... How fortunate for David that I am loath to trouble the list owner with troll reports. ... This, from the proponent of state capitalism... ... We --Message 1 of 111 , Nov 14, 2012View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> @WaltoI don't know why you are continuing to engage with this extremist mediocrity Langston.How fortunate for David that I am loath to trouble the list owner with troll reports.
> He has upped the delusional rhetoric to fascist levels.This, from the proponent of state capitalism...
> His idea of beneficial human outcomes is "Reproductive success, persisting after competitors have become extinct."And he means extinct literally.We -- including our capacity for moral reasoning and thinking in terms of rights -- are products of evolution. Evolution runs on death and extinction. Almost certainly, one reason we are here is that some of our ancestors deliberately exterminated competitors. 150 years after "The Origin of Species," some people still can't deal with that.
> He concludes with a ringing declaration of the Hitlerite objective of breeding a large army to prevail by military attrition over the enemy!This is David's familiar territory: a bald fabrication about what I have plainly written.
> It is clear from this that his right to free-of- land-tax propertyDavid again chooses to fabricate a false allegation about what I have plainly written rather than to quote me. I have been at pains on several occasions to specify, explicitly, that it is free USE of land, not free PROPERTY in land, to which every resident citizen is equally entitled. The UIE applies equally to tenants and landholders alike.
> is aimed at directing state aid to large families who thus have loyalty to their genetically determined society ("every human society consists of human beings who have a specific biological nature in common")That is yet another fabrication on David's part. I said nothing about society being "genetically determined." I was at pains to state that one reason rights arose was that genetic evolution can't keep up with cultural much less technological evolution.
> which is in endless conflict with everybody else on the planet and needs industrial/cannon fodder.Another bizarre fabrication. Matters have unfortunately reached a stage where it is safe to assume that unless it is accompanied by a direct, verbatim, in-context quote, anything David claims I have said is an outright fabrication on his part.
> I know you do not hold linguistic philosophies in high esteemThat would be me.
> but your insensitivity to what is going on and what he is actually saying is ridiculous. (see Max Frisch "The Fire Raisers")(New para) I am not staying on this site to be assailed by this fascist bullshit (it is not even pseudo- or quasi- fascist bullshit) while so-called intelligent people smile indulgently . I advise you to get out while you can, too."While you can"???
-- Roy Langston
JDK, Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the fittest just describes those who have survived. With regard to your last sentence –Message 111 of 111 , Nov 23, 2012View SourceJDK,Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the "fittest" just describes those who have survived.With regard to your last sentence – Stalin got there first.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:Evolution is not really: the survival of the "fittest" It is just survival of that which survives. Evolution is a way of describing the process of how variation within a population will lead to variation eventually of species. There are plenty of genes along for the ride which are not particularly "the fittest".Yes the survival of the two apostolic lungs of Christianity (Catholics and the Eastern church) despite its massive weakness and in fact embracement of weakness of the god who becomes human and is rejected and put to death is a puzzle and crazy on its face. It drove Nietzsche crazy (well that and syphillus drove him crazy). It also drove the communists crazy too. Massive defense? How many tanks does the church have?Jdk
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
> > wrote:
> > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
> > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
> > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
> > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
> Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
> It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
> reason I won't hide my background.
> This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
> charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
> mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
> Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
*shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.
Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.
Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.
One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.