[Declan]

This has been a very captivating thread! Now I feel the need to throw my two cents in, so here it goes:


Reading through it, the most apparent thing was that slowly, it turned into a clash of ideologies rather than an exchange of opinions. The two main camps raised the Liberal flag, on one side, and the Conservative banner on the other, with the occasional “voice of center”.

I personally voted Conservative in the last election and as such I am with Jack on this one, to a certain extent. I would have a hard time denying a person that life saving meal if I was faced with the choice in such a direct and personal way and if I had enough, I would share.

However, when it comes to the big picture, I think those groups, races, cultures, etc, who can’t make it on their own, should not be propped up due to a false sense of moral obligation but rather be euthanized through inactions by not giving them the crumbs from our feast. Let nature and life take its course.

There was a lot of talk about morality. What is morality? Who invented it and why do some of you feel that it is a rule of sorts that can not and must not ever be broken?

Morality is “choice of convenience”. The only thing that matters in the end is who is strong enough to survive on his/her own. Look at the animal kingdom; you don’t ever see the lion feeling sorry for having to snuff the life out of a gazelle so that he can continue living.

My personal view is that the mess that we are in today is a product of millennia of misguided emotions and misplaced ambitions. Compassion, pity, mercy, these are luxuries of the well-fed; the end goal of acting on these emotions is only one: to make oneself feel better, by masking (note I don’t say eliminating) the source of that instinctive pain most of us feel when we witness the suffering of a member of our own species.

We act out of pity for someone only because we want to stop feeling so bad inside. Some of you think that by extending a helping hand you are a better person but I think you’re just weak; we all are, except for a handful of sociopaths who are not capable of feeling emotion. We were wired to be weak in that regard, in order to increase the chances of survival of our species, back in a time when the loss of a few members could spell extinction. That biological function is no longer necessary today. As a matter of fact, our survival depends on our ability to turn it off.

I think that we can only save ourselves if we clear our heads of years, decades of Liberal-Socialist indoctrination and stop pretending that we all are a big family and we all love each other. We will not find salvation in holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” but rather in acknowledging that we are a bunch of very different people, with very different goals and interests.
I think that the best way for humanity to survive and prosper is Imperialism. The strongest shall conquer and rule. If you don’t like being conquered and ruled, don’t be weak, be the conqueror or shut up.

If I had a choice between being the lion or the gazelle, I would choose “lion”, ten times out of ten.

[Declan]

Let Africa Sink

By: Kim du Toit
May 26, 2002 01:40pm

.....

All we should do is make sure that none of Africa gets transplanted over to the U.S., because the danger to our society is dire if it does. I note that several U.S. churches are attempting to bring groups of African refugees over to the United States, European churches the same for Europe. Mistake. Mark my words, this misplaced charity will turn around and bite us, big time.

Reading this, I started shaking my head in complete agreement. Out of all the African immigrants that came to Canada, maybe a measly 1% or less has chosen to lead a “lawful” life. Toronto, Winnipeg and Calgary are facing problems the likes of which one never encountered outside Rwanda, Nigeria, Somalia, etc.

Brooks, a small town of 13,000 people in Alberta has 3,000 African immigrants from Somalia, Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Nigeria. Many of them are from rival tribes and the majority of them have AIDS or HIV. They have made Brooks the official AIDS/HIV capital of Canada.

They come to work at the meat packing plant for wages that no whitey would ever accept and then they “pull” all their relatives in.

Their way of life, with a few small exceptions is one of violence, lack of hygiene, lack of most basic respect for our laws (they torture and mutilate their women for example), complete defiance of city by laws and lack of basic respect for their neighbors or authority figures.

I know about fifteen people who moved away from Brooks because they just couldn’t handle living in “Little Mogadishu”, as it’s now known.

[sch_peakoiler]

That is a good point! And examples are abundant... turkish population of Germany (though I must say they are surely not so extreme as africans, but nevertheless their crime record has beaten all the previous records)... Uzbek immigrants in Russia... You name it. Everywhere the same.

But I do not think those people are bad or criminal. This is economy which makes it happen. Imagine an African immigrant in Canada or a turkish one in Germany. They do not have any chance. They are being hated (sometime covertly) by the most part of the population. They can only get sh.t jobs. Of course after they have lived in poverty in the middle of abundance for a while they would eventually resort to violence. But who is guilty? Probably the companies who are happy to have workers getting slave wage?

I think there should be a simple legislation - either an immigrant finds a decent job (and for an african this is next to impossible) or he is out.

[kevincarter]

That is a good point! And examples are abundant... turkish population of Germany (though I must say they are surely not so extreme as africans, but nevertheless their crime record has beaten all the previous records)... Uzbek immigrants in Russia... You name it. Everywhere the same.
I think there should be a simple legislation - either an immigrant finds a decent job (and for an african this is next to impossible) or he is out.

We can see the whole scheme of 3rd world aid repeating within our societies. Since third world immigrants are poor we have to help them, that’s what we are told. So we feed them, give them free houses, pocket money and access to special programs. And the results are as bad as when trying to help their countries. They increase crime, bring more and more people in, are not able to get decent jobs, treat their own people badly, totally collapse our already weak public health program and drain our limited economic resources. So what’s the point of helping them? What's the point of letting them in?

If we go on and talk about immigration we would see the same sides, help them all, send them back. I really would like to know the opinion on immigration of those who have been most active on this thread. But I can imagine.

And as for the discussion I think that:

Let nature and life take its course.

puts it all in a nutshell.

And totally disagree with:

I think that the best way for humanity to survive and prosper is Imperialism.

I think the best way for humanity to prosper and progress is imperialism. Survival is another thing. If we are going to hit a very thick concrete wall is thanks to Imperialism and progress. But still, empires fall, all of them.

Enjoy the ride.

[Heineken]

You're right, Jack, honor is to some extent a flexible, personal value system---but it must exist within the limits of certain universally recognized standards of right and wrong in one's deportment toward others. You distort (and degrade) the concept of "honor" by applying it solely as a standard of your own personal pleasure. That isn't what honor is about. By using it to refer to your own ability to eat and drink richly etc., you demonstrate your ignorance of the concept. Of course, that fits neatly in with your general sociopathic response pattern.

I do not agree that honor is a "societal control mechanism." Quite the contrary; honorable men, in pursuing what they internally know to be the right path, often act in opposition to the crowd. Literature---and real life---is replete with such characters, and good people will root for them because good people naturally cleave to kindness, love, charity, and self-sacrifice. To believe as you do, you must have quite a different set of heroes---a la Simon Legree, I should imagine. There's the model for you.

You say that honor is "irrelevant." Just rephrase that to say that honor is irrelevant to you---not to mention inconvenient to one whose personal sensual pleasure is the prime directive in life.

I can't deny the validity of your position for you personally. It's real, if tragic. Fortunately people like you---and torturers of puppies---are in the small minority.

You state, "I place no value on mercy or compassion." Truly, no one can stop you from playing with your feces.

[ohcomeon]

Sooner or later she is going to be back on your doorstep, the next time with her brothers and their baseball bats.

That sounds remarkably like mafia-style extortion. Either pay protection or get hurt.

Her brothers and their baseball bats may have a little surprise in store for them.

In the end, the stoney-hearted Jacks of this world are going down with the rest of it.

Sure. But we'll take a few with us. If I can die with a gun in my hand and a curse on my lips, then I can truly say that I lived well and died better.

No, you can only say you lived. But not well. Only that your definition of "well" was distorted, selfish, arrogant and showed a complete lack of normal human feeling. Since you get to define "well", I will define "normal". And you, sir, miss that on all counts. As for dying better, well, you may perhaps have it right there. Atleast then you will be out of your misery and unable to inflict it on anyone else.

[Heineken]

From what we can see of him here, Jack has many characteristics diagnostic of a type of borderline sociopathy. It's illuminating to read the following excellent description of this condition and then compare it against Jack's posts on this board:


"Sociopaths are very egocentric individuals that lack a sense of personal responsibility and morality. They may be impulsive, manipulative, reckless, quarrelsome, and consistent liars.

Sociopaths . . . have a total lack of remorse for their actions and may also be very prone to aggressive . . . behavior.

. . .

Despite these previous symptoms, the sociopath may be an excellent actor, always appearing charming, calm, and collected. They usually have a normal or above normal intelligence level and good verbal fluency. . . .

There are three main categories of psychopaths:
•Primary psychopaths/sociopaths are considered to be the true sociopath. This is the sociopath who appears to be very normal, calm, and educated on the exterior, but on the interior, they are incapable of experiencing any form of emotional content.

They rarely come in contact with the law, but when they do, they are often able to talk themselves out of trouble using their verbal skills. Despite this verbal eloquence, the words often have no real emotional meaning for the sociopath. . . .

This form of psychopath "can basically be thought of as emotional shells;the surface is all there, but there is no substance".

•The second category is the secondary, or neurotic, psychopath/sociopath. This type of individual has much more severe and noticeable emotional problems. According to
Dr. Curt Bartol, they are sometimes referred to as "acting-out neurotics". This individual displays much greater antisocial behavior and is much more likely to come into contact with the law (repeatedly). They are at a much greater risk of imprisonment.

•The third type of psychopath/sociopath is the dyssocial psychopath. "Dyssocial psychopaths can be said to have come about primarily due to Bandura's Social Learning Theory and his model for observational learning. They were effectively made antisocial by their environment" . This category of sociopathy is much rarer and therefore has been researched much less.

. . . One of the primary causes of sociopathic behavior is believed to be neurological abnormalities mainly in the frontal lobe of the brain. This area of the brain is responsible for "self-control, planning, judgment, the balance of individual versus social needs, and many other essential functions underlying effective social intercourse".

. . .

A second factor believed to be partially responsible for the sociopathic disorder . . . is the primary socialization of individuals within dysfunctional environments, such as abusive, poorly educated, or poverty stricken homes.

For years, this was thought to be the primary cause of sociopathy. But as knowledge has increased in the area of neuroscience, it has been realized that this is possibly only a secondary cause. (Andreasen, 1984).

An estimated 3% of all adult males have this sociopathic disorder. (The antisocial personality disorder is uncommon among women.) Only a small fraction of this percentage actually develop into violent criminals. Most sociopathic individuals are able to control their disorder within the boundaries of social tolerability. They are considered only 'socially obnoxious' or hateful personalities, and every one of us knows of someone who fits the description. . . .

A common characteristic is that they engage systematically in deception and manipulation of others for personal gain. In fact, many successful and adapted non-violent sociopaths can be
found in our society. . . .

More easily recognized and studied are the sociopathic individuals with histories of violent criminal behavior. As much as 15-25% of society's inmate population show many traits of this disorder. It is these incarcerated individuals as well as individuals in mental institutions on which most of the research on antisocial personality disorder is based.

The sociopath could be the intelligent and very successful businessman that goes home each night and abuses his family. He could be the temperamental man that visits the bar regularly and who often gets into brawls.

The sociopath could be the prison inmate who was just released last month, and who is already back in prison or the hateful man that lives on the block that no one seems to be able to get
along with. He could be that career-climbing businessman or politician that doesn't care who they destroy in the process. It could even be that man that can't seem to get enough of
adrenaline-pumping adventures like bungee jumping, skydiving, and motorcycle racing. Or, he could be that quiet, polite man that no one ever suspected was a serial killer.

. . .

The sociopath is that truly self-absorbed individual with no conscience or feeling for others and for whom social rules have no meaning. SOUND FAMILIAR??

[ohcomeon]

[quote="Heineken"]From what we can see of him here, Jack has many characteristics diagnostic of a type of borderline sociopathy. It's illuminating to read the following excellent description of this condition and then compare it against Jack's posts on this board:


"Sociopaths are very egocentric individuals that lack a sense of personal responsibility and morality. They may be impulsive, manipulative, reckless, quarrelsome, and consistent liars.

Sociopaths . . . have a total lack of remorse for their actions and may also be very prone to aggressive . . . behavior.

. . .

Yes, it sounds familiar. Either he is truly this, or is having an awesome time toying with us all. Then again, it could be both. Either way, it isn't funny, or helpful.

[rwwff]

Yes, it sounds familiar. Either he is truly this, or is having an awesome time toying with us all. Then again, it could be both. Either way, it isn't funny, or helpful.

I find it quite distasteful when folks attempt to perform psychoanalysis over the web.

[Heineken]

I don't mean to be hurtful to Jack in my analysis, BTW. Quite the contrary; I'm concerned about him. I'm concerned about anyone who could say---and insist---that he would willfully withhold milk from a starving infant---on "principle," no less!!. Hmm, some principle.

There is no defense, Jack. None that would sway any jury on this earth.

[rwwff]

There is no defense, Jack. None that would sway any jury on this earth.

But there is no jury involved for Jack. No one is required to give anything to beggers. At most, his legal obligation is to do exactly as he said he would. Call the cops and let them get child protective services involved.

The only jury involved in any of this, could be one passing judgement on the mother for child endangerment.

[Heineken]

You've twisted the hypothetical in Jack's favor. Go back and read the exchange more carefully.

Anyway, so is that your way of saying that you, too, would willfully deny milk to a starving infant?

My God, who are these monsters and whence did they come?

[Heineken]

Yes, it sounds familiar. Either he is truly this, or is having an awesome time toying with us all. Then again, it could be both. Either way, it isn't funny, or helpful.

I find it quite distasteful when folks attempt to perform psychoanalysis over the web.

Why? I have some background in psychology, BTW.

[Jack]

You're right, Jack, honor is to some extent a flexible, personal value system---but it must exist within the limits of certain universally recognized standards of right and wrong in one's deportment toward others.

I do not agree that honor is a "societal control mechanism." Quite the contrary; honorable men, in pursuing what they internally know to be the right path, often act in opposition to the crowd. Literature---and real life---is replete with such characters, and good people will root for them because good people naturally cleave to kindness, love, charity, and self-sacrifice.

On the one hand, you suggest "certain universally recognized standards of right and wrong." Then you speak of "honorable men, in pursuing what they internally know to be the right path, often act in opposition to the crowd. "

So we have a fundamental internal conflict. Either they are universal, or they are not. If one is to celebrate those who "Internally know" this or that, then one argues that the internal standards supersede the supposedly universal standards.

As for me, I'm pursuing what I internally know to be the right path, even if it is in opposition to the crowd.

[jato]

My God, who are these monsters and whence did they come?

They are ghosts of the past, present and future. In a life and death struggle for resources, where do you want to end up?

[rwwff]

You've twisted the hypothetical in Jack's favor. Go back and read the exchange more carefully.

Anyway, so is that your way of saying that you, too, would willfully deny milk to a starving infant?

I already posted what I would do. I would never give any money, or any food, to any begger. Period. It makes the problem worse, not better. If you want to help, you need to take them to an organized pantry service or other organization doing similar work, or at the least give them a map and directions.

If they don't want the help of a pantry, that is their problem and I feel no compulsion to make their problem worse.

Oh, and I twisted it on purpose to make the point that Jack is not going to be the one being judged by any court.

[sch_peakoiler]

I don't mean to be hurtful to Jack in my analysis, BTW. Quite the contrary; I'm concerned about him. I'm concerned about anyone who could say---and insist---that he would willfully withhold milk from a starving infant---on "principle," no less!!. Hmm, some principle.

There is no defense, Jack. None that would sway any jury on this earth.

Jack explained his behaviour logically, saying that feeding that infant in that case would just multiply the sorrow and privations afterwards. You, on the contrary, can not bring any arguments except for, "good, bad, humane, inhumane, etc...". What you fail to understand, however, is that the persons who coined those words did not know about carrying capacity and gosh, I think neither can they imagine a number as big as 6 billion.

So we have to feed this baby cause its kinda good? kinda humane? kinda all the ol' fellas do so? so we have to follow suit?

Can I ask you some questions in turn?

1) A mother with a baby comes to you and begs for milk. Would you give it?
2) 2 Mothers with 2 babies come to you. Still yes?
3) 4 Mothers with 4 babies come to you. Still yes?
4) 8 Mothers with 8 babies come to you. Still yes?
5) 16 Mothers with 16 babies come to you. Still yes?
6) 32 Mothers with 32 babies come to you. Still yes?
7) 64 Mothers with 64 babies come to you. Still yes?
128 Mothers with 128 babies come to you. Still yes?
9) 256 Mothers with 256 babies come to you. Still yes?
10) 512 Mothers with 512 babies come to you. Still yes?

Sky's the limit! If you have answered yes to all those questions, I think you have a serious problem I do not want to go "analyse that" over web but man - try thinking with your head (just once, please) it does not hurt! Your position is weak, it does not have any logic, nor does it have any future. Guess what the 11th question would be if you feed those 512!

[sch_peakoiler]

Yes, it sounds familiar. Either he is truly this, or is having an awesome time toying with us all. Then again, it could be both. Either way, it isn't funny, or helpful.

I find it quite distasteful when folks attempt to perform psychoanalysis over the web.

Why? I have some background in psychology, BTW.

because you can not get sufficient information only by reading posts. Or you can think you get enought information but this is not the case. That is why it is distastefull. But of course occasionnaly such an analysis can be correct also.

[Heineken]

You've twisted the hypothetical in Jack's favor. Go back and read the exchange more carefully.

Anyway, so is that your way of saying that you, too, would willfully deny milk to a starving infant?

I already posted what I would do. I would never give any money, or any food, to any begger. Period. It makes the problem worse, not better.

That's a cop-out and you know it. At least Jack is honest enough to say that he won't give or help because he wants it all for himself, in addition to the reason you give.

[Heineken]

Yes, it sounds familiar. Either he is truly this, or is having an awesome time toying with us all. Then again, it could be both. Either way, it isn't funny, or helpful.

I find it quite distasteful when folks attempt to perform psychoanalysis over the web.

Why? I have some background in psychology, BTW.

because you can not get sufficient information only by reading posts. Or you can think you get enought information but this is not the case. That is why it is distastefull. But of course occasionnaly such an analysis can be correct also.

Only a sociopath would witthold milk from a starving infant, and watch it die in his driveway, screaming. That is what Jack said he would do. He's a sociopath; no other conclusion is possible.