This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

GolgothaTenement's Profile

GolgothaTenement's Avatar Joined about 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by GolgothaTenement

More Discussions by GolgothaTenement

Latest Comments by GolgothaTenement

Go to: U.K.'s Royal Society Finds No 'Silver Bullet' for Population Issues

GolgothaTenement's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by GolgothaTenement

Shit down syndrome babies are already aborted 9/10 of the time regardless of the mother's beliefs, despite what piece of shit like Sarah Palin say, and no one has a problem with that. Abortion given predictions of the fetus's prospects is already eugenics, why is eugenics such a dirty word, why not have those predictions given all the information we totally DO HAVE before impregnation occurs. And despite the whining of non-science intellectuals, the IQ test is pretty objective, and who the hell could object to it, except people who idolize stupidity. In terms of framing, the religious right must be backed into the corner of admitting the idolize stupidity and hate science, and once they admit that and their pseudointellectual bullshit falls to pieces, we'll be able to start step 1 in saving the world, which is rather than keeping these idiots away from our schools, we'll be able to keep them from reproducing whatsoever.

(yes this is extreme, but tell me you don't see Glenn Beck and have, as your first thought, eugenics).

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:35:31 UTC | #938258

Go to: U.K.'s Royal Society Finds No 'Silver Bullet' for Population Issues

GolgothaTenement's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by GolgothaTenement

I'm just going to come out and say it: a worldwide agreement that there needs to be a license to have kids. As soon as anyone says this they are considered some Nazi, but as with every other ethical question we are talking degree (grayscale) rather than principle (black/white). If someone is, say, a heroin junkie, or a jihadist terrorist, anyone sane would agree, they shouldn't have kids and make more of themselves. Now expand that a little: then you've got the idea that a minimum IQ, income and etc is required to get a license to have kids. Indeed sterilization should be a universal, non-optional (but reversible) practice, and to reverse it you need to apply for a license.

The one reason I know that I'm not just arguing that society should be full of people like me is, that I wouldn't expect to get the license myself.

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:31:19 UTC | #938255

Go to: Why do French intellectuals "know nothing about science"?

GolgothaTenement's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by GolgothaTenement

When I was at uni most of my friends were devout readers of Baudrillard, Derrida, Sartre etc. Partly because they were on the reading list but mostly because it armed you to win drunken arguments in pubs and pick up girls. For some reason one Summer I decided to read The Selfish Gene and A Brief History of Time (not on the Fine Arts reading list) and found myself the butt of jokes and substantially less attractive.

Well, this might be sexist but if so unintentionally... women seem to love anti-rationalists, such as Rousseua for example. I'm not going to introduce some kind of "clearly transparent cultural projection" which is vulnerable to PC criticism such as "women have more emotional intelligence than men, therefore it isn't surprising that anti-rationalists who appeal to emotion would be statistically more popular among females than males" - except I actually am. lol. There is totally an evolutionary-psychology reason why "but ohh, aren't you forgetting culture/the emotional element" flies high when trying to pick up women, but explaining that so far as we know everything can be explained by math doesn't. You could say the latter is not "romantic" but why do women want "romantic" ideas in the first place, indeed what is the idea of romance (in the modern sense) other than a specific affection for anti-rationalism and a specific aversion to rationalism.

I had more to say but then I realized that this was probably enough!

Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:33:41 UTC | #938234

Go to: Cocaine decreases activity of a protein necessary for normal functioning of the brain's reward system

GolgothaTenement's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by GolgothaTenement

Actually what you said was that it's immoral because it supports cartels and violence. But what supports cartels and violence is the illegality itself, ie making a black market, ie prohibition of alcohol.

And you also said it's bad secondarily because it harms the user, but you forget a) marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes and b) fast food, dangerous sports, excessive desert, etc, all harm the person partaking, but we don't outlaw those or even consider them immoral.

Get your nanny state out of people's lives. Marijuana will be legal, regulated and taxed in North America by 2020, and a more reasonable attitude toward other drugs isn't far behind.

If you don't like your son using marijuana, that's a family issue not a political one. Who's responsible for the massive, horrible problems in Mexico - teenagers who smoke pot, or the politicians who launched the war on drugs in the first place and created a black market of unprecedented size (Sam Harris cites 8% of all international commerce). A Mexican friend related a saying they have there to me: "Mexico - so far from God, and so close to America." They all know that American policy is the root of their problem, hell a bunch of South American leaders just told Obama that recently.

PS: If you think there is some kind of philosophical line between pleasure processed into the brain due to a substance the state doesn't approve of and pleasure processed in the brain due to a substance the state does approve of, or food, or sex, etc, that's ridiculous. The only principle that could possibly be applied is that pleasure shouldn't be allowed if it doesn't increase the chances of survival or gene-perpetration (after all, pleasure is a reward meant to encourage an organism to do those things), but then you have to outlaw alcohol, cigarettes, masturbation, TV, video games, caffeine, porn, anything simulated at all, and ignore the fact that non-human organisms stimulate their reward systems as much as they can (monkeys and birds with alcohol for example).

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:04:02 UTC | #937859

Go to: Richard Dawkins Has a Point, Your Eminence!

GolgothaTenement's Avatar Jump to comment 44 by GolgothaTenement

this is hilarious, I thought the Catholic church's leadership was way too authoritarian and crazy for the followers (and as far as I can tell this is true), but it's funny that they would be insufficiently so for some of them. Then again I guess there are probably people who think Fox News is part of the liberal media lol.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:54:11 UTC | #937814

More Comments by GolgothaTenement