OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

Chris Angelico rosuav at gmail.com
Wed Feb 15 01:44:35 CET 2012


On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2:41 am, John O'Hagan <resea... at johnohagan.com> wrote:
>> 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?

If you truly believe that only the best should be allowed to survive
and that you are not of the best, then the logical thing to do is to
immediately destroy yourself. Oddly enough, though, I don't see many
eugenics proponents committing mass suicide for the benefit of the
gene pool.

> There is nothing wrong with denying degenerates the right to
> reproduce.

Actually there is; I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't have been born if
such policies had been in place, and I strongly suspect that you
wouldn't have either. There was a country in the 20th century that
adopted a lot of the sorts of policies you're talking about, and it's
such a sensitive topic with MANY people that I'm not going to touch
it. Suffice it to say that the world does not appreciate such things.

>> 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!

No, he did not contradict himself - he drew a distinction between
"superior" and "survived". You might argue that your definition of
"superior" *is* the ability to survive, but that's a matter for
logical argument, not for pointing and laughing.

> 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!

Evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest, not by us using
our intelligence to influence it.

It's high time I stood up for who I am. I *do* spit in the face of
evolution. I do not believe that we came here because we evolved from
some lesser life-form, and I do not believe that the world is best
served by such philosophies.

God created us, roughly 6000-10000 years ago, and since then, many
things have happened (both good and bad), but never has there been the
emergence of any form of "next-species human". Look at history (just
recent history if you like - the last few hundred years) and find the
times when one group of people deemed themselves "more evolved" than
another group. Why were Negros treated as slaves in the US? Why were
Australian Aboriginals treated like animals? And the one I hinted at
above. If you truly believe that evolution is the way forward, then go
find some of the lobbyists for these groups, and say to their faces
that you believe that some humans are lesser than others.

If you come out of that alive, report back. Preferably with video. It
should be interesting.

ChrisA



More information about the Python-list mailing list