Heineken wrote:emailking wrote:And networking?? Just how many people can Jackie meet here within a few miles? After all, that is going to be our general range once it all goes south, correct?
Anyway, I guess my advice to Heineken is maybe not get so worked up about this, as it seems like you are? I mean I completely understand and you can of course do whatever you want, but I sort of gave up countering point by point. It's not worht getting all worked up about, and there's probably not much hope in convincing these types anyway. Especially Jack.
Anyone who knew how pathologically selfish Jack is would not want to "network" with him, much less be his friend. In a pinch, he's not going to be there for you, he's going to be hiding in his cellar with his stacks of MREs.
I'm not "worked up," but as someone who has read widely in psychology and who minored in it in college, I admit I'm intrigued by Jack's abnormal views and mind. I've returned again and again to the scenario in which he says he would let the infant starve in his driveway because the extremity of this example clearly illustrates the depths of his derangement. I would guess that fewer than 1 person in 10,000 would willfully choose to let the infant starve.
I agree that there is no chance of "convincing" Jack---as I wrote earlier, you can't reason with mental illness. My goals have simply been to study Jack and to corner him so that the beast exposes its true fangs, and I've achieved both goals to my satisfaction.
I give Jack points for honesty regarding his tragically stunted heart, and he has my sympathy.
Another interesting topic. Kind of a mess, but interesting.
Guess I'd have to side with OP (kevin) and Jack on this one.
Heineken, you certainly sound a little worked up reading some
of your posts here.
Jack is not 'abnormal' - his self-interest is quite
normal.
He just has the guts to openly admit it. Fact is many people
have been brainwashed their entire life by these religious and
philosophical arguments regarding love, kindness and the human
condition. It's largely rubbish and it's largely responsible for
getting humanity into the mess it's currently in.
I also agree with the sentiment someone in this thread expressed
about people getting too emotional on this issue. It's kind of like
the population thread Monte's been running. Sometimes some ugliness
and nastiness is necessary and good.
The way I see it humanity is now far into overshoot. We've entered
a new and uncharted land. At the very least we can't keep
encouraging people to have babies - whether directly or indirectly. Just
a hard fact of the times. To do so is going to cause more suffering
in the long term, and greater privations for those currently
living.
Topics like this demonstrate why the coming dieoff will be a matter
of default and not choice. It will be ugly.
Never mind the red herring question regarding the feeding of starving
uncared for human larvae.