Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: FT

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... Such claims are sheer presumption on your part. ... Are you claiming it never happened? ... You mean, being willing to know facts? ... Wrong. The best
    Message 1 of 111 , Nov 14, 2012
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "jdk_maryland_atty" <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote: >But in fact, some ancient societies DID expose sickly newborns on >hillsides to die, and thought it was perfectly reasonable.
      > JDK: They may have thought it was perfectly reasonable, but they were wrong, because they did not understand the nature of being "human" in the fullest sense.

      Such claims are sheer presumption on your part.

      > This has got to be one of the most crackpot ideas I've ever heard.

      Are you claiming it never happened?

      > I don't know how you even get to the idea of a natural right to life and liberty, with thinking like that?

      You mean, being willing to know facts?

      > First, to speak of it in evolutionary terms misunderstands the time scale of evolution

      Wrong. The best conjecture of molecular biology holds that our chromosomal separation from the apes probably took three generations. Three. Selection pressure typically takes longer, but dog breeders have show what it can achieve in mere dozens of generations. Nature has had thousands of generations to breed us.

      > and to misunderstand that there is no genetic connection and coming up with ideas for how society should be run.

      So, in your view, a salmon, say, would come up with the same ideas for how society should be run as a human being?

      > Also, get the facts first:
      > http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2160/did-eskimos-put-their-elderly-on-ice-floes-to-die

      Inevitably, YOUR OWN SOURCE proves me right and you wrong:

      "Far more commonly they were simply abandoned to die."

      > I erroneously tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in thinking that you came up with this crazy "evolutionary" idea of natural rights to avoid being clubbed to death on an iceburg by Walt for the sin of glint of religious basis for natural rights. I was wrong. You are just a nut.

      Says the guy who believes the temporary decease of a zombie made his immaterial essence immortal....

      > Roy, what do you do for a living?

      I help corporate clients cast their communications in more persuasive terms. It's a bit like being a lawyer, except that I don't enjoy a monopolistic privilege that enables me to wield control of the state's police powers to forcibly inflict injustice on the innocent.

      -- Roy Langston
    • Harry Pollard
      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, 2012

        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.


        The Alumni Group 
        The Henry George School
        of Los Angeles
        Tujunga   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?


        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.
        > JDK

        *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.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.