Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Who is a "parasite"?

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby Pretorian » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 10:35:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', '.') In any event, race has little to do with it, because the genetic attributes that determine a successful human being are distributed out through all people in a fairly uniform fashion irrespective of race.



Of course, but that definition of successful human being you use won't include any mathematician or scientist in general of any kind.
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4685
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby vision-master » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 10:41:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'I') read some genetic research suggesting 98% of the variety in the genome is still within the confines of Africa; this would suggest before it all ends we ought to bring an African into the family.


Native Americans.
The idea 'they' crossed the Bering Strait is not correct.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
Why do American Indians get so mad when you say their ancestors migrated across the Bering land bridge from Asia?

Well, there are several reasons. First of all, that contradicts the religious tradition of many native peoples, which claim we have always been here. Surely you know some white people who claim that the earth can't be thousands of years old because it conflicts with the Bible. It is the same principle--except that the Christian fundamentalists get a lot of attention and even nice mentions in textbooks, whereas the Indians are ignored. That gives them an extra reason to be mad.
vision-master
 

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 11:25:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '[')b]Native Americans.
The idea 'they' crossed the Bering Strait is not correct.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
Why do American Indians get so mad when you say their ancestors migrated across the Bering land bridge from Asia?

Well, there are several reasons. First of all, that contradicts the religious tradition of many native peoples, which claim we have always been here. Surely you know some white people who claim that the earth can't be thousands of years old because it conflicts with the Bible. It is the same principle--except that the Christian fundamentalists get a lot of attention and even nice mentions in textbooks, whereas the Indians are ignored. That gives them an extra reason to be mad.

I saw a program, ohhh... three or four years ago maybe. Something on Discovery Channel, or maybe PBS, I don't recall exactly. Anyway, it was looking at some new evidence indicating that the earliest residents of the Americas may actually have migrated across the Atlantic from Europe, following the edge of the ice sheet in boats during the last Ice Age. Predated even the so-called Clovis culture if I recall, and I also seem to remember that there was some genetic evidence as well, in that there is a very small portion of modern Amerindian people who carry genetic markers that are also found in a small number of Europeans, but not found in any of the groups shown to have followed the Pacific route or in populations of Eastern Asia and Siberia.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 11:28:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'I')ts $60/hour, not $75 except in some cases where I will work semi-private lessons :-) And its NOT Arithmetic. And to be honest, I won't even offer this to most children, only a very few. For what I teach to them, only a very few are even capable of learning it, so I make a selection, on the order of 1 in 1000 children. I cannot save them all, and so I pick the ones I CAN save, and I put all my energy in that direction. Rather than pick who to die, I pick some to give the tools to LIVE to. Honest truth, I leave some to twist in the wind, because I cannot save them all.

I have been doing this for close to 30 years now. What I teach only a very few children can learn and so I have to make choices all the time as to who will get the opportunity and who will not. In the world as it was, this wasn't a life or death choice. In the world that is to come, it might very well be. In any event, race has little to do with it, because the genetic attributes that determine a successful human being are distributed out through all people in a fairly uniform fashion irrespective of race. Opportunity has much more impact on what the potential might be for a given child.

Wait a minute. You're being 'selective'?

You... you... EVIL EUGENICIST!!!!
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 16:40:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'W')ait a minute. You're being 'selective'?

You... you... EVIL EUGENICIST!!!!


Whenever you select out kids for a gifted program, its eugenics of a sort. However, the difference lies in how selection is approached.

In the eugenics of the sort being discussed here, you are selecting who is to DIE. In selection of the gifted, you are picking out those you will help LIVE. You can think of it like a lifeboat with only so much room. You don't actively push people OFF the lifeboat, but you pick who gets ON the lifeboat.

If you own a Doomstead and choose to allow a few friends or relatives to join you, then you are practicing Eugenics of this sort also. You aren't actively going out and shooting Zombies, but you aren't helping keep them alive either. You only are helping those you CHOOSE to help.

You don't have to make your selection process a negative one choosing who goes to the Gas Chambers. You can instead make your selection process of who you will choose to HELP. You CANNOT save them ALL. You can only Save as Many as You Can.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 18:51:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'W')henever you select out kids for a gifted program, its eugenics of a sort. However, the difference lies in how selection is approached.

In the eugenics of the sort being discussed here, you are selecting who is to DIE. In selection of the gifted, you are picking out those you will help LIVE. You can think of it like a lifeboat with only so much room. You don't actively push people OFF the lifeboat, but you pick who gets ON the lifeboat.

If you own a Doomstead and choose to allow a few friends or relatives to join you, then you are practicing Eugenics of this sort also. You aren't actively going out and shooting Zombies, but you aren't helping keep them alive either. You only are helping those you CHOOSE to help.

You don't have to make your selection process a negative one choosing who goes to the Gas Chambers. You can instead make your selection process of who you will choose to HELP. You CANNOT save them ALL. You can only Save as Many as You Can.

Ehhhhh... toe-MAY-toe, toe-MAH-toe, I think. Selecting who you will help live is still a proxy form of selecting who will die, or at least who is more likely to die. One approach is simply more covert, while the other is more honest. And as far as eugenics is concerned, I seem to recall from the definition SG posted earlier that the term also embraces things such as prevention of conception/discouragement of reproduction, which could be practiced through something as simple as financial incentive. No need for forcing anything...
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby Pretorian » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 19:07:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'W')henever you select out kids for a gifted program, its eugenics of a sort. However, the difference lies in how selection is approached.

In the eugenics of the sort being discussed here, you are selecting who is to DIE. In selection of the gifted, you are picking out those you will help LIVE. You can think of it like a lifeboat with only so much room. You don't actively push people OFF the lifeboat, but you pick who gets ON the lifeboat.

If you own a Doomstead and choose to allow a few friends or relatives to join you, then you are practicing Eugenics of this sort also. You aren't actively going out and shooting Zombies, but you aren't helping keep them alive either. You only are helping those you CHOOSE to help.

You don't have to make your selection process a negative one choosing who goes to the Gas Chambers. You can instead make your selection process of who you will choose to HELP. You CANNOT save them ALL. You can only Save as Many as You Can.

Ehhhhh... toe-MAY-toe, toe-MAH-toe, I think. Selecting who you will help live is still a proxy form of selecting who will die, or at least who is more likely to die. One approach is simply more covert, while the other is more honest.


I was about to say the same thing. What a hypocrat!
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4685
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby davep » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 19:15:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'W')henever you select out kids for a gifted program, its eugenics of a sort. However, the difference lies in how selection is approached.

In the eugenics of the sort being discussed here, you are selecting who is to DIE. In selection of the gifted, you are picking out those you will help LIVE. You can think of it like a lifeboat with only so much room. You don't actively push people OFF the lifeboat, but you pick who gets ON the lifeboat.

If you own a Doomstead and choose to allow a few friends or relatives to join you, then you are practicing Eugenics of this sort also. You aren't actively going out and shooting Zombies, but you aren't helping keep them alive either. You only are helping those you CHOOSE to help.

You don't have to make your selection process a negative one choosing who goes to the Gas Chambers. You can instead make your selection process of who you will choose to HELP. You CANNOT save them ALL. You can only Save as Many as You Can.

Ehhhhh... toe-MAY-toe, toe-MAH-toe, I think. Selecting who you will help live is still a proxy form of selecting who will die, or at least who is more likely to die. One approach is simply more covert, while the other is more honest.


I was about to say the same thing. What a hypocrat!


Not at all. One requires you make a positive effort to help who you can. The other requires you make a positive effort to kill people. If you think they're morally equivalent, you have big problems.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 19:22:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'N')ot at all. One requires you make a positive effort to help who you can. The other requires you make a positive effort to kill people. If you think they're morally equivalent, you have big problems.

I disagree. Death through neglect is every bit as dead as death through intent. Your argument is essentially the same justification that exists in the mind of all who benefit from capitalist exploitation while sadly shaking their heads about starving third-worlders, conveniently ignoring the fact that their ease is at the third-worlders' expense. "Wellllll... whaddaya gonna do? Ya can't save everybody. Guess we'll just save ourselves... "

You're right however that they're not morally equivalent. Honesty is considerably more moral imo...
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby davep » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 19:33:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'N')ot at all. One requires you make a positive effort to help who you can. The other requires you make a positive effort to kill people. If you think they're morally equivalent, you have big problems.

I disagree. Death through neglect is every bit as dead as death through intent. Your argument is essentially the same justification that exists in the mind of all who benefit from capitalist exploitation while sadly shaking their heads about starving third-worlders, conveniently ignoring the fact that their ease is at the third-worlders' expense. "Wellllll... whaddaya gonna do? Ya can't save everybody. Guess we'll just save ourselves... "

You're right however that they're not morally equivalent. Honesty is considerably more moral imo...


We're hardwired to protect our family. That's always number one. Then there's your friends and neighbours.

I can see a future whereby agricultural work will become far more manually intensive. It would then become a question of placing displaced people onto farms where they can be of use (or the fit ones can).

So, although we would be looking after our own first, there could be a system whereby the displaced get absorbed into rural life as the oil-fuelled agricultural economy comes to an end.

You would need to integrate such practices into a political whole. I like to think of autonomous anarchist towns as being the idal model, with co-operation between each town. There would be a lot of work required. As individuals, I guess all we can do now is prepare the land for this future. Guess what, I'm trying that, planting lots of chestnuts, walnuts and fruit trees etc, stocking heirloom seeds.

So cut the bullshit with your talk about honesty. You need to be active to prepare for the future, not some keyboard warrior with a fixation on doing other people in.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 19:37:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'N')ot at all. One requires you make a positive effort to help who you can. The other requires you make a positive effort to kill people. If you think they're morally equivalent, you have big problems.

I disagree. Death through neglect is every bit as dead as death through intent. Your argument is essentially the same justification that exists in the mind of all who benefit from capitalist exploitation while sadly shaking their heads about starving third-worlders, conveniently ignoring the fact that their ease is at the third-worlders' expense. "Wellllll... whaddaya gonna do? Ya can't save everybody. Guess we'll just save ourselves... "

You're right however that they're not morally equivalent. Honesty is considerably more moral imo...


That is absurd. You are making the argument that the sin of omission is morally equivalent to the sin of commision. Is a Lifeguard who doesn't go out to save a drowning man equally guilty to someone who holds a person's head under water until he drowns? Is a Fireman who does not go in to pull someone out of a Burning Building equally guilty to the Arsonist who set the Fire? You appear to advocate for setting fires and roasting the parasites. I act like a fireman and pull a few people OUT of the fire. Its NOT morally equivalent.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby Ferretlover » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 19:42:40

Everybody is going to die sooner or later. Period. Some will go by themselves, and some will have help.
And, as evidenced by the differing opinions in this thread, there is no clear definition of a societal parasite; each different group will develop its own criteria for those who will not receive the kind of help for which they were hoping, but instead receive the "help" they were/are trying to avoid.
"Open the gates of hell!" ~Morgan Freeman's character in the movie, Olympus Has Fallen.
Ferretlover
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 5852
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Hundreds of miles further inland

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 20:33:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'Y')ou are making the argument that the sin of omission is morally equivalent to the sin of commision.

Not precisely. The sin is willing omission. And yes, both the Lifeguard and the Fireman who willingly refrains from the attempt are equally guilty. They are bound by the code of their profession which holds their preference subordinate to the lives they are sworn to protect. They may not save everyone, but they are expected to make the attempt, and they are rightly held to account if they do not.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 20:43:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '
')So cut the bullshit with your talk about honesty. You need to be active to prepare for the future, not some keyboard warrior with a fixation on doing other people in.



TWilliam said he was not advocating killing anyone against their will. Why are people talking about "selecting who is to die" if the euthanasia is voluntary? Those being killed voluntarily are doing the selecting, if I understand TWilliam correctly.

What do YOU think, dave?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby davep » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 20:58:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '
')So cut the bullshit with your talk about honesty. You need to be active to prepare for the future, not some keyboard warrior with a fixation on doing other people in.



TWilliam said he was not advocating killing anyone against their will. Why are people talking about "selecting who is to die" if the euthanasia is voluntary? Those being killed voluntarily are doing the selecting, if I understand TWilliam correctly.

What do YOU think, dave?


I think TWilliam is saying he's not advocating killing people because he doesn't want a CoC violation. It's mere weasel-words.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 21:05:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '
')I think TWilliam is saying he's not advocating killing people because he doesn't want a CoC violation. It's mere weasel-words.



Thank you.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 21:43:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'Y')ou are making the argument that the sin of omission is morally equivalent to the sin of commission.

Not precisely. The sin is willing omission. And yes, both the Lifeguard and the Fireman who willingly refrains from the attempt are equally guilty. They are bound by the code of their profession which holds their preference subordinate to the lives they are sworn to protect. They may not save everyone, but they are expected to make the attempt, and they are rightly held to account if they do not.



In every country in the world, killing an unwilling person for anything other than punishment for a serious crime (eg. some States will accept extra judicial killing in tribal groups) is defined as murder or manslaughter; depending on the intent. Where the intent is manifest in the form of a planned execution; this is invariably classed as murder.

Failing to do ones duty as sworn in a profession; is at worst a sacking offense. (unless you are an Iraqi footballer).
The lifeguard or fireman may never be employed in these professions again; but that is about it. In civilized countries s/he would get to argue that he couldn't, it was too late, call for witnesses to back his/ her story before the coroner. Only in the most serious and blatant disregard of duty would such a professional suffer further punishment than professional ostracism.

Most countries in the world class murder as an abhorrent crime punishable by death or life imprisonment.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 22:45:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')William said he was not advocating killing anyone against their will. Why are people talking about "selecting who is to die" if the euthanasia is voluntary?

Because people tend to interpret what others say through their own biases Ludi.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'I') think TWilliam is saying he's not advocating killing people because he doesn't want a CoC violation. It's mere weasel-words.

You're welcome to think that, davep. Doesn't make it so however...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'I')n every country in the world, killing an unwilling person for anything other than punishment for a serious crime (eg. some States will accept extra judicial killing in tribal groups) is defined as murder or manslaughter; depending on the intent. Where the intent is manifest in the form of a planned execution; this is invariably classed as murder.

Failing to do ones duty as sworn in a profession; is at worst a sacking offense. (unless you are an Iraqi footballer).
The lifeguard or fireman may never be employed in these professions again; but that is about it. In civilized countries s/he would get to argue that he couldn't, it was too late, call for witnesses to back his/ her story before the coroner. Only in the most serious and blatant disregard of duty would such a professional suffer further punishment than professional ostracism.

Most countries in the world class murder as an abhorrent crime punishable by death or life imprisonment.


I'm not speaking of the legality or illegality of it. Plenty of morally reprehensible things are sanctioned by the law, or at least ignored by it. And there are more than a few things that are prohibited by it that are at least morally neutral.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Mon 09 Mar 2009, 23:11:00

I'm not speaking of the legality or illegality of it. Plenty of morally reprehensible things are sanctioned by the law, or at least ignored by it. And there are more than a few things that are prohibited by it that are at least morally neutral.[/quote]


If not then what is the point in the discussion?
I see these laws as reflecting the common perception of wrongdoing.
We are not here talking about bureaucratic red tape type law but life and death. Confusing the two is likening them; just another form of doublespeak.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 00:04:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'I')f not then what is the point in the discussion?
I see these laws as reflecting the common perception of wrongdoing.
We are not here talking about bureaucratic red tape type law but life and death. Confusing the two is likening them; just another form of doublespeak.

The point of the discussion is to examine these issues without retreating into relying on their legal status as a means of stifling the discussion itself.

'Law' is little more than codified custom, and as such it is not some kind of absolute standard. My interest in starting this thread was to examine the underlying beliefs and ideas, the customs, modes of thinking and such, that underpin the laws themselves with regard to some of these issues.

Why do we find it culturally acceptable, for example, for elders to rot away on life support as long as possible, denying them a quick and painless death, and yet equally acceptable to practice genocide elsewhere simply because we wish to exploit a peoples' resources? Why do we demonize attempts to strengthen the gene pool, when Nature herself demands such strengthening in all other species? Why do we excuse dereliction of duty that results in death with little more than a wrist-slap? What are the cultural rationales for some of these seeming contradictions? Are they even rational? What if they're not? What might be some rational alternatives?

These are some of the sorts of questions I had hoped to see addressed here. I'm already aware of what's legal and what isn't; that's not the point. The point is to examine why certain actions in this particular sphere are illegal, why others are not, and to try and discern whether or not the rationales that determine which are which remain viable in the face of the changing world we now face.

The point was simply discussion, not emotional mud-slinging. That is, after all, what a discussion forum is for, is it not?
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests