The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Nor does nature care about fairness and justice, but we as a society sure do and well ought to.

If it is evolutionarily advantageous to care about fairness and justice, we will. If it is disadvantageous, those who care about it will eventually fade away and those who don't will thrive.

"Ought to" is meaningless unless it is in accordance with nature. It's hot air. I can say "ought to" about anything. "I ought to have a million dollars fall out of the air into my hands. I declare that this is my natural right! I declare it is self-evident that I should have my free million from the air!" There, where did that get me? Nowhere, because thoughts like "ought to" are empty nothings. Even if a billion people also think so. A billion times nothing is nothing.

Nature wins in the long run. Misguided ideas disappear in the long run. Only ideas that conform to where nature was going anyway are going to survive.

Progressivism is an idea that, if taken seriously and followed, weakens the society that follows it and makes it vulnerable to conquest by non-progressive societies. Therefore progressivism is a kind of "idea virus" that invades and destroys its host. As Lawrence Auster used to say, progressivism can only survive as long as its followers make unprincipled exceptions to their progressivism. They talk progressivism but mainly live non-progressive lives. White limousine liberals talk racial egalitarianism but take care to live in lily-white enclaves, for example, and talk public schools but send their own children to private schools.

You remember that Indiana Jones movie scene where the bad guy comes out to confront Jones, and executes a brilliant demonstration of kung-fu chops and kicks in the air in preparation for attacking Jones....and Jones lifts his revolver and just shoots the guy? To me, that's what all the talk about "natural rights" and "shoulds" and "ought tos" and Lennon-esque "Imagine" stuff amounts to - a lot of philosophical hoo-hah that falls flat on its face as soon as a Hitler or Stalin comes along and puts his boot in your face.

[Woodsman]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

If it is evolutionarily advantageous to care about fairness and justice, we will. If it is disadvantageous, those who care about it will eventually fade away and those who don't will thrive.

"Ought to" is meaningless unless it is in accordance with nature. It's hot air. I can say "ought to" about anything. "I ought to have a million dollars fall out of the air into my hands. I declare that this is my natural right! I declare it is self-evident that I should have my free million from the air!" There, where did that get me? Nowhere, because thoughts like "ought to" are empty nothings. Even if a billion people also think so. A billion times nothing is nothing.

Nature wins in the long run. Misguided ideas disappear in the long run. Only ideas that conform to where nature was going anyway are going to survive.

Progressivism is an idea that, if taken seriously and followed, weakens the society that follows it and makes it vulnerable to conquest by non-progressive societies. Therefore progressivism is a kind of "idea virus" that invades and destroys its host. As Lawrence Auster used to say, progressivism can only survive as long as its followers make unprincipled exceptions to their progressivism. They talk progressivism but mainly live non-progressive lives. White limousine liberals talk racial egalitarianism but take care to live in lily-white enclaves, for example, and talk public schools but send their own children to private schools.

You remember that Indiana Jones movie scene where the bad guy comes out to confront Jones, and executes a brilliant demonstration of kung-fu chops and kicks in the air in preparation for attacking Jones....and Jones lifts his revolver and just shoots the guy? To me, that's what all the talk about "natural rights" and "shoulds" and "ought tos" and Lennon-esque "Imagine" stuff amounts to - a lot of philosophical hoo-hah that falls flat on its face as soon as a Hitler or Stalin comes along and puts his boot in your face.

We finally agree. I'm not at all convinced that love is adaptive. Neither is hope, charity, faith, forbearance, kindness, gentleness, temperance, and peace. If anything, they seem to be supernatural.

Maybe that's why you seem to have such a challenge understanding them and their value. For a few folks, they just don't compute. Certainly these are useless in terms of gaining power over others. What possible use are they to the fittest in their struggle to survive? Surely in your ideal world there is only one virtue - power.

Speaking of boots in faces, you reminded me of someone and until now I just couldn't place it.

"But always--do not forget this, Winston--always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory,the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."

I'm happy to disappear in the long run if our world is to be without these non-material values. Heck, I'm going to disappear anyway. So you can have it all MN and you and your Übermensch can hack each other to death in the struggle.

Funny that you cite Auster. He was too much even for David Horowitz. Curious how he became a Catholic as he lay dying of cancer. Hedging his bets, maybe?

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Maybe that's why you seem to have such a challenge understanding them and their value. For a few [link to definition of psychopath]folks, they just don't compute. Certainly these are useless in terms of gaining power over others. What possible use are they to the fittest in their struggle to survive? Surely in your ideal world there is only one virtue - power.

Speaking of boots in faces, you reminded me of someone and until now I just couldn't place it.

I'm happy to disappear in the long run if our world is to be without these non-material values. Heck, I'm going to disappear anyway. So you can have it all MN and you and your Übermensch can hack each other to death in the struggle.

Woodsman, it seems to be very important to you to answer every post I make with several ugly ad hominem insults directed at me. You've called me a Nazi, a psychopath, and compared me to the villain in '1984' - and that's just in this one response of yours. You've responded to almost every post I've made here, and always with the same theme: that I am scum, mentally ill, and a Nazi.

It's very tired, Woodsman. Try to calm down a little, take a breath, and make an actual argument that actually responds to what I am saying instead of dripping your dislike for me all over the screen. Alternatively, just ignore my posts. You suggested I do the same in another thread, and I've been taking that advice and ignoring you. I suggest you take the same advice and ignore me. No one is interested in your insults of me or mine of you.

Don't worry, the world will not fall apart if you fail to follow up every posting I make with another chunk of hyperbole suggesting I am sick.


For everyone other than Woodsman: I am not advocating a world that is Darwinian. I am observing that the world is Darwinian. It is a simple fact, an observation. Therefore the apppropriate response is to argue that the world is not Darwinian. There is no purpose to arguing that the world should not be Darwinian, or that I am rotten for observing that the world is Darwinian. Show me that the world is not Darwinian, otherwise you are not responding to my point but rather reacting in a Pavlovian fashion to a word you don't like.

[Woodsman]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Woodsman, it seems to be very important to you to answer every post I make with several ugly ad hominem insults directed at me. You've called me a Nazi, a psychopath, and compared me to the villain in '1984' - and that's just in this one response of yours. You've responded to almost every post I've made here, and always with the same theme: that I am scum, mentally ill, and a Nazi.

It's very tired, Woodsman. Try to calm down a little, take a breath, and make an actual argument that actually responds to what I am saying instead of dripping your dislike for me all over the screen. Alternatively, just ignore my posts. You suggested I do the same in another thread, and I've been taking that advice and ignoring you. I suggest you take the same advice and ignore me. No one is interested in your insults of me or mine of you.

Don't worry, the world will not fall apart if you fail to follow up every posting I make with another chunk of hyperbole suggesting I am sick.


For everyone other than Woodsman: I am not advocating a world that is Darwinian. I am observing that the world is Darwinian. It is a simple fact, an observation. Therefore the apppropriate response is to argue that the world is not Darwinian. There is no purpose to arguing that the world should not be Darwinian, or that I am rotten for observing that the world is Darwinian. Show me that the world is not Darwinian, otherwise you are not responding to my point but rather reacting in a Pavlovian fashion to a word you don't like.

Okay, I'll ignore you. Woof!

[Penguin]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

I've done just that. And added that it is my firm belief that those on the right are even more responsible for keeping Darwin out of the mix.

I'm not sure there is anything that scares the hell out of our current crop of elite like the prospect of them or their offspring having to compete on anything resembling an equal playing field under Darwinian rules. As I've said, I have a certain measure of respect for those who advocate that we go complete Klingon. But I haven't met many. 99% of those who think they believe in survival of the fittest are only kidding themselves. They desire no such thing. They only wish to justify their current privilege.

Will

[Forrest]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

oh sure woody - if ya cant dis em with divergence - DISTRACT EM with....

ummmm...

WHOA!!!!

devastatingly .... YEOWZA!
hot.... uhhhh

leave em speechless
1 point for woody

Visually, perhaps...if you like sulky, pouting brunette types with great hoo-has.

But there is no voice worth the mention, and although the guitar music is nice, the words celebrate the fate of all true progressives.

Not pleasant, but then you can always turn the sound off.

[Woodsman]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

There was a guitar?

Here's one for you, Forrest. Durn liburuls!

And the original by that commie Ochs.

[Forrest]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Liked Ochs! Thanks.

[vt]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

This was one of my favorites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15qGP4Z1-Pk

I certainly looked the part in the early 70's

It was a parody of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE

[Woodsman]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

This was one of my favorites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15qGP4Z1-Pk

I certainly looked the part in the early 70's

It was a parody of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE

'Cause my longhair just can't cover up my red neck...

[Forrest]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

I can't help but like old Waylon, Willie, Kris...but I enjoyed Rusty as well!

[Polish_Silver]

Empathy: the evolutionary basis of morality

If it is evolutionarily advantageous to care about fairness and justice, we will. If it is disadvantageous, those who care about it will eventually fade away and those who don't will thrive.

"Ought to" is meaningless unless it is in accordance with nature. .

Homo sapiens is distinct in it's high degree of cognition and empathy. Both traits contribute to cooperation, and hence to survival. Right or wrong means "Consistent or inconsistent with empathy for fellow humans and to a lesser extent with other organisms" . The discovery of mirror neurons, a neurological and genetic underpinning of empathy, and hence morality, may be the greatest discovery of modern science.

As an example of this, Animal Planet had a survey of predators. The most successful is the predator that has the highest percentage of successful hunts. The most sucessful was the African Painted Dog. These are feral dogs that hunt in packs. It has been well established that wolves are more intelligent than dogs. Then why are the dogs better at hunting? Because, in the millennia of domestication, cooperation was enhanced at the expense of competition and aggression.

They mentioned an example of a crippled dog that was fed by pack members for two years, without being able to contribute to hunting. The dogs are not wondering "will sharing food help our Pack?" or "Will sharing food increase my chance of reproducing?". Their empathy motivates them to help group members. The trait of cooperation with the group has very strong survival value, even if some of it's specific consequences do not contribute to individual or pack survival.

Morality is no longer based on social concensus, fear of exile or divine retribution, but on our evolutionary heritage as caring human beings.

The word "inhumane" reflects a lack of empathy observed in socio-paths, who lack empathy and exploit the trust and empathy of the larger population.

We can now answer Plato's question "What is justice?"

[Woodsman]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Saw Kris last spring at the Ryman. Just him, a guitar and a mike for the first half. Magic, man. Just magic. He was joined by his daughter Kelly on banjo for the last half of the show and you could see the love and the chemistry between them.

To be in that "sacred" place and see him play so many beautiful, funny, and heartbreaking songs. It was a dream come true for this music fan.

I've must have listened to "Sunday Morning Coming Down" 10,000 times since Ray Stevens first performed it in '70 and Cash made it famous, but I swear I never heard it until I heard it that night.

Kris is an old man now and his voice is like a pickup truck rolling across gravel and he cries unexpectedly like old men do at times. But somehow it makes it all the more powerful and moving. And as I sat and listened, I realized I was crying too.

Most of us in that building had gray hair and sallow flesh, but when we heard the words "busted flat in Baton Rouge, waitin' for a train...", well for a minute there it seems we forgot all about the world as it is and came back to what it once was all those years ago.

What a privilege it was. I'll never forget it.

[Verrocchio]

Re: The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

Deep convictions on a topic are the root of eloquence, and both are evident in your post on the stripping away of jobs in Appalachia, Penguin (Will). The men (and women) who held the mining, timber, steel, glass, and small-town jobs that are now long gone made up a good part of the backbone of a strong US.

[vinoveri]

Re: Empathy: the evolutionary basis of morality

Homo sapiens is distinct in it's high degree of cognition and empathy. Both traits contribute to cooperation, and hence to survival. Right or wrong means "Consistent or inconsistent with empathy for fellow humans and to a lesser extent with other organisms" . The discovery of mirror neurons, a neurological and genetic underpinning of empathy, and hence morality, may be the greatest discovery of modern science.

As an example of this, Animal Planet had a survey of predators. The most successful is the predator that has the highest percentage of successful hunts. The most sucessful was the African Painted Dog. These are feral dogs that hunt in packs. It has been well established that wolves are more intelligent than dogs. Then why are the dogs better at hunting? Because, in the millennia of domestication, cooperation was enhanced at the expense of competition and aggression.

They mentioned an example of a crippled dog that was fed by pack members for two years, without being able to contribute to hunting. The dogs are not wondering "will sharing food help our Pack?" or "Will sharing food increase my chance of reproducing?". Their empathy motivates them to help group members. The trait of cooperation with the group has very strong survival value, even if some of it's specific consequences do not contribute to individual or pack survival.

Morality is no longer based on social concensus, fear of exile or divine retribution, but on our evolutionary heritage as caring human beings.

The word "inhumane" reflects a lack of empathy observed in socio-paths, who lack empathy and exploit the trust and empathy of the larger population.

We can now answer Plato's question "What is justice?"

Thanks for the link; hadn't heard of mirror neurons. I'm not sure how it answers "plato's question"; would you be able to elaborate?

My difficulty with where this line of thought seems to be going is to explain all morality (all action if you will) via genetics, selective adaptation etc, which ultimately limits the idea of "free will" (or perhaps I misunderstand?), and we all know (or at least perceive) that we do make determined choices, sometimes very difficult (sacrificial) ones but sometimes very selfish ones (e.g. murder, meanness). In any case, even if one's morality is a result of adaptation that enhances the survival of the species, one as a rational being understand this and thereby can choose to serve the organism, oneself, and not concern oneself with the species. OK, so one may feel a little guilty torturing animals, raping women, stealing from widows and orphans, but like it so much that one does it anyway; no eternity to answer to; one neither cares about the species or "goodness".

The problem of evil is not easily solved, so some decide to ignore it by postulating that it does not exist; that every action of men can be explained (at least theoretically if not empirically) as a manifestation of the natural world. There may be a host of "plausible" natural reasons to explain why a man gets intense enjoyment in skinning a cat alive, but evil is alive and well do to the wrong choices of the human will.