Article

2006-11-14 International-UN-NGOs

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-11-14 06:50|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Crichton is among the brightest - and bravest. When he analyzes a problem or situation, his resulting output is always about as good as it gets - or can get in this timeframe - and usually the best of the lot, hands down. It is always sound, solid, rational, defensible and, most amazingly of all, prescient.

If you find yourself on the opposite side of an issue, it's time to abandon your conclusions wholesale, drop any pretenses and emotional attachments, and rethink from scratch, for you have fucked up. Stephen den Beste is of this remarkable lot, as well, this small group who can logically and clinically work a problem without the crippling burden of dogma or emotion or custom or tradition or sentimentality or superstition or politics or greed. The output is always sterling, always worthy.

May the scam artists and whores of pseudoscience be exposed, damned, and burned at the fucking stake, er, I mean perp-walked to a hellhole to become Bubba's Newest LoveToy.

Posted by .com 2006-11-14 07:34|| 2006-11-14 07:34|| Front Page Top

#2 I disagree with Crichton on his examples, although not his argument.

Lysenko was so influential because Marxism requires that nuture is far more important that nature. A much better example would have been the pervasive belief still widely prevalent that environment is a far more important determinant of human outcomes than genetics (examples about society A versus society B notwithstanding. This is an argument about individuals).

Which brings me to Eugenics. It was certainly widely abused and the extension into racial purity is complete nonsense. Nonetheless there is a very hard truth behind it. That is, people are similar to their parents in the characteristics we think important and this is primarily a consequence of genes. Birthrates fall first and fastest with those who do the best in societies (until recently the reverse was true, at least in the West). Eugenics may be out of fashion, but it will prove necessary in the future.

Posted by phil_b 2006-11-14 08:06|| 2006-11-14 08:06|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm sorry, but you'll hafta be killed.

Lol. Just kidding... But your kneecaps are forfeit, sorry. ;-)

Posted by .com 2006-11-14 08:08|| 2006-11-14 08:08|| Front Page Top

#4 Just for the record, I will cherry-pick a bit and admit that the "rising tide of the imbeciles" was in evidence just last week. :-/

Posted by .com 2006-11-14 08:12|| 2006-11-14 08:12|| Front Page Top

#5 Phil_b,

It's wise to seperate the disgenic effect of the "welfare" state from eugenics.

One is incentivising bad gene combos by punishing successful people (likely to have better genes), the other is the state actively deciding that one group of genes is better than others, a gene corporatism (picking business winners).

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-11-14 09:12|| 2006-11-14 09:12|| Front Page Top

#6 .com you'll never win an election if you call the public imbeciles.

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-11-14 09:13|| 2006-11-14 09:13|| Front Page Top

#7 Well, I didn't say all of them, lol. You hafta be a DhimmiDonk or a Greenie or a Socialist to do that here... ;-)

Posted by .com 2006-11-14 09:20|| 2006-11-14 09:20|| Front Page Top

#8 It's wise to seperate the disgenic effect of the "welfare" state from eugenics.

Perceptive comment.

Posted by phil_b 2006-11-14 09:20|| 2006-11-14 09:20|| Front Page Top

23:57 gromgoru
23:53 CrazyFool
23:53 3dc
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:46 anon
23:45 gromgoru
23:40 pihkalbadger
23:31 Zenster
23:30 pihkalbadger
23:25 pihkalbadger
23:22 BA
23:21 .com
23:20 .com
23:19 pihkalbadger
23:16 Frank G
23:15 Frank G
23:15 BA
23:15 Frank G
23:14 3dc
23:13 Frank G
23:13 wxjames
23:11 pihkalbadger
23:09 Frank G
23:01 .com