GENIUS FORUMS

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Nick, do you support the medical, food, and building fields? Because if, as you said, nobody could afford them without all the rest of the garbage, I think you are forced to support the rest of the garbage.

I don't support any of them just for the sake of supporting of them, and I certainly don't support the current society we live in. If people lived more wisely we wouldn't need those fields not only because people woudln't be able to afford those services, people would have the time on their hands to take care of these things themselves.

Trevor try looking at the big picutre and imagine an idealy wise society and compare it to the one we currently live in and see how vast the differences would be. How do we get from point A to point B? If we feed the irrationalities of the world no progress will ever be made. This is why we as a philosopher must first perfect ourselves, it is the greatest contribution one can make to humanity, and no we wont get paid for it. If we don't perfect ourselves first through philosophy, any attempts to change the world will be in vain, continuing to feed the irrationalities we currently see. You wont see the fruits of your philosophic actions in this lifetime reflected in society, but neither did Jesus, Socrates, or any other philosopher you can think of.

E,

So you don't believe that people should get money they don't earn, and we should create unconcious drones from scrach to do all the labor that does not require thinking. Now what do you propose we do with the humans who are not bright enough to to work that requires thinking? And the surplus of humans you mentioned? Abort or let them starve to death?

I'm not enslaving anyone. The "wise" folks who are apparently the ruling class can make those decisions.

But if I were to make these decisions for some reason here is what I'd choose to do...the people that aren't bright enough to do work that requires thinking would have to do work that doesn't require thinking. If society were divided into drones who work and wise people who don't, then I suppose everyone would be fucked. I guess there would be no geneticists!

The surplus of humans? I don't know that I mentioned any surplus, but if there were a surplus, what I would do with them is what I'd do with anyone today. I'd say "Go feed yourself, there are no hand outs here."

I wouldn't abort anyone, or starve anyone.

BTW Scott, when you first got back after your extended break, you seemed pretty calm and serene. You're starting to get almost as irritable as you used to be. Does thinking get on your nerves?

Haha...do you really think that I stopped thinking when I took my break?

Arguments that are normally resolved with clear thinking, and instead turn into a "me versus you" thing get on my nerves.

With that in mind, if we have drones doing all the labor and the only thing humans are needed for is thinking, how is it more ethical to make all humans into thinkers than to reprogram those not designed for thinking to be happy with their work?

Look back and reread the discussion please. I consider this to be wasting my time.

You don't sound too thrilled with your work or you would be happy to work all day long and not care if 50% of the income from it went to taxes.

I don't even have a job right now. I'm in the national guard and a student.

If I was working and was being taxed 50%, why should I be happy about that? That's half of my money being taken away. That is a lot of shit I could buy, donate to, invest in, etc. My job satisfaction has nothing to do with the shittiness of being taxed so much.

Nick,

What the fuck do you mean create?

If you take a sperm and egg and genetically alter them, you take away that person's future. If you take various chemicals and alter them to produce some kind of human, you aren't taking away a person's future.

You must have some type of christian mentality

Why do you ASSume so much? I think that's the main problem with our "discussions", Nick. You fail to actually read what I'm writing, and instead read way too far into it.

The only reason you think this is weird or unethical is because you have an attachment to an inherent self that is frighteningly simliar to that of christians. Like there's some magical power creating these other "natural" states of matter, with some built in right to remain unaltered by man.

I do have an attachment to an inherenent self, and so do you. So does everyone here, so why don't we stop fooling ourselves?

Shut up about the Chrisitan shit...or any shit where you try to say I'm unaware of why my beliefs are the way they are. That gets on my nerves.

About the magical power creating natural states of matter, etc...I know what happens when man plays God. Nothing any human creates is close to the perfection that comes naturally.

Here is an example: drink Florida's best, then pick some oranges and make a glass of fresh squeezed. Which is better?

Trevor don't let him trick with his use of the word "earn" here. By "earn" he means that you need to put your time and effort into something that allows Paris Hilton to get her next prescription of valtrex filled, or so Lindsay Lohan can get the latest technology to text message all her friends to get wasted this weekend. Right Scott?

Wrong. Any work I've done has had nothing to do with helping Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan. By earn I mean not suck money out of other people's paychecks...exactly what I said before.

By the way, if you think Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan aren't actually working for their money, you're wrong. If it's so easy for them, I'd like to see you try to pull off what they do. Not that I consider what they do as an honest form of work...but that's business for you. Some people seem to hardly work at all and make tons. Like a CEO who lets a board handle the company...is it really work to be playing golf? Well, who cares. He got there, so good for him.

Nick said to Trevor,

This is why we as a philosopher must first perfect ourselves, it is the greatest contribution one can make to humanity, and no we wont get paid for it. If we don't perfect ourselves first through philosophy, any attempts to change the world will be in vain, continuing to feed the irrationalities we currently see.

This is great advice for yourself, Nick.

sschaula wrote:If you take a sperm and egg and genetically alter them, you take away that person's future.

I have not made even one person out of any of my eggs. How many people have you made out of your sperm? Did we take away a bunch of peole's futures by not ensuring each of our eggs and sperm made it to personhood?
.

Yeah, Elizabeth, we did. :-P

I give up...I realize now that I'm going to fail in this argument.

sschaula wrote: If you take a sperm and egg and genetically alter them, you take away that person's future.

Well first off this is not creation, it's just another way of alterating things. Secondly what person's future are you taking away, when there is in fact no person. You cannot reasonably justify your claim by saying that this egg and sperm could potentially develop into a human, when in fact any atomic structure can play a role in developing humans under the right circumstances. It's just a stupid as me not allowing someone to eat a certain food because it can alter the potential brith of one person with their own unique characteristics in favor of another person with their own unique characteristics. Your emphasis on a sperm and an egg is completely irrational.

sschaula wrote:Why do you ASSume so much? I think that's the main problem with our "discussions", Nick. You fail to actually read what I'm writing, and instead read way too far into it.

It was a comparison, and a very good one at that seeing as to how you place an irrational value on genetic material because, just like Christians, you think an egg and sperm are somehow more relevant causes to the development of a human being over all the other infinite causes.

sschaula wrote:I do have an attachment to an inherenent self, and so do you. So does everyone here, so why don't we stop fooling ourselves?

Well all I've seen from you so far is that your attachments cloud your judgement to the point that you wouldn't know wisdom if it came up and smacked you in the face. So again your judgements about the wisdom of other people simply can't be taken with any seriousness.

sschaula wrote:Shut up about the Chrisitan shit...or any shit where you try to say I'm unaware of why my beliefs are the way they are. That gets on my nerves.

Cry me a fucking river, it was a good comparison, get over yourself.

sschaula wrote:About the magical power creating natural states of matter, etc...I know what happens when man plays God.

Man can't play God.

sschaula wrote:Nothing any human creates is close to the perfection that comes naturally.

Everything we do is perfectly natural, whether it be taking a shit or altering our genetic material. For instance I just perfectly altered this thread by adding another post to it, and it was 100% natural too. Again your excessive attachment to an inherent self is ruining up your ability to see how we are nature. Meaning just because we seem to "create" something doesn't mean it wasn't done "naturally".

sschaula wrote:Here is an example: drink Florida's best, then pick some oranges and make a glass of fresh squeezed. Which is better?

This is irrelevant to the principles I'm explaining to you, but I understand the point you are trying to express. All this means is that we need to be very careful and take every precaution about what were doing.

sschaula wrote:Wrong. Any work I've done has had nothing to do with helping Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan.

Or any other dumbass on this planet equivelant to these two.

Anytime you work and contribute to society you are automatically supporting the addictions and attachments of every moron in that society, directly or indirectly doesn't matter.

sschaula wrote:By earn I mean not suck money out of other people's paychecks...exactly what I said before.

Any honest philosopher deserves every penny he recieves from the state. You can equate it to being societies debt owed to every philosopher to ever live. Unfortunately societies debt to philosophy will never be paid in full until every person in society begins to live wisely.

sschaula wrote:By the way, if you think Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan aren't actually working for their money, you're wrong.

Why do you ASSume so much? But you are right I couldn't stay up til all hours destroying my liver and catching STDs. I value thinking too much to do that.

sschaula wrote:Nick said to Trevor,

This is why we as a philosopher must first perfect ourselves, it is the greatest contribution one can make to humanity, and no we wont get paid for it. If we don't perfect ourselves first through philosophy, any attempts to change the world will be in vain, continuing to feed the irrationalities we currently see.

This is great advice for yourself, Nick.

How can you agree that this is gread advice for anyone when you don't even recognize the value of philosophy?

Scott - "I don't mean any offense, because I have found you to be a good thinker...but I think that philosophy is not a valuable service.

You do realize that in order to perfect yourself you will be using philosophy right?

Alright, Nick, I'm done chatting with you.

I like to have reasonable conversations. Look at the conversation Trevor and I had. It was well mannered and we actually got somewhere, instead of attacking eachother...probably mostly due to Trevor. I like to have intelligent conversations. I don't like back and forth bullshit. I'm not going to discuss anything with anyone that tries that shit with me anymore.

sschaula wrote:I'm not going to discuss anything with anyone that tries that shit with me anymore.

You are showing some signs of wisdom - like this one.
.

You are being way too sensitive. If you interpreted anything I've said as an attack you are totally mistaken.

Nick,

Trevor try looking at the big picutre and imagine an idealy wise society and compare it to the one we currently live in and see how vast the differences would be.

I'm notoriously poor at anything to do with large-scale ethics and politics. Set me a task that involves any more than 3 or 4 people and I'm totally out of my league. I'm amazed that politicians have managed to do their job at all.

But I'll think about it, and if you're still here in a few years, you might even see some conclusions.

David,

It would not be necessary to alter female infants either surgically or through the introduction of hormones that their own bodies do not produce. This can be done naturally. Let me share how i figured this out.

A couple of months ago i got a puppy, and at that time I had 2 female parakeets and 2 male parakeets. The female parakeets had bubble gum pink bands over their beaks (for others - that is how we tell the difference between male and female parakeets - males have blue bands and females have pink bands). The puppy was young enough that she could not sleep through the night without having to be let out, and i had difficulty for over a month in getting her to not jump on the bird cage, and i was not paying as much attention to the birds as i did before i got the dog - so the birds had a difficult adjustment period. When i was able to slow down enough to pay attention to the birds again, i noticed that one female had returned to having a white band like she did during pubescence, and the other female had pink in the middle of her band, white on the outsides of that, and blue along the far ends. I looked up online about transgendered birds, and discovered that female birds only have one functioning ovary - like I do - and therefore when they are placed under stress, their bodies start producing enough testosterone that their ovary can not compensate for it, and they start developing male secondary characteristics. I have been through more stress throughout my life than most people I know, and it was discovered year ago that i produce more testosterone than most females. The scan was done to find out the cause of some unusual hair growth that i was experiencing. Additionally, i notice that American females are more masculinized than Australian females, and i realize that American culture is far more stressful than Australian culture. Also, it seems that even within those groups, those females who have been through more are more masculinized than those who have been sheltered.

Logically, it seems to follow that if we place females in the more stressful situations, they will naturally become more masculinized and better able to handle these things, and think more clearly, than if they are sheltered.

You have been through a lot, Elizabeth.

You have a very interesting writing style, and I love reading your posts.

I think you're right about the difference between Australian and American women. But I think Australia, as a nation, is more cossetted generally, and I think our government's social security policies have a lot to do with that. No-one here starves. If anyone can't work, for any reason, we are supported by the taxpayer. We don't spend money on space exploration or the arms race, and I think we own something like 2 aircraft carriers. So we're not big on making a huge imprint on the world, but we do look after our own people. I'm not sure if I'm going off-topic or not, but I thought you raised some valid points about masculinisation of women generally. In America, you have to be tough, because no-one looks after you if you don't. Here, I think there's less of a national psyche about proving yourself. We have less of an ego problem, generally. And I think Australian women are perhaps more well-grounded.

Adaptation to stress has to be done consciously, and with careful calculation and attention to one's capacity, not by simply throwing oneself into a turbulent maelstrom and passively hoping one survives.

The latter scenario leads to post-traumatic stress disorder. Elizabeth has mentioned that she has this.

-

One of the typical characteristics of an American is PTSD. Hell-realms, or animal realms with hellish edge. Even the most beaming-faced, glowing-skinned, booming-voiced, charming-toothed specimen has retractable canines.

Australians are characteristically thick as bricks. Animals almost all the way through. If you get them upset, they just get more stupid, and have a cry in their beer --- after throwing a punch, breaking glass, and burning rubber. Australians have no cunning. It's the mediocre aspect of "mateship", a kind of stupefying fear of being truly unfriendly. You can be as eccentric as you like, but you have to be entertaining. No class system in Australia - what garbage. It's stupid class. That's why it's one of the "safest" places to live. All good little obedient mates.

-

Kelly Jones wrote:Adaptation to stress has to be done consciously, and with careful calculation and attention to one's capacity, not by simply throwing oneself into a turbulent maelstrom and passively hoping one survives.

The latter scenario leads to post-traumatic stress disorder. Elizabeth has mentioned that she has this.

Yes Kelly, you are correct. It isn't a matter of just not sheltering females, but both not sheltering and both teaching and encouraging logical, effective behavior. PTSD only develops under serious stress where one feels helpless. If everyone were to behave rationally, there would be very few no-win situations.

If one behaves rationally, then it's always a win-win situation, no matter what anyone else does.

-

Exactly Kelly - and it is not rational to shelter females from situations that they are just as capable as males of dealing with.

xerosaburu wrote:Would an enlightened person have any difficulty with the idea of scientists developing a breed of homo sapiens (actually sapien-less) sans cerebral cortex or midbrain for the use of organ harvesting?

Why or why not?

Of course not, why would he?
I reckon an enlightened person wouldnt hesitate to personally rip out 1,000 live hearts if it would help him find just one to keep him going.
(if he thought staying alive was very important)
You havent got any idea what enlightenment is about, do you?