OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

Rick Johnson rantingrickjohnson at gmail.com
Tue Feb 14 19:21:17 EST 2012

On Feb 14, 2:41 am, John O'Hagan <resea... at johnohagan.com> wrote:
> 1. Publicly-funded healthcare is both cheaper and more effective than
> privatised systems. It's also the right thing to do (i.e. you don't have
> to stand by while someone dies because their illness is "their fault").

So you have no problem paying the medical bills of people who overeat
sugar, salt, and fat; refuse to put down the ho-ho's; and get a little
exercise? If so, then give to charity. Why do you need to FORCE me
(and others) to pay for your experiment of "degenerate eugenics"?

> 2. The recent economic problems were not triggered by "degenerates" (are you
> actually talking about homosexuals here, or just in the more general,
> McCathyist sense?)

WTF does homosexuality have to do with this conversation? I am talking
about lazy/slothful, drug/alcohol abusing, junk food eating, self-
induced illiterates, techno-phobic Luddite loving lemmings. Look, i
don't care how you want to live YOUR life, just leave me and my money
the hell out of it!

>, but in fact by the operations of the same unregulated
> markets you are advocating.

I am well aware of the sins of wall street and the ruling "corporate
class" (Greed.inc). That is half the problem, yes. However, you cannot
ignore the fact that we are spending trillions around the globe
supporting degenerates.

Look at Detroit MI. People like to blame GM for the state of the city
but GM is only a very small part of the problem. The REAL problem is
sleazy politicians and infections entitlements/welfare. When you crush
the tax payers with more and more tyrannical taxation to pay for your
entitlement programs, the taxpayers leave town; but the welfare
recipients stay! Why the heck would they quit a good thing? However,
now you find yourself in a major pickle. With the taxpayers gone,
who's going to fund the entitlement programs? NOBODY! The whole house
of cards comes crumbling down!

Of course i'm probably just wasting my time trying to educate you.
You'll just blab on and on about how evil i am for not paying other
people's bills so they can watch there hero degenerates on Jersey

> 3. The central fallacy of social Darwinism is the misapprehension that because
> natural selection occurs in nature, human society _should_ also work this
> way.

I NEVER said we should adopt such a society. That is anarchy. And
anarchy will NEVER move us forward as a species.

> This is a failure to acknowledge the is/ought problem, and is usually
> compounded (Rick is no exception) by the equally mistaken view that there exist
> "superior" individuals whose possession of a "quality gene-pool" entitles them
> to survival - an entitlement that is encroached upon by inferior sorts who take
> up space by insisting on not dying. Can you guess in which group those who hold
> this view place themselves?

You'd be surprised which group i reside in. I know my place; but do
you know yours?

> Genetics is complicated. Switching one gene on switches others off in
> unpredictable ways, people choose mates by unfathomable processes, good-looking
> geniuses have dumb, ugly children and vice-versa. This is why eugenics projects
> are doomed to failure. They are also morally wrong, which is another win-win.

There is nothing wrong with denying degenerates the right to
reproduce. Would you allow a crack head to reproduce? How about
someone who carries a virus/illness/deadly defect for which there is
no cure and the virus/illness/deadly defect will be passed on to the
child? What if you knew without a doubt the baby would be born with
two heads, or mentally incapacitated, or brain dead, or etc...? Would
you allow the procreation anyway simply because people have a right to
be selfish?

What if the couple was healthy but had poor parenting skills, or
cannot feed the child, or cannot cloth the child, or etc...? Would you
allow the procreation anyway simply because people have a right to be

What abut people who go around making babies but refuse to care for
them at all? I mean, birth control has been around for some time, but
we can't force degenerates to use it! Would you allow the procreation
anyway simply because people have a right to be selfish?

> If some featureless fungus, toxic to all other living things, engulfed the
> globe, would that make it "superior"? Of course, not, it merely survived.

I love when people contradict themselves in the same sentence -- makes
my job much easier!

> Considerations of what _should_ happen, of superiority and quality, are human,
> social concerns. We are humans, so they are important to us. But they have
> nothing to do with genetics or evolution.

Really??? I think you need to spend more time ruminating on the
subject. You can stick your head in the sand if you like, but
technology will advance with or without you. Humans will be cloned.
Humans will be genetically engineered. Humans will employ eugenics to
sculpt the gene pool. It is our destiny to use our intelligence to
drive our own evolution at an ever accelerating rate. To NOT use that
power would be to spit in the face of evolution itself!

More information about the Python-list mailing list