The Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Mechaman]

New Jersey is pretty much my second state, other than my home state of PA. Overall he's pretty horrible governor.  He's anti-union, anti-choice, anti-equality, anti-civil liberties, and probably a neo-con on civil liberties.

If he is elected president, which he won't, he would continue the corporate policies and anti-civil liberty policies that have happened under Obama/Bush/Clinton.

All of the Republican candidates, expect maybe Rand Paul, but he flip flopped on drones so I would never vote for him, are for things like NDAA 2012, Patriot Act, FISA, Gitmo Bay, drones, anti-marriage equality, anti-choice, pro-corporate controlled.  Hiliary will also continue the pro-corporate anti-civil liberty policies of Obama/Bush/Clinton.

That's why I like many proud Americans will vote third party in 2016.  Because we aren't foolish enough to voe for the lesser of two evils (Democrats).

I'm sorry, I think you might've accidentally put this in the wrong thr-. . . .  oh right.

Yeah, thinking people would actually have the nads to support, in large numbers no less, a third party bid is pretty foolish.

[rejectamenta]

That is absolutely in the wrong thread, as it is a scathingly negative post about Chris Christie.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

That is absolutely in the wrong thread, as it is a scathingly negative post about Chris Christie.

All around it is a bad post, including for the reason you gave.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Clinton will need to pick someone relatively new to the national stage who can bring excitement to the Democratic ticket in what is bound to be a lull of a year.  Thus, I think its likely that Clinton (or any 2016 Democratic nom) to pick a new Democratic governor or Senator elected in 2014.  Alternatively, to generate the same kind of energy they could nominate another woman or a minority...

Which raises the question, will America 2016 be ready for a Democratic ticket that features two women or a woman and a racial minority?
 

Two women?  Absolutely 0% chance.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'll say AynRandLand for another reason.  After religion is destroyed, greed by and large will be destroyed.  Most people are naturally benevolent, they need religion/superstition/junk science to feel they have a superior standing than others and therefore justify their greed.  Societies in which religion is powerful breed this type of thought.

...what?

It's absurd to think my belief system will save humanity?  You do the exact same!

no matter. 

It's not absurd to think that, say, secular humanism, or Marxism, or some sort of Bergsonian deal, or some other particular non-theistic belief system would save humanity (it would be incorrect and wrong-appointed in my view, but it's not absurd). You've intimated this about the first listed, secular humanism, and I don't think that's absurd. Thinking that atheism in itself or the end of 'religion' (which is some sort of monolithic mass apparently) in itself would be at all efficacious in such is absurd, because all atheism is is a lack of assent to a specific idea.  I think it's absurd to suggest that humanity would be saved by the lack of something, no matter how pernicious you might believe that thing to be. The sentence 'After religion is destroyed, greed by and large be destroyed' is one of the flat-out strangest and most nonsensical statements I've ever read.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I debated for a long time whether or not this really belonged here (not whether I thought it was bad, but whether I wanted to publicly present it as such), but the phrase 'inherently better looking' pushed it over the top in the end.

Why are you people all so impatient too make the baby perfect before its born? We have education for a reason. And don't anyone say education could be eliminated with this. Education builds up intelligence, critical thinking, social skills, and you actually get to have a childhood.

I don't think this applies to what we are talking about. Nobody is talking about getting rid of education. You aren't making any sense. Genetic Engineering would solve problems that can't be fixed by "education".

We are talking about making people inherently smarter, inherently healthier, inherently better looking (and yes, that matters) and freeing people from genetic disorders. This is the next great leap in the human condition. Words like "ugly" or "stupid" to describe people will be a relic of the past.

I honestly think of people who would ban this the same way as people who supported slavery in the 1850's. The social conservatives on this issue would see people enslaved to their genes, enslaved to defects and disorders that didn't have to happen, and enslaved to not be the best they could be.

[rejectamenta]

The equivalency to slavery over an issue that is still largely science fiction (Ernest explains why zapping chromosomes out of a fetus is not feasible) is my favorite part. Talk about jumpin' the gun.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The equivalency to slavery over an issue that is still largely science fiction (Ernest explains why zapping chromosomes out of a fetus is not feasible) is my favorite part. Talk about jumpin' the gun.

Yeah, that's pretty special too. 'Inherently better looking' and that whole last paragraph there push it up out of the quotidian drudgery of simply being an ethical position with which I disagree.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Why should he get off so easily in comparison to the babies he killed? If he were white he'd definitely be getting a case of sparky or whatever they use these days (lethal injection). Slime like him should get Osama bin Ladin'd

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Link's posts in this thread definitely belong here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Context: This is in a thread about anti-GM actions taken by the government of Hungary:

The funny thing is that unscientific views on GM foods are far far more harmful than the young earth creationism that I keep hearing about.

Which doesn't make young earth creationism any more scientific or any more constitutional to teach in public schools. Anything useful to add?

Perhaps, but certainly GM is more pressing.  Besides, this shows the utter hypocrisy of the far-left when they claim to hold the mantle on scientific progress.  They don't.

Emphasis mine.

[DC Al Fine]

I debated for a long time whether or not this really belonged here (not whether I thought it was bad, but whether I wanted to publicly present it as such), but the phrase 'inherently better looking' pushed it over the top in the end.

Why are you people all so impatient too make the baby perfect before its born? We have education for a reason. And don't anyone say education could be eliminated with this. Education builds up intelligence, critical thinking, social skills, and you actually get to have a childhood.

I don't think this applies to what we are talking about. Nobody is talking about getting rid of education. You aren't making any sense. Genetic Engineering would solve problems that can't be fixed by "education".

We are talking about making people inherently smarter, inherently healthier, inherently better looking (and yes, that matters) and freeing people from genetic disorders. This is the next great leap in the human condition. Words like "ugly" or "stupid" to describe people will be a relic of the past.

I honestly think of people who would ban this the same way as people who supported slavery in the 1850's. The social conservatives on this issue would see people enslaved to their genes, enslaved to defects and disorders that didn't have to happen, and enslaved to not be the best they could be.

If there was ever a post where reductio ad hitlerum was justified

[Oakvale]

Atlas asks the big questions, gets moronic, horrible answers.

[Lief 🗽]

Well it's good to know that Atlas's understanding of race is basically this.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Atlas asks the big questions, gets moronic, horrible answers.

I'm shocked and appaled at that thread.

[opebo]

Atlas asks the big questions, gets moronic, horrible answers.

I'm shocked and appaled at that thread.

Really?  Why so sensitive?  I for one have never thought about race.  It is like breeds of dog, right?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Atlas asks the big questions, gets moronic, horrible answers.

I'm shocked and appaled at that thread.

Really?  Why so sensitive?  I for one have never thought about race.  It is like breeds of dog, right?

Opebo, no, no it's not and the thread was brought about by the Richwine debacle so, yeah, sensitive subject requires sensitive reactions.

[Lief 🗽]

Who is Richwine? Some troll poster I've missed?

[Leftbehind]

Googled it earlier, someone to do with Heritage Foundation if I'm not mistaken.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Googled it earlier, someone to do with Heritage Foundation if I'm not mistaken.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/05/jason_richwine_hispanics_and_iqs_the_heritage_foundation_scholar_began_researching.html

[Kitteh]

Creeper alert.

Hyperfeminismland ftw. But it would be nicer with male sex slaves, which would also help sustain population level.

I am not sure why you think a radical feminist matriarchy would have such a negative attitude towards heterosexual activity. If women controlled society 100% the male sexual exploitation they are against would disappear.

If women had "indentured male servants" why wouldn't they use them for sex?

That's a little scary.

And more than we need to know about his her fetishes.

Partly joking here and partly trying to be analytical.

If you give one gender complete control sexual exploitation of the other gender is inevitable.

All the countries are horrible, but if I should chose one I would prefer the option where my gender was in control. Its less freaky than my race having all the power. And the two other options are unacceptable to me. A police state and a plutocracy would both be too oppressive for a freedom loving person like me. So I am left with choosing between two versions where I get to be free, but others are oppressed.  

Do you have a picture?  I have a picture in my mind and I just want to see how closely it matches reality.

I used to date a tall blond from Denmark.  I really liked the conversations.  It was very different thinking from Americans.

Anyway Bloomberg land for me.  I like aspects of your Hyperfeminismland vision but the majority of American women are overweight or obese so no... strictly platonic.  I need free will to hand pick a mate.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Why doesn't Atlas have women again?

(feel free to put this in the Irony Ore)

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Mega-old post, but I don't think age denies it a place in this thread.

As an economic populist/progressive I'd have supported Orval Faubus but I would never have a agreed with his segregationist stance. The likelihood is I'd have voted for the Democrat, Faubus or not

Did Faubus merely run as a segregationist and/or, apart from Little Rock High School, did he govern as a segregationist?

From what I can gather Lester Maddox of Georgia ran as a segregationist but governed as a moderate

I didn't vote. Horrible Person and Freedom Fighter are too narrow

Dave

[Morning in Atlas]

Why doesn't Atlas have women again?

(feel free to put this in the Irony Ore)

You can get a prom date. That's probably farther than half of Atlas has gone. Hell, I went full Bushie and watched the NBA playoffs last year.

[MaxQue]

Why doesn't Atlas have women again?

(feel free to put this in the Irony Ore)

You can get a prom date. That's probably farther than half of Atlas has gone. Hell, I went full Bushie and watched the NBA playoffs last year.

I think he is refering more to their absence from Atlas than to people being single.