For example, I've been tested as being somewhere in the top 20% for intelligence. That means that at least 80% of people are stupider than me.

The sad thing is that half the people are below average.

The 80th percentile is probably around an IQ of 120: certainly far from genius. Most of us would find people with an IQ of around 110 to be relatively dull.

The 80th percentile is probably around an IQ of 120: certainly far from genius. Most of us would find people with an IQ of around 110 to be relatively dull.

William, that is uncalled for.

---

The 80th percentile is probably around an IQ of 120: certainly far from genius. Most of us would find people with an IQ of around 110 to be relatively dull.

Lol, I said I was tested to be somewhere in the top 20%. I didn't say where as I was never told or cared to know. Someone as smart as you knows that somewhere in the 20% covers a fair range :D Or did you miss that?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Any test must be arbitrary and capricious. That should be obvious to someone with your intelligence, because it is to mine. It should also be obvious to someone with your intelligence that we can't spend a year and a mile waiting for test results.

It is also irrelevant. A matter of chance, like so many things. Which was my point.

Is being able to feed, clothe and house yourself arbitrary and capricious enough for you? Because it is the test presently in place. Nature has imposed this one.

Nature imposed a lot of things we cared to ignore. Or are you all for putting our old people out on Ice Flows when they can no longer work?

Hit high speed on you gazelle brain and let it get to the end of the thought process. Does that include being able to fill out welfare forms? Does that include being able to hit up the local church for a donation? Does that include using the rescue mission? Does that include the local food bank? Does that include being cute enough that someone just gives you stuff? Does that include knowing to move on to a spot with better pickings? Are you reaching understanding?

You have missed the point I was making. Catch up. I am somewhere in the top 20% of intelligence which as William has pointed out isn't genius. It is however enough to give me a lucky advantage over 80% of people. Luck.

Now lets look at the game that we've set up. The game of how we chose to run society. It has rules. You've listed some of them here. They are made up by people, not nature. You can see that right?

So we have a game where according to you there are winners and losers. Are you and William following me here? But the game was made up by people...and the way it was made up means that some people, at birth, have been given advantages. I'll list mine. I'm white. My parents were educated. I'm somewhere above average intelligence. My parents had enough money that they didn't have to work long hours at minimum wage jobs. They were able to make sure I got sufficient nutrition as a child and educated enough to know how to do it. This also helped make sure that not only did my intelligence not get stunted by poor nutrition, but I also grew up with no underlying health problems. They had good housing, this helped me grow up healthy too! They weren't drug addicts, so I didn't end up brain damaged or emotionally screwed up and not able to function. All this before I even joined "The Game". I am so damn lucky! I was born female, which does give me some disadvantage, but I was lucky enough to be born in a part of the world where sexism was being challenged and raised by a feminist mother. Again. Luck. All this luck.

So you want people to play a life and death game where the players don't even start on a level playing field.

Now put that gazelle brain back on high speed. Does this planet offer unlimited resources? Does it have an unlimited ability to absorb the pollution man emits?

Poor people don't pollute as much as rich people. So you can't blame them for that one.

Can man breed unchecked for eternity?

This is so irrelevant that I am surprised that you can't see it. Better standards of living and education leads to a falling birthrate. If this really was your concern you'd be absolutely on my side trying to bring those less lucky than us up to our lucky standard.

Can we extend lifespans unchecked?

There is a huge difference between extending life spans unchecked and allowing those who didn't have such luck as us live in 3rd world conditions.

Has your gazelle brain understood yet?

More than yours, it seems.

I realize it may be very hard to divorce yourself from the emotions you feel of caring for fellow humans. If you are able you will have to come to the conclusion that some must be left behind.

Ahhh, the old emotions card. Yes, is that really all you have. If emotions and compassion weren't important for human progress and survival, we probably wouldn't have them. However, altruism actually has net benefit to the species so I wouldn't write it off just because its all icky and you don't like it. That's you letting your emotions rule your head.

You are the one who wants to talk tests. So now is your opportunity to describe how you would do it.

I'd work to reduce the effects such as racism for a start. You have an horrific legacy in America because of the slave trade that has left a huge portion of your population stuck in a cycle of dependency and poverty. I'd give everyone affordable child care so that they can work and actually end up better if they do. I'd make sure everyone had free healthcare, which would include free birth control. I'd start paying your teachers a professional wage and invest in your schools. I'd stop the crippling student loan program that prevents those who are already poor from wanting to put themselves in deep debt for the rest of their lives. I'd make sure all higher education was free. I would cut the ridiculous, insane military spending that the US pays.

I'd legalise all drugs and stop the expensive war on drugs. This would also help reduce the overcrowded prisons and stop the stupid destruction of lives because of what is should not be a crime.

In other words, I'd invest in people and get the boot off their necks so that they can start to improve their lives.

Of course there are plenty who wouldn't like it, because if we stop punishing the poor for being poor, who are we going to look down on?

---

Reality Internet Personality

The 80th percentile is probably around an IQ of 120: certainly far from genius. Most of us would find people with an IQ of around 110 to be relatively dull.

I found anyone who post to forums is above average; they have to be able to read, write and use a computer effectively. A forum such as this doesn't have any double digit IQs. That said how come we aren't rich?

P.S. serial killers like Ted Bundy and the Unabomber had way above average IQs. I know the human bran has different parts that do their own thing.

167 IQ former Berkley professor.

---

Any test must be arbitrary and capricious. That should be obvious to someone with your intelligence, because it is to mine. It should also be obvious to someone with your intelligence that we can't spend a year and a mile waiting for test results.

It is also irrelevant. A matter of chance, like so many things. Which was my point.

Is being able to feed, clothe and house yourself arbitrary and capricious enough for you? Because it is the test presently in place. Nature has imposed this one.

Nature imposed a lot of things we cared to ignore. Or are you all for putting our old people out on Ice Flows when they can no longer work?

Hit high speed on you gazelle brain and let it get to the end of the thought process. Does that include being able to fill out welfare forms? Does that include being able to hit up the local church for a donation? Does that include using the rescue mission? Does that include the local food bank? Does that include being cute enough that someone just gives you stuff? Does that include knowing to move on to a spot with better pickings? Are you reaching understanding?

You have missed the point I was making. Catch up. I am somewhere in the top 20% of intelligence which as William has pointed out isn't genius. It is however enough to give me a lucky advantage over 80% of people. Luck.

Now lets look at the game that we've set up. The game of how we chose to run society. It has rules. You've listed some of them here. They are made up by people, not nature. You can see that right?

So we have a game where according to you there are winners and losers. Are you and William following me here? But the game was made up by people...and the way it was made up means that some people, at birth, have been given advantages. I'll list mine. I'm white. My parents were educated. I'm somewhere above average intelligence. My parents had enough money that they didn't have to work long hours at minimum wage jobs. They were able to make sure I got sufficient nutrition as a child and educated enough to know how to do it. This also helped make sure that not only did my intelligence not get stunted by poor nutrition, but I also grew up with no underlying health problems. They had good housing, this helped me grow up healthy too! They weren't drug addicts, so I didn't end up brain damaged or emotionally screwed up and not able to function. All this before I even joined "The Game". I am so damn lucky! I was born female, which does give me some disadvantage, but I was lucky enough to be born in a part of the world where sexism was being challenged and raised by a feminist mother. Again. Luck. All this luck.

So you want people to play a life and death game where the players don't even start on a level playing field.

Now put that gazelle brain back on high speed. Does this planet offer unlimited resources? Does it have an unlimited ability to absorb the pollution man emits?

Poor people don't pollute as much as rich people. So you can't blame them for that one.

Can man breed unchecked for eternity?

This is so irrelevant that I am surprised that you can't see it. Better standards of living and education leads to a falling birthrate. If this really was your concern you'd be absolutely on my side trying to bring those less lucky than us up to our lucky standard.

Can we extend lifespans unchecked?

There is a huge difference between extending life spans unchecked and allowing those who didn't have such luck as us live in 3rd world conditions.

Has your gazelle brain understood yet?

More than yours, it seems.

I realize it may be very hard to divorce yourself from the emotions you feel of caring for fellow humans. If you are able you will have to come to the conclusion that some must be left behind.

Ahhh, the old emotions card. Yes, is that really all you have. If emotions and compassion weren't important for human progress and survival, we probably wouldn't have them. However, altruism actually has net benefit to the species so I wouldn't write it off just because its all icky and you don't like it. That's you letting your emotions rule your head.

I think I see the issue with your gazelle brain. You have started with a bunch of unfounded suppositions and assumptions.

1) You presuppose that life should be fair. It should not be fair.
2) You presuppose everyone should be identical. They should not.
3) You presuppose that everyone can be wealthy. They can't.
4) It appears as if you advocate that persons not be allowed to accumulate wealth.
Strange how you argue both side in the same post. How birth rate falls as standard of living goes up but putting people on ice flows once they can't work must mean they aren't allowed to keep that wealth for retirement. Are you sure you have a gazelle brain?

You say that rules are made by people not nature. You have engaged in a common fallacy, that people aren't nature. This one might require a brain over the 99th percentile to understand. So we will see if you can understand another way. Those rules, welfare, etc., nature doesn't care how food gets into the belly, just that it does.

Game theory may have a use in this discussion, but you are the one setting up a game. I'm talking about real life, not some utopia.

Then you again argue both sides of pollution in the same post. First about raising the standard of living, then attempting to ascribe some absence of "blame" to poor persons because they are less polluting. Your utopia can't be both.

As to emotions, yes they are very important. The mother's feelings to help her child are very necessary. But don't mistake that for being able to aid everyone in the same way.

Assume your emotion to help everyone succeeds and life is easy for everyone. For each individual that is good. But is it good for humanity? No it isn't. We need challenge to survive. Actually it isn't good individually either. We need obstacles to overcome. Our emotional well being depends on it.

If you are really willing to challenge your self and look at all those assumptions and presuppositions you are spouting, perhaps your gazelle brain will be able to run without all the extra weight.

Now to the nonsense ...

You are the one who wants to talk tests. So now is your opportunity to describe how you would do it.

I'd work to reduce the effects such as racism for a start. You have an horrific legacy in America because of the slave trade that has left a huge portion of your population stuck in a cycle of dependency and poverty. I'd give everyone affordable child care so that they can work and actually end up better if they do. I'd make sure everyone had free healthcare, which would include free birth control. I'd start paying your teachers a professional wage and invest in your schools. I'd stop the crippling student loan program that prevents those who are already poor from wanting to put themselves in deep debt for the rest of their lives. I'd make sure all higher education was free. I would cut the ridiculous, insane military spending that the US pays.

I'd legalise all drugs and stop the expensive war on drugs. This would also help reduce the overcrowded prisons and stop the stupid destruction of lives because of what is should not be a crime.

In other words, I'd invest in people and get the boot off their necks so that they can start to improve their lives.

Of course there are plenty who wouldn't like it, because if we stop punishing the poor for being poor, who are we going to look down on?

It is obvious you have an agenda. It is pretty plain to see what it is. However I doubt you see it.

One thing you haven't addressed, which you must, is where do you get the money to build your utopia?

Child care. Okay. So mom who is self employed calls up and gets the free child care worker to show up and parent the kid while she waits day after day for the phone to ring with an order. Or in your utopia does everyone have to work for the man?

(Yes, I'm taking your absolute statements as absolute. A gazelle brain would know when to make absolute and when to make non-absolute statements.)

As to a few of your points, on drugs I happen to agree. Banning substances or things people want simply does not work. As to free healthcare, as long as government is in the mix, and it appears as if they are in it to stay, then single payer is the correct answer. All doctors get a paycheck from the government and can't take private cases. But drug addicts have to carry around a DNR order if this is the case. I won't waste societies resources on someone who chooses suicide by overdose. If we didn't go single payer, then if drug addicts could find private insurance coverage, then no reason for the DNR.

As to teachers, pay doesn't magically make them good. I realize you are one so have a big bone in the fire. I do think they should be paid a living wage. But I have some real issues with their unions. Here, not necessarily there, the unions support child molesting teachers with tenure in their contracts and make it impossible to fire them even if they are sitting in a jail cell. This because the more molesters that sit in rubber rooms the fatter the union boss' pay check. Sorry if I follow the money and see the hypocrisy. Now if that union boss gave back the dues to the school district then I might have some respect for him, but no he puts it in his wallet and is totally corrupt. Since he is elected by the teachers I wonder if that immorality and corruption is a reflection of the teachers who vote him in? (Yes I'm guilty of being a cynic)

Free higher education was a goal of California at one time. Actually had it going for a while, Ronald Reagan was governor. A lot of factors conspired to kill it. Too many students, and not enough tax revenue. I really would like to know how you intend on making Harvard, Yale, MIT and Caltech free. Or is your utopia only a partly level playing field and only covers college not university? Or in your utopia there will be no difference between schools?

I do agree about student loans. They are far to easy to obtain and place people in debt for degrees that aren't worth what they cost to obtain. Better student counseling might help here.

OBTW you actually didn't describe any tests on selecting who lives and who dies.

Finally race. The item you seem to be baiting with.

Before you impose some scheme to fix it, describe the exit strategy. When will you know that it is fixed and the scheme can be turned off? If you can't come up with the exit strategy then I suggest the scheme will not fix it.

You should examine some of the schemes that have been tried. See why they have failed. Dig the root cause out. Are you sure your pet scheme won't suffer the exact same fate for the exact same reason?

---

Any test must be arbitrary and capricious. That should be obvious to someone with your intelligence, because it is to mine. It should also be obvious to someone with your intelligence that we can't spend a year and a mile waiting for test results.

It is also irrelevant. A matter of chance, like so many things. Which was my point.

Is being able to feed, clothe and house yourself arbitrary and capricious enough for you? Because it is the test presently in place. Nature has imposed this one.

Nature imposed a lot of things we cared to ignore. Or are you all for putting our old people out on Ice Flows when they can no longer work?

Hit high speed on you gazelle brain and let it get to the end of the thought process. Does that include being able to fill out welfare forms? Does that include being able to hit up the local church for a donation? Does that include using the rescue mission? Does that include the local food bank? Does that include being cute enough that someone just gives you stuff? Does that include knowing to move on to a spot with better pickings? Are you reaching understanding?

You have missed the point I was making. Catch up. I am somewhere in the top 20% of intelligence which as William has pointed out isn't genius. It is however enough to give me a lucky advantage over 80% of people. Luck.

Now lets look at the game that we've set up. The game of how we chose to run society. It has rules. You've listed some of them here. They are made up by people, not nature. You can see that right?

So we have a game where according to you there are winners and losers. Are you and William following me here? But the game was made up by people...and the way it was made up means that some people, at birth, have been given advantages. I'll list mine. I'm white. My parents were educated. I'm somewhere above average intelligence. My parents had enough money that they didn't have to work long hours at minimum wage jobs. They were able to make sure I got sufficient nutrition as a child and educated enough to know how to do it. This also helped make sure that not only did my intelligence not get stunted by poor nutrition, but I also grew up with no underlying health problems. They had good housing, this helped me grow up healthy too! They weren't drug addicts, so I didn't end up brain damaged or emotionally screwed up and not able to function. All this before I even joined "The Game". I am so damn lucky! I was born female, which does give me some disadvantage, but I was lucky enough to be born in a part of the world where sexism was being challenged and raised by a feminist mother. Again. Luck. All this luck.

So you want people to play a life and death game where the players don't even start on a level playing field.

Now put that gazelle brain back on high speed. Does this planet offer unlimited resources? Does it have an unlimited ability to absorb the pollution man emits?

Poor people don't pollute as much as rich people. So you can't blame them for that one.

Can man breed unchecked for eternity?

This is so irrelevant that I am surprised that you can't see it. Better standards of living and education leads to a falling birthrate. If this really was your concern you'd be absolutely on my side trying to bring those less lucky than us up to our lucky standard.

Can we extend lifespans unchecked?

There is a huge difference between extending life spans unchecked and allowing those who didn't have such luck as us live in 3rd world conditions.

Has your gazelle brain understood yet?

More than yours, it seems.

I realize it may be very hard to divorce yourself from the emotions you feel of caring for fellow humans. If you are able you will have to come to the conclusion that some must be left behind.

Ahhh, the old emotions card. Yes, is that really all you have. If emotions and compassion weren't important for human progress and survival, we probably wouldn't have them. However, altruism actually has net benefit to the species so I wouldn't write it off just because its all icky and you don't like it. That's you letting your emotions rule your head.

You are the one who wants to talk tests. So now is your opportunity to describe how you would do it.

I'd work to reduce the effects such as racism for a start. You have an horrific legacy in America because of the slave trade that has left a huge portion of your population stuck in a cycle of dependency and poverty. I'd give everyone affordable child care so that they can work and actually end up better if they do. I'd make sure everyone had free healthcare, which would include free birth control. I'd start paying your teachers a professional wage and invest in your schools. I'd stop the crippling student loan program that prevents those who are already poor from wanting to put themselves in deep debt for the rest of their lives. I'd make sure all higher education was free. I would cut the ridiculous, insane military spending that the US pays.

I'd legalise all drugs and stop the expensive war on drugs. This would also help reduce the overcrowded prisons and stop the stupid destruction of lives because of what is should not be a crime.

In other words, I'd invest in people and get the boot off their necks so that they can start to improve their lives.

Of course there are plenty who wouldn't like it, because if we stop punishing the poor for being poor, who are we going to look down on?

I for one would love for the US to close all overseas bases and bring the troops home. Im tired of us sticking our noses in the rest of the worlds business. Screw Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine. And all the rest. Its not our problem. Let it be the your problem.

---

[/quote]

Old James

test never mind.

---

Of course there are plenty who wouldn't like it, because if we stop punishing the poor for being poor, who are we going to look down on?

Dat Be Uber Funny. I Look Down Upon: So Frakkin' Many, And They All Have Brainiac IQs.

Most of us would find people with an IQ of around 110 to be relatively dull.

I'm The Exception. Yessim. Way Over 110, and DULL as an Inflatable Pool Raft.

Back to Water. Water 'is' The Most Important Resource. Trillions of $$$ and Jobs Jobs Jobs Immediately Sourced to Get Da Water to The US Southwest and West.

NOW. Not Later.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Damn city folk ... http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2011/07/man-eating-lions-attack-dark-moon wrote:

Between 1988 and 2009, lions ambushed more than 1000 people, killing and devouring two-thirds of them.

... have no idea of the truth of anything.

On the lighter side http://www.bsa344.com/Grizzly%20Bear%20Warning%20from%20the%20Department%20of%20Fish.pdf

Oh please, you are smarter than to use a straw man like that.

So we accept a 0.01% per annum increase in the GDP.

First, why is it that you believe the economy would only expand by 0.01% annually if we took care of our weaker members? It could actually increase faster because you expand the consumer base. Besides, is today any better? Sure, the economy grows, but the vast majority of that growth goes straight into the pockets of the 1%. Whats the point of economic growth if 99% of the people don't notice it? And secondly, if the US's current wealth were to be properly redistributed so its no longer all in the hands of the 1%, you would have poor people, but pretty much everyone would earn a decent enough wage to pay for rent, food and have a bit left at the end of the month. There would be a healthy middle class again. And would living with that kind of wealth really be so bad? Wouldn't most people have more than enough to live relatively comfortable lives? Yup they would.

So your objection is how this selection is being made, not that a selection has to be made.

Unfortunately government bankruptcy is like that. The residents are the debtor so life gets real tough for them or they pay the bill.

The objection I'm making here is that the water bill is ridiculously high for a lot of poorer residents who can't afford to cough up that kind of money and also have to pay rent and food. By cutting off the water supply, you are essentially denying a lot of people of a fundamental necessity. Not to mention the health problem you are creating. How do people shower without water? Flush the toilet? Cook their food? This measure already hits predominantly poor people, now you are turning the areas where they live in literal 3rd world slums.

Any test must be arbitrary and capricious. That should be obvious to someone with your intelligence, because it is to mine. It should also be obvious to someone with your intelligence that we can't spend a year and a mile waiting for test results.

It is also irrelevant. A matter of chance, like so many things. Which was my point.

Is being able to feed, clothe and house yourself arbitrary and capricious enough for you? Because it is the test presently in place. Nature has imposed this one.

Nature imposed a lot of things we cared to ignore. Or are you all for putting our old people out on Ice Flows when they can no longer work?

Hit high speed on you gazelle brain and let it get to the end of the thought process. Does that include being able to fill out welfare forms? Does that include being able to hit up the local church for a donation? Does that include using the rescue mission? Does that include the local food bank? Does that include being cute enough that someone just gives you stuff? Does that include knowing to move on to a spot with better pickings? Are you reaching understanding?

You have missed the point I was making. Catch up. I am somewhere in the top 20% of intelligence which as William has pointed out isn't genius. It is however enough to give me a lucky advantage over 80% of people. Luck.

Now lets look at the game that we've set up. The game of how we chose to run society. It has rules. You've listed some of them here. They are made up by people, not nature. You can see that right?

So we have a game where according to you there are winners and losers. Are you and William following me here? But the game was made up by people...and the way it was made up means that some people, at birth, have been given advantages. I'll list mine. I'm white. My parents were educated. I'm somewhere above average intelligence. My parents had enough money that they didn't have to work long hours at minimum wage jobs. They were able to make sure I got sufficient nutrition as a child and educated enough to know how to do it. This also helped make sure that not only did my intelligence not get stunted by poor nutrition, but I also grew up with no underlying health problems. They had good housing, this helped me grow up healthy too! They weren't drug addicts, so I didn't end up brain damaged or emotionally screwed up and not able to function. All this before I even joined "The Game". I am so damn lucky! I was born female, which does give me some disadvantage, but I was lucky enough to be born in a part of the world where sexism was being challenged and raised by a feminist mother. Again. Luck. All this luck.

So you want people to play a life and death game where the players don't even start on a level playing field.

Now put that gazelle brain back on high speed. Does this planet offer unlimited resources? Does it have an unlimited ability to absorb the pollution man emits?

Poor people don't pollute as much as rich people. So you can't blame them for that one.

Can man breed unchecked for eternity?

This is so irrelevant that I am surprised that you can't see it. Better standards of living and education leads to a falling birthrate. If this really was your concern you'd be absolutely on my side trying to bring those less lucky than us up to our lucky standard.

Can we extend lifespans unchecked?

There is a huge difference between extending life spans unchecked and allowing those who didn't have such luck as us live in 3rd world conditions.

Has your gazelle brain understood yet?

More than yours, it seems.

I realize it may be very hard to divorce yourself from the emotions you feel of caring for fellow humans. If you are able you will have to come to the conclusion that some must be left behind.

Ahhh, the old emotions card. Yes, is that really all you have. If emotions and compassion weren't important for human progress and survival, we probably wouldn't have them. However, altruism actually has net benefit to the species so I wouldn't write it off just because its all icky and you don't like it. That's you letting your emotions rule your head.

You are the one who wants to talk tests. So now is your opportunity to describe how you would do it.

I'd work to reduce the effects such as racism for a start. You have an horrific legacy in America because of the slave trade that has left a huge portion of your population stuck in a cycle of dependency and poverty. I'd give everyone affordable child care so that they can work and actually end up better if they do. I'd make sure everyone had free healthcare, which would include free birth control. I'd start paying your teachers a professional wage and invest in your schools. I'd stop the crippling student loan program that prevents those who are already poor from wanting to put themselves in deep debt for the rest of their lives. I'd make sure all higher education was free. I would cut the ridiculous, insane military spending that the US pays.

I'd legalise all drugs and stop the expensive war on drugs. This would also help reduce the overcrowded prisons and stop the stupid destruction of lives because of what is should not be a crime.

In other words, I'd invest in people and get the boot off their necks so that they can start to improve their lives.

Of course there are plenty who wouldn't like it, because if we stop punishing the poor for being poor, who are we going to look down on?

I for one would love for the US to close all overseas bases and bring the troops home. Im tired of us sticking our noses in the rest of the worlds business. Screw Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine. And all the rest. Its not our problem. Let it be the your problem.

Hear Hear! Now if only Obama would think the same way...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

The 80th percentile is probably around an IQ of 120: certainly far from genius. Most of us would find people with an IQ of around 110 to be relatively dull.

I found anyone who post to forums is above average; they have to be able to read, write and use a computer effectively. A forum such as this doesn't have any double digit IQs. That said how come we aren't rich?

P.S. serial killers like Ted Bundy and the Unabomber had way above average IQs. I know the human bran has different parts that do their own thing.

167 IQ former Berkley professor.

You are the one that has come closet to understanding why I brought it up.

Who decides who is deserving to be rich? Who decided that being rich is the mark of success? Who decided that everyone who isn't rich deserve to die?

It is just one more arbitrary way of deciding who is the gazelle who doesn't get taken down by that pack. We decided the method, not nature.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I think I see the issue with your gazelle brain.

My assertion that I am smart really got to you didn't it? Its funny, that I find your assertions that you aren't poor and therefore are more deserving far more unpleasant than anyone making claim to a random gift of intelligence. Yet my intelligence (which yes, does give me a better chance of out running the pack) is a gift of nature, whereas the biggest factor of being poor is where you are placed in society. Its not a "nature" thing.

You have started with a bunch of unfounded suppositions and assumptions.

1) You presuppose that life should be fair. It should not be fair.

Your assumption about my assumption is wrong. I propose that any thing we have control over in life should be fair. Humans have a natural instinct towards fairness (that nature thing you go on about again). Nature says we should strive for fairness.

2) You presuppose everyone should be identical. They should not.

You have it backwards, it appears to me that you think everyone is identical and that if they waste what they have then they deserve it. I think everyone is not identical and a just society takes that into account.

So yet again your assumption about my assumption is wrong.

3) You presuppose that everyone can be wealthy. They can't.

What is the point of wealthy? How many yachts does one person need? I don't really think that anyone should be wealthy in that sense. There is also a huge difference between being wealthy and not being able to afford water. A basic necessity of life.

4) It appears as if you advocate that persons not be allowed to accumulate wealth.

I think you may be close to having one of your assumptions right, if you could go so far as defining what you mean by wealth.

Strange how you argue both side in the same post.

Strange how someone as smart as you claim to be, fellow gazelle, thinks in either/or scenarios.

How birth rate falls as standard of living goes up but putting people on ice flows once they can't work must mean they aren't allowed to keep that wealth for retirement.

You really don't seem to understand how skewed the distribution of wealth in the US has become have you?

Are you sure you have a gazelle brain?

That really has got to you. Hasn't it? It really does amuse me that you take offence at one sort of elitism while ignoring the glaring nature of your own.

I'm smart. As long as you brag about being lucky enough to be able to earn a decent living, I'll brag about being smarter than average.
At least I recognise how much random chance gave me a leg up in "The Game" we made.

You say that rules are made by people not nature. You have engaged in a common fallacy, that people aren't nature. This one might require a brain over the 99th percentile to understand. So we will see if you can understand another way. Those rules, welfare, etc., nature doesn't care how food gets into the belly, just that it does.

Nature doesn't care either way, but it gave us the tools to decide how we do it. We decided to create a system where a large part of the population can never even get started in the game. Why can't you see this? Do you think evey one is like you?

Game theory may have a use in this discussion, but you are the one setting up a game. I'm talking about real life, not some utopia.

There are plenty of countries that treat their poor better than the US. Why do you think it is so out of reach? Do you really have no idea what life is like for people born in US ghettos?

Then you again argue both sides of pollution in the same post. First about raising the standard of living, then attempting to ascribe some absence of "blame" to poor persons because they are less polluting. Your utopia can't be both.

Why not? People are quite capable of coming up with solutions are are. The US (and Canada I've noticed) use excessive amounts of fuel to support their way of life. You can't even see how excessive and wasteful it is because you've lived in it all your life. You can raise the standard of living and lower energy consumption. The problem is, you simply don't want to. You'd rather point the finger at the poor people and blame then for not winning in a system where the rules have set up up against them right from the start.

As to emotions, yes they are very important. The mother's feelings to help her child are very necessary. But don't mistake that for being able to aid everyone in the same way.

That is such a patronising and sexist comment I don't even know what to say. Shame on you.

Assume your emotion to help everyone succeeds and life is easy for everyone. For each individual that is good. But is it good for humanity? No it isn't. We need challenge to survive. Actually it isn't good individually either. We need obstacles to overcome. Our emotional well being depends on it.

Oh..good for humanity. Well if we are talking about good for humanity, America really, absolutely does need to change the way it does things.

If you are really willing to challenge your self and look at all those assumptions and presuppositions you are spouting, perhaps your gazelle brain

It really upset you that I dared to say that, didn't it? Why does a claim to intelligence upset you more than people going without water? You should examine your feelings about this.

will be able to run without all the extra weight.

Yup, you really are upset. Displacement perhaps?

Now to the nonsense ...

oh goody...

It is obvious you have an agenda.

Yup. Of course I do.

It is pretty plain to see what it is. However I doubt you see it.

Meh, considering your comments, I actually doubt you see it.

One thing you haven't addressed, which you must, is where do you get the money to build your utopia?

I'm glad you think its utopia. Like I said, lots of countries do this already.

Child care. Okay. So mom who is self employed calls up and gets the free child care worker to show up and parent the kid while she waits day after day for the phone to ring with an order. Or in your utopia does everyone have to work for the man?

What? Do you know anything about day care, or did you have a nanny for your kids?

Yes, I'm taking your absolute statements as absolute. A gazelle brain would know when to make absolute and when to make non-absolute statements.)

No, you just seem to know nothing about day care options. Surprising. I guess you have no idea how those poorer than you live.

As to a few of your points, on drugs I happen to agree. Banning substances or things people want simply does not work. As to free healthcare, as long as government is in the mix, and it appears as if they are in it to stay, then single payer is the correct answer. All doctors get a paycheck from the government and can't take private cases.

Glad we agree on something.

But drug addicts have to carry around a DNR order if this is the case. I won't waste societies resources on someone who chooses suicide by overdose. If we didn't go single payer, then if drug addicts could find private insurance coverage, then no reason for the DNR.

Interesting lack of social awareness here. This is another nasty little judgemental sentence. Are you very rich? Because you are living in some sort of bubble. Even aside from the lack of understanding of drug addiction, your little caveat about drug overdoses will disproportionately effect woman. Did you know that most suicides by drug overdose are by women? Men are more likely to blow their brains out with shotguns, hang themselves, or throw themselves off bridges, buildings or in front of trains etc. You get the idea. So will your law of unintended consequences go right ahead and damn all suicides to no help or just the women?

As to teachers, pay doesn't magically make them good.

Not by magic not, but it does make for better teachers. What do they say? When you pay peanuts...

I realize you are one so have a big bone in the fire. I do think they should be paid a living wage. But I have some real issues with their unions. Here, not necessarily there, the unions support child molesting teachers with tenure in their contracts and make it impossible to fire them even if they are sitting in a jail cell.

I'd like to see how many cases you can find where that is actually true.

This because the more molesters that sit in rubber rooms the fatter the union boss' pay check. Sorry if I follow the money and see the hypocrisy. Now if that union boss gave back the dues to the school district then I might have some respect for him, but no he puts it in his wallet and is totally corrupt. Since he is elected by the teachers I wonder if that immorality and corruption is a reflection of the teachers who vote him in? (Yes I'm guilty of being a cynic)

You are guilty of believing everything you read in a newspaper...and as Unions make it hard for their employers to push them around and impose "cost" saving but terrible working conditions on their members, I tell you to follow the money.

Free higher education was a goal of California at one time. Actually had it going for a while, Ronald Reagan was governor. A lot of factors conspired to kill it. Too many students, and not enough tax revenue. I really would like to know how you intend on making Harvard, Yale, MIT and Caltech free. Or is your utopia only a partly level playing field and only covers college not university? Or in your utopia there will be no difference between schools?

The UK had free higher eduction when I was student. Even the top universities like Oxford and Cambridge. Scotland still does. You do pay ridiculously low taxes in America and what you do pay gets wasted on your over blown military. Free Higher Education is much cheaper than endless warmongering. Unless of course you are in the arms trade, then its a real money maker. Again, you should follow the money and see who's telling you why free Higher Education won't work. Its a long term investment in the economy, not a short term profit maker. Currently, most American Universities are not respected around the world because the profit motive is making the grades over inflated. Follow the money. If people get money for good grades, they are going to give good grades whether the students have earned them or not.

I do agree about student loans. They are far to easy to obtain and place people in debt for degrees that aren't worth what they cost to obtain. Better student counseling might help here.

I am not sure how much counselling will stop a student being poor. Or do you mean only people from well off backgrounds should go to school?

OBTW you actually didn't describe any tests on selecting who lives and who dies.

Why would I do that? I don't think that way.

Finally race. The item you seem to be baiting with.

Its a massive issue in the US.

Before you impose some scheme to fix it, describe the exit strategy. When will you know that it is fixed and the scheme can be turned off? If you can't come up with the exit strategy then I suggest the scheme will not fix it.

Exit strategy? You mean like how there were schemes to help black students get into university? Why were they ended? Was it because the white people felt it was unfair? Was it actually unfair? Is there now parity between how many black people are in prison, for example? Would that be a criteria? There are lots of criteria. That is the easy bit. Getting white people to let go is the hard bit.

You should examine some of the schemes that have been tried. See why they have failed. Dig the root cause out. Are you sure your pet scheme won't suffer the exact same fate for the exact same reason?

So your answer is to not try then? Are you happy with the way America treats its black people? You took everything from them and now expect them to overnight get generations of wealth back without any help?

---

Reality Internet Personality

I think I see the issue with your gazelle brain.

My assertion that I am smart really got to you didn't it?

I didn't think there were still people who would so grossly attempt to stick their nose in the air and scream they are superior, my way or the highway. Most of the smart people I run across are more careful in their deliberations.

Its funny, that I find your assertions that you aren't poor and therefore are more deserving far more unpleasant than anyone making claim to a random gift of intelligence.

???

Yet my intelligence (which yes, does give me a better chance of out running the pack) is a gift of nature, whereas the biggest factor of being poor is where you are placed in society. Its not a "nature" thing.

This is very indicative of you. It means that you feel that there is a caste system in society and nothing can be done about it.

You have started with a bunch of unfounded suppositions and assumptions.

1) You presuppose that life should be fair. It should not be fair.

Your assumption about my assumption is wrong. I propose that any thing we have control over in life should be fair. Humans have a natural instinct towards fairness (that nature thing you go on about again). Nature says we should strive for fairness.

So you confirmed that I was correct that you think life should be fair.

2) You presuppose everyone should be identical. They should not.

You have it backwards, it appears to me that you think everyone is identical and that if they waste what they have then they deserve it. I think everyone is not identical and a just society takes that into account.

So yet again your assumption about my assumption is wrong.

Just -- so now we are required to adopt your moral code.

3) You presuppose that everyone can be wealthy. They can't.

What is the point of wealthy? How many yachts does one person need? I don't really think that anyone should be wealthy in that sense. There is also a huge difference between being wealthy and not being able to afford water. A basic necessity of life.

So your moral code measures wealth with yachts. It is clear you have an agenda.

4) It appears as if you advocate that persons not be allowed to accumulate wealth.

I think you may be close to having one of your assumptions right, if you could go so far as defining what you mean by wealth.

You said yachts.

Strange how you argue both side in the same post.

Strange how someone as smart as you claim to be, fellow gazelle, thinks in either/or scenarios.

Then don't write your positions in back or white.

How birth rate falls as standard of living goes up but putting people on ice flows once they can't work must mean they aren't allowed to keep that wealth for retirement.

You really don't seem to understand how skewed the distribution of wealth in the US has become have you?

You really want to shove words in my mouth don't you. Lets try this: wealth for retirement = union defined benefits pension plan.

Now with your logic, this should be taxed away and given to the poor.

Just another gazelle that wants to eliminate the middle class.

Are you sure you have a gazelle brain?

That really has got to you. Hasn't it? It really does amuse me that you take offence at one sort of elitism while ignoring the glaring nature of your own.

Of course my posting history of calling for higher taxes on excessive income means nothing to you, because you want to have a good blast and shove words into people's mouths due to your gazelle brain superiority complex.

I'm smart. As long as you brag about being lucky enough to be able to earn a decent living, I'll brag about being smarter than average.
At least I recognise how much random chance gave me a leg up in "The Game" we made.

Snort. We didn't make any game. Nature did. Humans are animals. We are no different than ants, termites or honeybees. They use pheromones to control, we use what you call the game. It is still nature. But your human superiority complex is on full display.

You say that rules are made by people not nature. You have engaged in a common fallacy, that people aren't nature. This one might require a brain over the 99th percentile to understand. So we will see if you can understand another way. Those rules, welfare, etc., nature doesn't care how food gets into the belly, just that it does.

Nature doesn't care either way, but it gave us the tools to decide how we do it. We decided to create a system where a large part of the population can never even get started in the game. Why can't you see this? Do you think evey one is like you?

Are you sure you really want to say that. That all men are not created equal? Oh you mean some sort of caste system. I guess that rubbed off on the crown from their colonial days.

Game theory may have a use in this discussion, but you are the one setting up a game. I'm talking about real life, not some utopia.

There are plenty of countries that treat their poor better than the US. Why do you think it is so out of reach? Do you really have no idea what life is like for people born in US ghettos?

I work in one, so I may be much better qualified on that than you think.

Then you again argue both sides of pollution in the same post. First about raising the standard of living, then attempting to ascribe some absence of "blame" to poor persons because they are less polluting. Your utopia can't be both.

Why not? People are quite capable of coming up with solutions are are. The US (and Canada I've noticed) use excessive amounts of fuel to support their way of life. You can't even see how excessive and wasteful it is because you've lived in it all your life. You can raise the standard of living and lower energy consumption. The problem is, you simply don't want to. You'd rather point the finger at the poor people and blame then for not winning in a system where the rules have set up up against them right from the start.

Unfortunately gazelle, as the standard of living rises, so does the amount of excess pollution. Since you refuse to address this by trying to go off on an agenda tangent you must have a mental block on this.

Assume your emotion to help everyone succeeds and life is easy for everyone. For each individual that is good. But is it good for humanity? No it isn't. We need challenge to survive. Actually it isn't good individually either. We need obstacles to overcome. Our emotional well being depends on it.

Oh..good for humanity. Well if we are talking about good for humanity, America really, absolutely does need to change the way it does things.

Another tangent, another agenda.

If you are really willing to challenge your self and look at all those assumptions and presuppositions you are spouting, perhaps your gazelle brain

It really upset you that I dared to say that, didn't it? Why does a claim to intelligence upset you more than people going without water? You should examine your feelings about this.

will be able to run without all the extra weight.

Yup, you really are upset. Displacement perhaps?

No, felling of how sorry you are that this is your claim to fame.

Now to the nonsense ...

oh goody...

It is obvious you have an agenda.

Yup. Of course I do.

It is pretty plain to see what it is. However I doubt you see it.

Meh, considering your comments, I actually doubt you see it.

One thing you haven't addressed, which you must, is where do you get the money to build your utopia?

I'm glad you think its utopia. Like I said, lots of countries do this already.

Child care. Okay. So mom who is self employed calls up and gets the free child care worker to show up and parent the kid while she waits day after day for the phone to ring with an order. Or in your utopia does everyone have to work for the man?

What? Do you know anything about day care, or did you have a nanny for your kids?

Doesn't your utopia offer only the best possible care? Care in the home?

Yes, I'm taking your absolute statements as absolute. A gazelle brain would know when to make absolute and when to make non-absolute statements.)

No, you just seem to know nothing about day care options. Surprising. I guess you have no idea how those poorer than you live.

Surprise, day care for the poor is grandma. See I do know.

Day care for the rich middle class is dropping the kid off at the preschool or if you work for a uber rich progressive company, drop them off at work.

Day care for the uber is a nanny.

As to a few of your points, on drugs I happen to agree. Banning substances or things people want simply does not work. As to free healthcare, as long as government is in the mix, and it appears as if they are in it to stay, then single payer is the correct answer. All doctors get a paycheck from the government and can't take private cases.

Glad we agree on something.

But drug addicts have to carry around a DNR order if this is the case. I won't waste societies resources on someone who chooses suicide by overdose. If we didn't go single payer, then if drug addicts could find private insurance coverage, then no reason for the DNR.

Interesting lack of social awareness here. This is another nasty little judgemental sentence. Are you very rich? Because you are living in some sort of bubble. Even aside from the lack of understanding of drug addiction, your little caveat about drug overdoses will disproportionately effect woman. Did you know that most suicides by drug overdose are by women? Men are more likely to blow their brains out with shotguns, hang themselves, or throw themselves off bridges, buildings or in front of trains etc. You get the idea. So will your law of unintended consequences go right ahead and damn all suicides to no help or just the women?

Shows how little reading comprehension you have Ms. Gazelle. You made an unfounded assumption that when the word suicide was written it meant intentional suicide only. How some Gazelle could miss that overdoses by addicts are not intentional? Frequently they happen when the addict gets a new supplier and the drug hasn't been cut as many times. But you likely haven't seen a body with the needle still stuck in the arm.

As to teachers, pay doesn't magically make them good.

Not by magic not, but it does make for better teachers. What do they say? When you pay peanuts...

I realize you are one so have a big bone in the fire. I do think they should be paid a living wage. But I have some real issues with their unions. Here, not necessarily there, the unions support child molesting teachers with tenure in their contracts and make it impossible to fire them even if they are sitting in a jail cell.

I'd like to see how many cases you can find where that is actually true.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507718/Miramonte-teacher-Mark-Berndt-fed-blindfolded-students-semen-cookies.html wrote:

Berndt was fired and the Los Angeles Unified School District then paid him $40,000 to drop his appeal, which officials said was the most immediate way to ensure he wouldn't be a threat to other children. The move still brought heavy criticism.

This case brought exposure to dozens of teachers that LAUSD can't fire because of union appeals.

This because the more molesters that sit in rubber rooms the fatter the union boss' pay check. Sorry if I follow the money and see the hypocrisy. Now if that union boss gave back the dues to the school district then I might have some respect for him, but no he puts it in his wallet and is totally corrupt. Since he is elected by the teachers I wonder if that immorality and corruption is a reflection of the teachers who vote him in? (Yes I'm guilty of being a cynic)

You are guilty of believing everything you read in a newspaper...

Since the newspaper put names to the cases and printed allegations and dates, I feel I am somewhat justified in believing their investigative journalism. Unfortunately much of the Los Angeles Times is behind a pay wall.

I do agree about student loans. They are far to easy to obtain and place people in debt for degrees that aren't worth what they cost to obtain. Better student counseling might help here.

I am not sure how much counselling will stop a student being poor. Or do you mean only people from well off backgrounds should go to school?

"for degrees that aren't worth what they cost to obtain"
A huge portion of the debt issue is to places like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_Colleges. Yes there are crooks out there. Students do need guidance in what fields are going to earn them a living. Political Science is not one of them, but in the 60's it did keep you away from the draft board. The current fad degree is "culinary arts."

Finally race. The item you seem to be baiting with.

Its a massive issue in the US.

Yes it is. And it is so easy to be an elitist and point it out. Engineering solutions is next to impossible. One reason being that most anything you can propose will create the very same feelings of discrimination in all races not being helped. Ending discrimination with more discrimination will never work.

---

I didn't think there were still people who would so grossly attempt to stick their nose in the air and scream they are superior, my way or the highway.

Its funny you took it that way, when I've said time and time again that it is something that I consider lucky chance. I also made a statement that I am white, but I notice that you haven't accused me of claiming superiority because of that.

Most of the smart people I run across are more careful in their deliberations.

Yes, it is considered bad taste to point out when you are smart, but it is apparently ok to point out that because you can pay your water bill you are more worthy.

I'm smart. I know it, you know it. You decide whether that means I am better than someone else. I never made such a claim and never will.

This is very indicative of you. It means that you feel that there is a caste system in society and nothing can be done about it.

I feel there is a caste system. The only people who might not feel there is a caste system are white males who are usually oblivious of the privilege they get every day. I do believe that something can be done about it and will continue to mouth off about it at every opportunity.

So you confirmed that I was correct that you think life should be fair.

I believe it should be as fair as we can make it. It is not quite the same thing as there are some things we, as humans can control, and some we can't.

Just -- so now we are required to adopt your moral code.

Rather mine than yours.

...
You really want to shove words in my mouth don't you. Lets try this: wealth for retirement = union defined benefits pension plan.

Now with your logic, this should be taxed away and given to the poor.

Just another gazelle that wants to eliminate the middle class.

Are you deliberately misreading me, or is it just too hard for you to understand that there is mal-distribution of wealth right now. I wouldn't put Union workers in the class of wealthy, they probably do better than most, but that is not wealthy.

Of course my posting history of calling for higher taxes on excessive income means nothing to you, because you want to have a good blast and shove words into people's mouths due to your gazelle brain superiority complex.

So you think someone setting themselves as better than others based on some arbitrary benchmark is a superiority complex. Hmmm...guess how I read your comments about the poor in Detroit deserving what they got?

Snort. We didn't make any game. Nature did.

Utter nonsense.

Humans are animals. We are no different than ants, termites or honeybees. They use pheromones to control, we use what you call the game. It is still nature. But your human superiority complex is on full display.

I do think humans are superior in the sense that we have an awareness and a choice about the methods we use. You don't seem to realise that the situation in Detroit is a consequence of human choices about how we structure society. The people in the town of Windsor, right near Detroit, have chosen different rules to play by. They aren't cutting the water off for poor people. I suspect they have strong unions there too.

Are you sure you really want to say that. That all men are not created equal?

Equal in what sense? Are they all created the same? Do they all have the same abilities and talents? No. Are they all equally human and deserving of the same rights? Yes.

Oh you mean some sort of caste system. I guess that rubbed off on the crown from their colonial days.

It amuses me the way the US pretends there is no class system in America.

I work in one, so I may be much better qualified on that than you think.

So which of your neighbours are you going to consign to the dustbin of life?

Unfortunately gazelle, as the standard of living rises, so does the amount of excess pollution. Since you refuse to address this by trying to go off on an agenda tangent you must have a mental block on this.

Considering that most pollution is from business and business transportation then I can only assume that you think that raising the standard of living across the board will improve the economy?

No, felling of how sorry you are that this is your claim to fame.

Don't be. I've come to terms with it.

Doesn't your utopia offer only the best possible care? Care in the home?

Surprise, day care for the poor is grandma. See I do know.

Day care for the rich middle class is dropping the kid off at the preschool or if you work for a uber rich progressive company, drop them off at work.

Day care for the uber is a nanny.

Tell me about the day care choices you had to make for your children. For some of the poor, Grandma is also working, or too sick to take care of the children. Day care at home isn't necessarily best, it depends on the child and the day care offered. You made some sweeping generalisations that suggest to me America doesn't even provide any subsidised government funded daycare at all? I find that hard to believe. I am sure you are not so backwards as that.

Shows how little reading comprehension you have Ms. Gazelle. You made an unfounded assumption that when the word suicide was written it meant intentional suicide only. How some Gazelle could miss that overdoses by addicts are not intentional? Frequently they happen when the addict gets a new supplier and the drug hasn't been cut as many times. But you likely haven't seen a body with the needle still stuck in the arm.

I am well aware of what drug addiction looks like and its causes. Apart from living in an area with lots of addicts, I used to work for the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator when I was in the government.

..and yes, I read your post..then I went on to the consequences leaving out what I thought were the obvious flaws in your methods. The part where you have a fascistic ID card system on one group of the populace who you deem undesirable (and you dare lecture me about caste systems?). I jumped right over that nonsense as unworkable, unenforceable, and ethically wrong. You can't possibly expect doctors to try to figure out who did it by accident and who on purpose. Its nonsense and I didn't think you were being serious.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507718/Miramonte-teacher-Mark-Berndt-fed-blindfolded-students-semen-cookies.html]Berndt was fired and the Los Angeles Unified School District then paid him $40,000 to drop his appeal, which officials said was the most immediate way to ensure he wouldn't be a threat to other children. The move still brought heavy criticism.

This case brought exposure to dozens of teachers that LAUSD can't fire because of union appeals.

Hmmm..so the union has a process in place to protect workers from unfair dismissals and you think this is a problem. There is a process and it very unlikely that any child molester will survive it.

Since the newspaper put names to the cases and printed allegations and dates, I feel I am somewhat justified in believing their investigative journalism. Unfortunately much of the Los Angeles Times is behind a pay wall.

Were the allegations found to be true or not?

Finally race. The item you seem to be baiting with.

Its a massive issue in the US.

Yes it is. And it is so easy to be an elitist and point it out. Engineering solutions is next to impossible. One reason being that most anything you can propose will create the very same feelings of discrimination in all races not being helped. Ending discrimination with more discrimination will never work.

I am sorry, is there a problem with white people understanding that they have a level of privilege that other races do not share in America? Perhaps there should be some education in that area, rather than just telling the black people they you won't help them (or at least stop harming them) because the white people think it is unfair.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Gary this argument you are making for the herd and survival of the fitest is absurd. Mankind is not a mindless herd. Witness virtually all the accomplesments of civilization. All required group cooperation. That is not someting a herd operating on mindless instinct can do. Note I do not make a value judgement on the accomplishments for I view most in a positive manner and some are really bad.

---

Gary this argument you are making for the herd and survival of the fitest is absurd. Mankind is not a mindless herd. Witness virtually all the accomplesments of civilization. All required group cooperation. That is not someting a herd operating on mindless instinct can do. Note I do not make a value judgement on the accomplishments for I view most in a positive manner and some are really bad.

Thank you for putting it more concisely than I have been able.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Gary this argument you are making for the herd and survival of the fitest is absurd. Mankind is not a mindless herd. Witness virtually all the accomplesments of civilization. All required group cooperation. That is not someting a herd operating on mindless instinct can do. Note I do not make a value judgement on the accomplishments for I view most in a positive manner and some are really bad.

Well, just wait and see how it operates when global warming gets bad. Civilization as a whole hasn't been stressed in a while. But you only need to go back to WWII and the civilian refugee situation, the horror stories of what people did to survive, to actually see what man is.

OBW I never said that a herd is mindless, that is your invention. As to group cooperation, beehives, ant colonies, termite colonies. All require cooperation and they are amazing in their complexity and engineering.

I get that there are a large number of people who have a deep desire to claim man is somehow special and the universe revolves around man. Not unlike placing the earth as the center of the universe. Not unlike inventing a god as the creator and man is patterned after god.

The sooner we discover ET the sooner that myth of superiority will go away.

---

You dont even have to go back that far. Look at any major disaster. Some folks will band together and help out their fellow man. Others band together and act like Gengis Kahn looting and pillageing all they can get.
In the event of a really major stress on humanity, My bet will be on the Gengis Khans to win out.

---

[/quote]

Old James