November 21, 2011, 03:15:39 PM
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.

...

Kill the poor.

Never make an absolute move like that based on a moderate correlation. The point of being able to play mental simulations like this is that we can keep improving out levels of correlation until it becomes an effective causal relationship.

I'm sure the world would be better if the under "120s" just disappeared, but why is this? What is this magical quality of humans that we are trying to preserve, and what would be a better way to determine it?

Besides, it's not about money, it's about influence. Money helps you attain influence, but there are various other ways to it - some of them essentiall self-contained to a naive observer.

(And in an over-populated world, sometimes the best move for the whole is simply to not consume, i.e. to self-induce poorness. Such a subset of the population makes for good impact absorbtion any time a crisis comes close, and such a discriminatory move such as being poor = being inferior means to ignore this function of keeping the species moving in a crisis. But then, who wants to keep the species going anyway?)
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Cargést on November 21, 2011, 04:22:09 PM
That does not make it any less easy of a trap to fall into though, anything that supports your preconceptions is easier to stray towards. Little struggle is required.

Can you identify those that would be poor of spirit?

Any man who cannot provide evidence for his own "self".  It would take an age to explain that, I'll have to work out how to do so..
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: fallot on November 21, 2011, 05:23:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Cargést on November 21, 2011, 05:28:46 PM
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...
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Queequeg on November 21, 2011, 08:25:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: ~Sidereal on November 21, 2011, 10:10:26 PM
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.
 
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Archidamus on November 21, 2011, 10:35:43 PM
"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.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: ~Sidereal on November 21, 2011, 10:44:40 PM
"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?
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Archidamus on November 21, 2011, 10:53:30 PM


[/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.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: ~Sidereal on November 21, 2011, 11:26:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Archidamus on November 23, 2011, 03:41:51 PM
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.    


Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: ~Sidereal on November 24, 2011, 12:39:26 AM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Cargést on November 24, 2011, 01:51:43 AM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: fallot on November 24, 2011, 06:34:24 AM
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?
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Eleison on November 24, 2011, 07:54:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: indjaseemun on November 24, 2011, 08:00:14 AM
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."
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Queequeg on November 24, 2011, 09:18:59 AM
He obviously should flee, lest a bear happen on the fool who slathered himself in honey and eat them both.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Grim Morrison on November 24, 2011, 10:34:48 AM
Only a bear? Not a whale then.

I see no wrong in empathy or compassion where required, which is not necessarily in every instance.

About Gandhi and whoever said he had no spirit: he had enough spirit to stick to his convictions, whether you personally agree with them or not, resist forces far beyond our knowledge for decades longer than you or I have lived on this benighted planet and bring about enormous, continent or even world-wide change through force of personal will alone. So, easy on the bullshit, however much you may disagree.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Queequeg on November 24, 2011, 07:25:54 PM
Only a bear? Not a whale then.

I forgot to mention, it was a whale-bear!

I never really liked Gandhi, I much prefer my Indian warriors to be Kukri wielding towers of death.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: scourge on November 26, 2011, 06:52:16 PM
Why would he need to provide scientific evidence to make a statement that begins with "I doubt"? If you're questioning the putridity of fast food, check this out:

He wasn't questioning the quality of the food but rather the argument that bad food causes poverty. More likely, the brick dumb are they who readily blow any income on trash that fails to serve anything but their most immediate impulses. The concept of investment and the impulse control required for implementing long term planning, which includes investing alternatively in a consistently quality diet rather than junk food, is forever lost to them, hence they remain poor.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Eleison on November 29, 2011, 11:11:03 PM
Why would he need to provide scientific evidence to make a statement that begins with "I doubt"? If you're questioning the putridity of fast food, check this out:

He wasn't questioning the quality of the food but rather the argument that bad food causes poverty. More likely, the brick dumb are they who readily blow any income on trash that fails to serve anything but their most immediate impulses. The concept of investment and the impulse control required for implementing long term planning, which includes investing alternatively in a consistently quality diet rather than junk food, is forever lost to them, hence they remain poor.

Exactly.  It's cheaper to live on a moderately healthy diet than junk food if you have enough basic intelligence to plan what you're going to eat.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: scourge on December 02, 2011, 07:56:19 PM
Kill them? Ah, but six billion carcasses are a vast resource. Options:

1. Cold storage fattest kills then dole out portions as needed for protein supplement
2. Mulch the rest into fertilizer toward global reforestation
3. Skulls, teeth and finger bones as valuable collector's items from the Cleansing Age
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Queequeg on December 02, 2011, 10:45:21 PM
Kill them? Ah, but six billion carcasses are a vast resource. Options:

1. Cold storage fattest kills then dole out portions as needed for protein supplement
2. Mulch the rest into fertilizer toward global reforestation
3. Skulls, teeth and finger bones as valuable collector's items from the Cleansing Age

Can we slowly starve a few of the fattest humans we find, but force them to wear their XXXL McDonald's shirts the entire time up until we bury their emaciated corpses in a mass grave?
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Conservationist on December 03, 2011, 09:25:23 AM
Compassion is a non-sequitur.

If you want to fix humanity:


1. Segregate the ethnic groups -- nationalism is a stronger principle than politics, which is all they have to unite them otherwise.
2.  IQ test everyone. Under-120s get shown the door. You now have 20% of your population (for Caucasians, about 25% for Asians and 5% for Negroes/Mexicans/South Asians/Arabs).
3. Abolish your police force.
4. Take your best people (health, intelligence, character) and make them
 (a) Knights who administer society
 (b) Covert spies who have no official role
5. The Knights run a noble society
6. The spies peer around and find the people of degraded character (criminals, perverts, liars, passive aggressives, bullies, thugs, jerks, creeps) and make them silently disappear.
7. Make a caste system by ability and make it hereditary to bring stability to society

Natural selection returns as does social balance.

The poor would mostly be eradicated under the under-120 rule. Your asshole politicians, bankers, etc. under rule 6. But not all of either group. You would preserve the best and throw out the rest.

The only reason society does not follow this path is the pretense of individuals. They don't want to be seen as socially offensive, not because of fear, but because they want to use idiots as their own stepping stones. Never mind that this is a self-defeating strategy, since it makes idiots essential.

Then again, after the purging above, very few of such dangerous idiots would exist.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Phoenix on December 04, 2011, 11:18:26 AM
Compassion is a non-sequitur.

If you want to fix humanity:


1. Segregate the ethnic groups -- nationalism is a stronger principle than politics, which is all they have to unite them otherwise.
2.  IQ test everyone. Under-120s get shown the door. You now have 20% of your population (for Caucasians, about 25% for Asians and 5% for Negroes/Mexicans/South Asians/Arabs).
3. Abolish your police force.
4. Take your best people (health, intelligence, character) and make them
 (a) Knights who administer society
 (b) Covert spies who have no official role
5. The Knights run a noble society
6. The spies peer around and find the people of degraded character (criminals, perverts, liars, passive aggressives, bullies, thugs, jerks, creeps) and make them silently disappear.
7. Make a caste system by ability and make it hereditary to bring stability to society

Natural selection returns as does social balance.

The poor would mostly be eradicated under the under-120 rule. Your asshole politicians, bankers, etc. under rule 6. But not all of either group. You would preserve the best and throw out the rest.

The only reason society does not follow this path is the pretense of individuals. They don't want to be seen as socially offensive, not because of fear, but because they want to use idiots as their own stepping stones. Never mind that this is a self-defeating strategy, since it makes idiots essential.

Then again, after the purging above, very few of such dangerous idiots would exist.

Why would you want to fix humanity if not out of compassion??

If you're talking about wanting to create an elite community, I think compassion is still at work if you want it out of a sense of brotherhood, on the other hand if deep down on some repressed level you're just fantasizing about ruling that community with an iron fist or proving yourself to that community, then congratulations you're totally self-centered.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: scourge on December 04, 2011, 11:27:44 AM
Having a sense of community is a nice side effect, not a goal. Ditto for other helpful false goal side effects like liberty and justice. Better people sustainably gets us all the beneficial side effects.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Phoenix on December 04, 2011, 11:46:20 AM
Having a sense of community is a nice side effect, not a goal. Ditto for other helpful false goal side effects like liberty and justice. Better people sustainably gets us all the beneficial side effects.

Wouldn't a sustainable civilization and planet benefit your grandchildren on the back of your blood, sweat and tears?
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Eleison on December 04, 2011, 06:06:40 PM
Compassion is a non-sequitur.

If you want to fix humanity:


1. Segregate the ethnic groups -- nationalism is a stronger principle than politics, which is all they have to unite them otherwise.
2.  IQ test everyone. Under-120s get shown the door. You now have 20% of your population (for Caucasians, about 25% for Asians and 5% for Negroes/Mexicans/South Asians/Arabs).
3. Abolish your police force.
4. Take your best people (health, intelligence, character) and make them
 (a) Knights who administer society
 (b) Covert spies who have no official role
5. The Knights run a noble society
6. The spies peer around and find the people of degraded character (criminals, perverts, liars, passive aggressives, bullies, thugs, jerks, creeps) and make them silently disappear.
7. Make a caste system by ability and make it hereditary to bring stability to society

Natural selection returns as does social balance.

The poor would mostly be eradicated under the under-120 rule. Your asshole politicians, bankers, etc. under rule 6. But not all of either group. You would preserve the best and throw out the rest.

The only reason society does not follow this path is the pretense of individuals. They don't want to be seen as socially offensive, not because of fear, but because they want to use idiots as their own stepping stones. Never mind that this is a self-defeating strategy, since it makes idiots essential.

Then again, after the purging above, very few of such dangerous idiots would exist.

Why would you want to fix humanity if not out of compassion??

Can you not conceive of any other motivation that a person might have?  Great works of art are created not out of compassion for wretched humanity, but by striving towards an ideal.

Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: ~Sidereal on December 04, 2011, 09:54:37 PM
Compassion is a non-sequitur.
...
The only reason society does not follow this path is the pretense of individuals. They don't want to be seen as socially offensive, not because of fear, but because they want to use idiots as their own stepping stones.

I think I'm going to go with Haidt, a scientist versed in modern psychology and cognitive science who offers a credible, empricially backed evolutionary by-product interpretation of compassion, as opposed to an armchar 'theory' which stems from some quasi nietzschean/psychoanaltic theory of slave morality.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Does compassion for others stem from a devoted cognitive module which evolved to respond to perceptions of kin suffering, where the suffering of non-kin members just happens, accidently, to meet the input criteria of this module and thereby activate it, producing something like 'empathy'? Or does compassion stem from a 120 year old theory of 'slave morality' given by a philosopher? Let nihilism inform your choice people.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Petrarca on December 04, 2011, 10:14:24 PM
Does compassion for others stem from a devoted cognitive module which evolved to respond to perceptions of kin suffering, where the suffering of non-kin members just happens, accidently, to meet the input criteria of this module and thereby activate it, producing something like 'empathy'?

When you describe empathy for non-kin members being the result of similar "input criteria", this leaves room to question whether or not these accidental correlations have the same intended benefit of the "evolutionary by-product interpretation of compassion" you mentioned. The way we respond to these "accidents" likely stems from social forces, thus appropriating a philosophical examination of the subject.

That being said, I would keep in mind how kinship ties differ in localized vs globalized communities, and how compassion is really only beneficial when it's sphere of influence doesn't extend beyond that which it can actually sustain / protect / serve.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: ~Sidereal on December 04, 2011, 10:54:49 PM
That being said, I would keep in mind how kinship ties differ in localized vs globalized communities, and how compassion is really only beneficial when it's sphere of influence doesn't extend beyond that which it can actually sustain / protect / serve.

For sure. Reflective cogniton can often modifly implicit processing with practice and under the right circumstances, such as eye-openining information on how futile compassion might be for poverty in africa, for instance. Or debunking information on the (evolutionary) source of compassion, etc.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Conservationist on December 05, 2011, 01:44:51 PM
Why would you want to fix humanity if not out of compassion??

Valid question.

My answer: opportunity.

We have a chance here to have a sentient species that explores the stars. There is no reason not to take advantage of that opportunity. It's a chance for beautiful, awesome, exciting, interesting and creative things to happen.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: scourge on July 19, 2012, 09:43:46 PM
There is no "the poor." There are varying income levels which correlate with the degree to which you have your shit together.

Generally true, but more true in a Wealth and IQ of Nations sense and less so when scale is reduced to demographics within nations. There are lots of young motivated Westerners struggling hard at this time in their lives and it isn't for a lack of competence.

Idea: support commodity futures speculation and corn to ethanol production. This is way more effective for targeted population reduction than abortion, birth control or console games. Plus the compulsive snivelers can't gasp at any particular person for being an unnice meany for making the world a far better place for future generations.

Quote
In 2008 and in 2011, the world was rocked by riots and by revolutions coinciding with spikes in food prices. Now researchers are projecting that by 2013, food prices will soar to unparalleled heights, causing widespread hunger in the most vulnerable populations and social unrest, with an enormous potential for loss of human life.

The computer modeling that generated the prediction of a food crisis was first published by the New England Complex Systems Institute in September. The modeling has gained considerable credibility by accurately predicting food prices over the last 10 months. The research indicates that the crucial factors behind food price increases are the conversion of corn crops to ethanol and investor speculation on the agricultural futures market.

“There are two policy decisions we’ve identified as key drivers,” said Yaneer Bar-Yam, president of the institute. “The first is the promotion of ethanol conversion, which provides the U.S. with less than 1 percent of its energy but has a much larger effect on global food availability.” The second is the deregulation of commodity markets by Congress’s Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, the report said.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/spike-in-food-prices-projected-by-2013/
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: hell on July 21, 2012, 12:19:55 PM
I bet you're South American.
Man bite your tongue...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-would not be better to kill the evil, that the disease
-kill millions of poor by 1 rich
-that it is the rich who crushes the poor
-is the rich who take away the poor study, and have better health?

I wonder, the suffering of those who are in the middle, between rich and poor, bear to hear the complaints of the poor and the abuses of the rich.

kill the politicians.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Perennial_Man on July 21, 2012, 06:03:12 PM
There are so many useless regulations to "help" the poor, I'd rather be left without any government intervention. Poor folk really need to be let go. Then chaos ensues as they freak over how they can't be fed directly by food stamps and such, and then the true weeding out and enrichment of the poor strata begins.

Our regulations to help poor people are set up that to benefit, you really must have nothing to your name, and these regulations in health care, food, and job industries do nothing to alleviate any problems.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: scourge on July 22, 2012, 07:02:25 PM
“In the improbable event that the heavens were to part and an angel were to task me with immediately eliminating half the global population, I’d halve the global IQ bell curve at its apex and sweep away everything to the left of it.”

http://takimag.com/article/if_the_world_is_overpopulated_who_should_die/
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: hell on July 23, 2012, 05:24:10 AM
sooner or later we all went on this list, when we get older and low IQ and senile?

is inevitable.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: scourge on January 12, 2014, 02:51:51 PM
Quote
Paul Gigot: This week on "The Journal Editorial Report," 50 years after Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty, President Obama says poverty is still winning, and he's pushing forward with more government solutions. But is there a better way? Some prominent conservatives are weighing in.

Quote
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.): The current government programs that are designed to address poverty--they help alleviate some of the pain of poverty, but they do not help people emerge from it. They do not help people rise above it. We have got to deal and with that and with opportunity and equality, not just income inequality. The president's got the wrong focus. 

Gigot: Joining the panel this week, Wall Street Journal Political Diary editor Jason Riley, assistant editorial page editor James Freeman and Washington columnist Kim Strassel.

Jason, let's first talk about the Democratic agenda and their focus on income inequality. They're people driving this right now as part of their election-year campaign theme. Why now?

Riley: I think a couple reasons, Paul. Obviously, the ObamaCare rollout has been such a disaster. It's what everyone's talking about. It's been driving down the president's approval rating, so they want to change the subject. But secondly, this is sort of an evergreen for the left--income inequality, class-warfare issues. They think it works for them. This is an effort to get back to something they're comfortable discussing in an election year. They think it will resonate with people in this economy. And that's another reasons they're doing it.

Gigot: But here's one of the downsides, I would assume anyway: They've been in charge for five years.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304549504579316990353870588?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304549504579316990353870588.html (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304549504579316990353870588?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304549504579316990353870588.html)
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: trystero on January 13, 2014, 02:22:26 AM
I bet you're South American.
Man bite your tongue...

The post he was responding to was satirical, made to annoy.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Hamhusu on January 16, 2014, 03:00:09 PM
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.

...

Kill the poor.

Never make an absolute move like that based on a moderate correlation. The point of being able to play mental simulations like this is that we can keep improving out levels of correlation until it becomes an effective causal relationship.

I'm sure the world would be better if the under "120s" just disappeared, but why is this? What is this magical quality of humans that we are trying to preserve, and what would be a better way to determine it?

Besides, it's not about money, it's about influence. Money helps you attain influence, but there are various other ways to it - some of them essentiall self-contained to a naive observer.

(And in an over-populated world, sometimes the best move for the whole is simply to not consume, i.e. to self-induce poorness. Such a subset of the population makes for good impact absorbtion any time a crisis comes close, and such a discriminatory move such as being poor = being inferior means to ignore this function of keeping the species moving in a crisis. But then, who wants to keep the species going anyway?)

Correlation becomes Causation when all Concepts are Cleared.

Think of it like this. An under 120 believes what they are told. An over 120 does not. If the under 120 dies out, then over 120 remains. People no longer do what they are told, and as the tellers have the power to destroy, and the lack of care to do it, without anyone for them to TELL to do it, who will do it? They're probably too lazy themselves.

Consumption leads to the expulsion of waste. But the garbage of one can be the treasure of another. Everything keeps cycling around. Things sort themselves out. When something feels it is going to die, whether that be an individual, a gene, anything that can do, every piece of preparation for that moment gets put into play.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Imposition on January 16, 2014, 05:10:45 PM
There are so many useless regulations to "help" the poor, I'd rather be left without any government intervention. Poor folk really need to be let go. Then chaos ensues as they freak over how they can't be fed directly by food stamps and such, and then the true weeding out and enrichment of the poor strata begins.

What happens when they hold you up in your car with a knife, or break into your home while your children sleep, perhaps raping one of them and/or stabbing them in a fit of panic?

Do you want to live in a South African type city, where it is unsafe to be anywhere unless it's behind large walls - an effective 'green zone'? Welfare exists not just for the benefit of the poor.

Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Imposition on January 16, 2014, 05:14:20 PM
There are varying income levels which correlate with the degree to which you have your shit together.

Many of us here probably earn less than your average tradesperson. If you are in academia, music, the arts, etc, you will earn less than many/most people, at least for a time. This generalisation is pure nonsense.

It also reflects a rather naive enlightement, blank-slate, view of human nature - where everyone starts on the same level playing field, and so if you end up with less than some other people you don't 'have your shit together'.

There are different starting points:

-Genes
-Environment

If you are born into a fucking terrible environment with alcoholic, drug-fucked parents, you are going to struggle. You are going to need welfare. More to the point, your parents will be the recipients of the welfare - but the welfare is for you.

Do we condemn you if you are born into a shit family, before you even have a chance to rise up? Or do people think that strong people are going to overcome the odds, no matter what point they begin from, and that welfare is thus redundant?

A way into this question might be to look at what environments people here were born into. If they are all pretty stable, moral, plentiful ones, then it might be worthwhile considering how things would have turned out had these environments been impoverished - at the fault of parents or not (i.e. place of birth, accidents, etc).
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Vigilance on January 17, 2014, 08:00:28 AM
There are so many useless regulations to "help" the poor, I'd rather be left without any government intervention. Poor folk really need to be let go. Then chaos ensues as they freak over how they can't be fed directly by food stamps and such, and then the true weeding out and enrichment of the poor strata begins.

What happens when they hold you up in your car with a knife, or break into your home while your children sleep, perhaps raping one of them and/or stabbing them in a fit of panic?

Do you want to live in a South African type city, where it is unsafe to be anywhere unless it's behind large walls - an effective 'green zone'? Welfare exists not just for the benefit of the poor.

All empires gradually impoverish their citizens, it's simply the nature of the business. Considering we are on the decline, these polemic arguments are not applicable because, by any honest measure, the amount of options one has is contracting year by year.

There's also the blank faced, wide eyed, mimicking of baby boomer propaganda that says hard work and a career will bring you success. If one does not follow their pattern, one is a lazy slacker. Almost no consideration is made towards the conditions that allowed the boomers to attend universities and find well paying work. Further, there is the high tendency to become nonsensically reactionary against liberalism, or that which is perceived as liberalism. The answer to one extreme is not always the other as demonstrated by you in this post.

I'm not interested in propping up our society, but I'm not interested in watching it devolve into a third world crime den either. There has to be a constructive option.

Edit: I didn't mean to implicate you, imposition, of using polemics. That was intended for most of what was being entertained in this thread.

Editing the Edit:

It's far too common place to discuss human beings without grounding that discussion in real world conditions and cultural context.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: istaros on January 19, 2014, 09:27:18 PM
What happens when they hold you up in your car with a knife, or break into your home while your children sleep, perhaps raping one of them and/or stabbing them in a fit of panic?

Do you want to live in a South African type city, where it is unsafe to be anywhere unless it's behind large walls - an effective 'green zone'? Welfare exists not just for the benefit of the poor.

How on earth could someone use a knife to hold you up, especially if you're in a car? I understand most people aren't familiar with real violence, so perhaps simply calling a tool "weapon" makes it suddenly terrifying. Other than that, I can't understand giving in to anyone who tries to threaten with something as manageable as a knife.

Anyway, the answer to your "what to do" question is obvious. You kill them. With bullets. Was that a real question or have I been trolled?

You could also pay someone else to do this for you, if you find blood to be a bit too icky. Same difference. Alternately, if you're more into purity than pragmatism, you could start a cult whose members swear blood oaths to you or whatever.

As to the second part, that issue could be resolved just as easily with slavery as it could with welfare. Why not enslave, imprison, or otherwise punish the poor into absolute compliance?
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Imposition on January 20, 2014, 02:59:21 AM
What happens when they hold you up in your car with a knife, or break into your home while your children sleep, perhaps raping one of them and/or stabbing them in a fit of panic?

Do you want to live in a South African type city, where it is unsafe to be anywhere unless it's behind large walls - an effective 'green zone'? Welfare exists not just for the benefit of the poor.

How on earth could someone use a knife to hold you up, especially if you're in a car? I understand most people aren't familiar with real violence, so perhaps simply calling a tool "weapon" makes it suddenly terrifying. Other than that, I can't understand giving in to anyone who tries to threaten with something as manageable as a knife.

Anyway, the answer to your "what to do" question is obvious. You kill them. With bullets. Was that a real question or have I been trolled?

You could also pay someone else to do this for you, if you find blood to be a bit too icky. Same difference. Alternately, if you're more into purity than pragmatism, you could start a cult whose members swear blood oaths to you or whatever.

As to the second part, that issue could be resolved just as easily with slavery as it could with welfare. Why not enslave, imprison, or otherwise punish the poor into absolute compliance?

Begin incredulous stare
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Vigilance on January 20, 2014, 09:16:11 AM
How does one measure "the poor" in times of decline?
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Wild on January 20, 2014, 10:18:31 AM
Great response to Rawls' representatives in this thread istaros.  :)

Are Vigilance and Imposition personas of one person? Often, their views are slightly different but the method of discourse is identical.

This forum is like an onion.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Vigilance on January 20, 2014, 12:45:25 PM
I had to look up Rawls. I'm interested where you think anything I've stated lines up with his positions?
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Wild on January 20, 2014, 01:30:29 PM
The trajectory of your response to Imposition's statement (which was direct Rawls) pushes in a similar direction.

The real problem is the tendency to excuse an individual's inability to earn an income as being a problem outside of the individual's control that can (or should) be corrected by others.

Some people are not functional enough to earn an income.
Some people are functional enough, but choose not to for various personal reasons/drama.

They do not "have their shit together", to quote Conservationist.
They will earn less than those who do.

Some jobs pay more than others - usually due to the amount of work it takes to perform it.

None of the above is a problem that needs fixing.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Vigilance on January 20, 2014, 01:52:26 PM
The trajectory of your response to Imposition's statement (which was direct Rawls) pushes in a similar direction.

The real problem is the tendency to excuse an individual's inability to earn an income as being a problem outside of the individual's control that can (or should) be corrected by others.

Some people are not functional enough to earn an income.
Some people are functional enough, but choose not to for various personal reasons/drama.

They do not "have their shit together", to quote Conservationist.
They will earn less than those who do.

Some jobs pay more than others - usually due to the amount of work it takes to perform it.

None of the above is a problem that needs fixing.

This whole abstraction deals with a time period decades old.

The opportunities to earn an income contract steadily in declining societies who overshot their resource base. Demand does not create supply. The desire to succeed does not conjure up from thin air, the resources needed to be successful.

My question is, given the reality of the world before us, how is one to determine the wheat from the chaff when the yardstick (income) is no longer applicable?

If you took that as some call for fairness, egalitarianism or god knows what else, well, I don't really know what to tell you.

Ironically, the people who have their shit together are bucking this decades old ideology and running to the hills for more sustainable, decentralized household economies/homesteading. Though by the measures of income, they rank as being the poorest of the poor.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Wild on January 20, 2014, 01:58:15 PM
Quote
My question is, given the reality of the world before us, how is one to determine the wheat from the chaff when the yardstick (income) is no longer applicable?

In some ways, the yardstick is more potent than it was before - each level of income now requires a higher level of "having shit together"-ness.


Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Vigilance on January 20, 2014, 02:01:42 PM
Quote
My question is, given the reality of the world before us, how is one to determine the wheat from the chaff when the yardstick (income) is no longer applicable?

In some ways, the yardstick is more potent than it was before - each level of income now requires a higher level of "having shit together"-ness.

I included an edit and the last paragraph directly deals with this. Right now, the people you would be measuring and giving a pass to would be the ones maladapted to reality, as it is and where it is heading.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Imposition on January 20, 2014, 10:01:42 PM
The real problem is the tendency to excuse an individual's inability to earn an income as being a problem outside of the individual's control that can (or should) be corrected by others.

Another incredulous stare.

Are you suggesting, as I think you are, that each of these two scenarios differ only in factors INSIDE the control of the individual?

FIRST SCENARIO

a) Child born of poor parents, in poor neighborhood, access to lesser quality schools, surrounded by peers who are into rap music, smoking weed, less high school achievement, lack of university education, less income

b) Child born of wealthy parents, in a neighborhood of high fences, pools, tennis courts, access to elite private schools, surrounded by peers who come from like minded families who value education, peer competitiveness at school - on the bus, in study groups, after school, higher high school achievement, access to ivy league university education, MORE INCOME. 

SECOND SCENARIO

a) Child born inherits genes for -90 IQ

b) Child born inherits genes for +130 IQ

Formidable!

Intervene to change the situation - for a single hypothetical child (imagine this could be done, do a 'thought experiment') - from a) in either scenario to b), and you would raise that child's income, holding other factors constant. In other words the move from a) to b), all else being equal, CAUSES income level.

The point: Well, since whether a) and b) pertains isn't (for the most part) under the child's control, and since whether a) or b) pertains causes income level for some particular individual child, the income level that some particular person ends up earning is in large part not under their control!

This isn't to jettison personal responsibility. This is to suggest that it's pretty fucking obvious that personal responsibility operates within certain strong limits.

It's also to suggest that the causal factors are significant on a population level. Some individual born in sub human conditions might be wired such that he rises up and becomes the president. But on a statistical/population level, your chances of earning a high wage if you are born in, say, Africa, are greatly reduced than if you are born in Oxford; through no fault of your own (unless, that is, you hold people responsible for where they are born, which is absurd!).

So, if you want to 'kill to poor', then in many many instances you will be holding people responsible for elements outside their control, which is a strange sense of justice, in my opinion. (Then again, maybe you just don't value justice - which is as it is, but in this case we will simply be talking past each other).
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Wild on January 21, 2014, 02:51:18 AM
Quote
My question is, given the reality of the world before us, how is one to determine the wheat from the chaff when the yardstick (income) is no longer applicable?

In some ways, the yardstick is more potent than it was before - each level of income now requires a higher level of "having shit together"-ness.

I included an edit and the last paragraph directly deals with this. Right now, the people you would be measuring and giving a pass to would be the ones maladapted to reality, as it is and where it is heading.

There is a distinction between those too dysfunctional to earn an income and those who choose to leave the modern economic system behind. This thread was referring to the first group.

Even referring to the latter, the principle remains the same: those who are able to consistently deal with problems and put in enough work will do better than those who don't.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Wild on January 21, 2014, 03:01:33 AM
Quote
Are you suggesting, as I think you are, that each of these two scenarios differ only in factors INSIDE the control of the individual?

No. That's your straw man.

The central part was this: no-one should be obligated to ensure that fairness is absolute. Life is unfair. Deal with it.

Quote
So, if you want to 'kill to poor', then in many many instances you will be holding people responsible for elements outside their control

EVEN WITH WELFARE I COULDN'T SUCCEED BECAUSE MY MOTHER NEVER TUCKED ME IN AT NIGHT. THIS CAUSED A LIFETIME OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS THAT I COULDN'T OVERCOME PLEASE DON'T KILL ME!!!!
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Imposition on January 21, 2014, 04:29:15 AM
Quote
Are you suggesting, as I think you are, that each of these two scenarios differ only in factors INSIDE the control of the individual?

No. That's your straw man.

The central part was this: no-one should be obligated to ensure that fairness is absolute. Life is unfair. Deal with it.

Thank you, Hemmingway. Perhaps I will go and cut some wood, so that I feel more manly, rough and ready in the face of rugged reality. It's the last I can do after all my denial of the Word ("life is unfair"), right?

I would think a society geared towards absolute fairness, or equality, would be hideous. I'm talking about a bit more sensitivity to equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome.

Even the former is not absolute. I was simply trying to bring some balance to your views.

A society that allows its best to rise, and provides the conditions under which this can occur, is going to prosper over one that doesn't more often than not, I would have thought.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Vigilance on January 21, 2014, 07:35:41 AM
Quote
My question is, given the reality of the world before us, how is one to determine the wheat from the chaff when the yardstick (income) is no longer applicable?

In some ways, the yardstick is more potent than it was before - each level of income now requires a higher level of "having shit together"-ness.

I included an edit and the last paragraph directly deals with this. Right now, the people you would be measuring and giving a pass to would be the ones maladapted to reality, as it is and where it is heading.

There is a distinction between those too dysfunctional to earn an income and those who choose to leave the modern economic system behind.This thread was referring to the first group.

Even referring to the latter, the principle remains the same: those who are able to consistently deal with problems and put in enough work will do better than those who don't.

Yes, but how do you make the distinction between the actual poor, the adapting and the functional-but-caught-off-guard? Income is not an accurate measure of dysfunction these days.

 It's worth mentioning that those sitting at the top of the income scale are largely engaged in shuffling around paper to maintain the illusion of wealth based on invalid presuppositions of the nature of growth.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Time Curator 23 on March 02, 2014, 12:50:41 AM
Quote
Compassion is a non-sequitur.

If you want to fix humanity:


1. Segregate the ethnic groups -- nationalism is a stronger principle than politics, which is all they have to unite them otherwise.
2.  IQ test everyone. Under-120s get shown the door. You now have 20% of your population (for Caucasians, about 25% for Asians and 5% for Negroes/Mexicans/South Asians/Arabs).
3. Abolish your police force.
4. Take your best people (health, intelligence, character) and make them
 (a) Knights who administer society
 (b) Covert spies who have no official role
5. The Knights run a noble society
6. The spies peer around and find the people of degraded character (criminals, perverts, liars, passive aggressives, bullies, thugs, jerks, creeps) and make them silently disappear.
7. Make a caste system by ability and make it hereditary to bring stability to society

Natural selection returns as does social balance.

The poor would mostly be eradicated under the under-120 rule. Your asshole politicians, bankers, etc. under rule 6. But not all of either group. You would preserve the best and throw out the rest.

The only reason society does not follow this path is the pretense of individuals. They don't want to be seen as socially offensive, not because of fear, but because they want to use idiots as their own stepping stones. Never mind that this is a self-defeating strategy, since it makes idiots essential.

Then again, after the purging above, very few of such dangerous idiots would exist.

Hey Conservationist,

Yeah, you too kontinual,

What's up? I'm your type b covert spy.

You're a criminal because you promote mass murder. You've been targeted for "silent disappearance".

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: scourge on March 31, 2014, 08:55:38 PM
Many of these poor are just thieves. They go to voting stations in droves and always elect candidates who falsely claim it is moral to steal resources from stable working families for poor people and their useless social programs. Compulsory donations from everyone's paycheck is theft not charity and theft is something that any moral society would punish. That's the lesser evil.

The greater evil is the devaluation of the currency from decades of cramming money into the war on poverty gopher hole. Infrastructure, emergency services, airports, national defense, research and development, environmental conservation, schools and the very cost of food are all pressured because of this useless, wicked burden. Rich, middle and poor alike are all worse off from the pity based ill logic that is murdering civilization.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Imposition on March 31, 2014, 10:01:28 PM
Many of these poor are just thieves. They go to voting stations in droves and always elect candidates who falsely claim it is moral to steal resources from stable working families for poor people and their useless social programs.

Your claim that the cause of social welfare is the mass movement of poor people to the polls such that parties that do not give out welfare cease to get into office is amazing.

I would vote for a party that had social welfare programs over those that don't. Why? Because it means poor people will not come into my fucking home with a hunting knife wanting my computer. People like a (certain) safety net, so that our towns and cities don't turn into some Johannesburg slum. For christ's sake.

Moral: it's not just poor people who vote for social welfare. It's people who have some (realistic) idea of social realities.


Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: crow on March 31, 2014, 10:16:33 PM
Good point. Maybe computer owners need to also have bear traps and even bigger hunting knives.
It would still be far less expensive than welfare programs, and would involve the fat-cat computer owners in actively looking after their own shit.
Bit of mayhem, initially, but after the scheme finds its own level...


Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: scourge on March 31, 2014, 11:35:34 PM
Good thing we have safety nets no matter the cost because now there are no car jackings, drug dealings, ransomings or home invasions. You right wingers were starting to scare me there. Beats the pre-modern time when there wasn't a welfare system as such and crime was just rampant. True story.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Imposition on March 31, 2014, 11:45:54 PM
Are you suggesting there is more crime and insecurity (per capita) in Western societies today than in the pre-modern era?!
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Wild on April 01, 2014, 03:53:40 AM
It's possible to think otherwise?
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Dylar on April 01, 2014, 04:56:49 AM
It's possible to think otherwise?

It's not only possible to think, but to know otherwise.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: Imposition on April 01, 2014, 04:58:19 AM
My immediate intuition is indeed to think otherwise. But I admit it is just a snap judgement.

however:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/03/arts/did-knives-forks-cut-murders-counting-backward-historians-resurrect-crime.html
https://soci.ucalgary.ca/brannigan/sites/soci.ucalgary.ca.brannigan/files/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf

are the first two google returns from the query 'has crime decreased since the middle ages?'

Also, you're thinking might be different if you live in America, which is known for much higher crime rates and personal insecurity than other western societies.
Title: Re: "The poor": kill them
Post by: scourge on April 04, 2014, 10:35:49 PM
Don't the US, France and several other countries have a no capitulation doctrine when it comes to coercion through terrorism? No, public officials, soldiers and the innocent citizen bystander alike are all expected to stand firm in the face of terror. Any terrorists are then hunted down, jailed or killed.

So why is it okay for the collective poor to hold others hostage with the threat of an increase in robbery and violence if concessions aren't constantly delivered? That's morally a double standard and a choice of vastly greater evil because the poor terrorize with exponentially greater frequency than any international terrorist. In a word, cowardice describes contemporary Western society. Another descriptive term is morally pretentious.

We're not interested in the good or the true. We're interested in telling the world we're good while really just keeping our own asses safe if owned by the underman horde because the risk is just too great to do otherwise.