Kevin's Watch

LOL Av!!!

Actually, I like Malthus too.

If people who are unable to take care of the children they produce, they should be sterilised immediately. Can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. And DON'T expect the rest of us to chip in for your ill-thought out impregnations. I have no problem with people who love and care for their own kids, as long as they don't expect ME to pay for them. Your kid, your problem.

And there is 'population control' occasionally - Mother Nature steps in and wipes a few thousand humans off the planet arbitrarily. So glad nobody's discovered a way to control natural disasters. THAT would be unfortunate.

Elfgirl wrote:LOL Av!!!

Actually, I like Malthus too.

If people who are unable to take care of the children they produce, they should be sterilised immediately. Can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. And DON'T expect the rest of us to chip in for your ill-thought out impregnations. I have no problem with people who love and care for their own kids, as long as they don't expect ME to pay for them. Your kid, your problem.

And there is 'population control' occasionally - Mother Nature steps in and wipes a few thousand humans off the planet arbitrarily. So glad nobody's discovered a way to control natural disasters. THAT would be unfortunate.

This is where I stand with Dickens against Malthus. Maybe admirers of Malthus need a few spirits to visit them... Malthus was wrong, is wrong and will always be wrong. He was even wrong about there being "too many people" (however you determine that and where exactly the surplus is) at the end of the 19th century. But his attitudes do allow one to adopt a pretty callous and Scrooge-like attitude towards other human beings, including babies, before or after birth.

But the thing the capitalist newspapers call birth control is not control at all. It is the idea that people should be, in one respect, completely and utterly uncontrolled, so long as they can evade everything in the function that is positive and creative, and intelligent and worthy of a free man. It is a name given to a succession of different expedients, (the one that was used last is always described as having been dreadfully dangerous) by which it is possible to filch the pleasure belonging to a natural process while violently and unnaturally thwarting the process itself.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Soci ... m_B.C.html

A great little essay on the topic.

rusmeister wrote:That sentiment is nevertheless in contradiction to the principle of the 'necessity' of reducing the 'surplus' population.

Bob Crachit certainly loved his.

Hahaha, that last line took me a second, even though you already mentioned Dickens earlier.

Yeah, I don't necessarily think there are too many people. Not so many that we can't still sustain them all, (although we don't), and there's still a long way to go before that.

I do however suspect that less people would be a better thing, and that we should take more care about producing new ones for a variety of reasons, not least to reduce abortion rates and the number of abandoned and neglected children.

If less people fell pregnant, there wouldn't be as many of them.

More opportunity, perhaps more resources, less needs, less demand, (less supply too on the other side of the coin)...I dunno...perhaps I just have a poor opinion of my fellow sentients.

In my ideal world, parenting (and thus having children), would require a license.

--A

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:That sentiment is nevertheless in contradiction to the principle of the 'necessity' of reducing the 'surplus' population.

Bob Crachit certainly loved his.

Hahaha, that last line took me a second, even though you already mentioned Dickens earlier.

Yeah, I don't necessarily think there are too many people. Not so many that we can't still sustain them all, (although we don't), and there's still a long way to go before that.

I do however suspect that less people would be a better thing, and that we should take more care about producing new ones for a variety of reasons, not least to reduce abortion rates and the number of abandoned and neglected children.

If less people fell pregnant, there wouldn't be as many of them.

More opportunity, perhaps more resources, less needs, less demand, (less supply too on the other side of the coin)...I dunno...perhaps I just have a poor opinion of my fellow sentients.

In my ideal world, parenting (and thus having children), would require a license.

--A

That is precisely the battle of Dickens and Malthus. if you actually read the original version of A Christmas Carol*, you will find Ebenezer Scrooge mouthing Malthus. I am proud to stand with Dickens against them.

Try reading the Social Reform piece.

One thing that gets me is that those who would struggle against (for example) Proposition 8 and its backers don't seem to really want to take any trouble to actually understand 'the enemy' that they are fighting. It's no different from any demonizing of an enemy in any other struggle in history. As long as one assumes that it is 'only religion' and that the backers are merely misguided provincial hicks or whatever, they'll never understand how over 50% of the voters in California voted to back it, but they will think they do.

There is a phenomenon called "the common man" that deserves defending. That reacts against changes an elite would impose for reasons that 'he' can't always formulate - yet he is nevertheless right to react. That was one of the major themes in the writings of that, uh, big fat English writer that some people are allergic to hearing about.

*It's a total aside, but in studying Dickens last month (I have a group of advanced Russian adults), we did a reading of CC, and I was shocked to learn that I had never read the complete and unabridged edition of it. I was sure I knew the story, and yet found that I had (evidently) only read fairly sophisticated adaptations. I read a story I had known all my life for the very first time last month, and I don't know how to describe that experience.

rusmeister wrote:...they'll never understand how over 50% of the voters in California voted to back it, but they will think they do.

If a million men believe a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. Or an unfair one. It's not a matter of bowing to the will of the majority, (if that is even their will). It's a simple matter of fair and equitable treatment.

--A

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:...they'll never understand how over 50% of the voters in California voted to back it, but they will think they do.

If a million men believe a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. Or an unfair one. It's not a matter of bowing to the will of the majority, (if that is even their will). It's a simple matter of fair and equitable treatment.

--A

The question is, which stance is ultimately the foolish one?

And fair has nothing to do with a great many things. They may or may not be "fair" but they still ARE. It may not be "fair" that you were not born a woman, and you may even try (futilely) to correct that with surgery, but it changes nothing but cosmetics. The essence remains the same and fairness has nothing to do with it.

"We are learning to do a great many clever things...The next great task will be to learn not to do them.

- "Queen Victoria" Varied Types

But see my first sentence.

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:...they'll never understand how over 50% of the voters in California voted to back it, but they will think they do.

If a million men believe a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. Or an unfair one. It's not a matter of bowing to the will of the majority, (if that is even their will). It's a simple matter of fair and equitable treatment.

--A

I think it's a matter of whether you want rights, or you want liberty.... but that's a different topic

rusmeister wrote: The question is, which stance is ultimately the foolish one?

I suspect we may have different answers to that. But my point is simply that people wanting or believing it doesn't make it ethical.

And fair has nothing to do with a great many things. They may or may not be "fair" but they still ARE.

So we should give up trying to make them fair? I certainly agree that life isn't fair. But if we are to cleave to certain principles, it behooves us to try and ensure at least fairness in our treatment of each other.

Orlion wrote:I think it's a matter of whether you want rights, or you want liberty....

While the two may sometimes be mutually exclusive, I don't think they always have to be. In this case, the right ensures the liberty, wouldn't you say?

--A

Avatar wrote:

Orlion wrote:I think it's a matter of whether you want rights, or you want liberty....

While the two may sometimes be mutually exclusive, I don't think they always have to be. In this case, the right ensures the liberty, wouldn't you say?

--A

*grumble* Yeah, I suppose... It's counter-intuitive based on my conception of the inverse proportion between liberty and rights, however, that's probably more observable when viewed with rights and liberties in general... in this case, though, I can see what you mean.

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote: The question is, which stance is ultimately the foolish one?

I suspect we may have different answers to that. But my point is simply that people wanting or believing it doesn't make it ethical.

That two-edged sword makes my point nicely about "gay marriage" supporters as well. What makes it ethical, and more importantly, what makes it true, is the real question there and it is what we disagree on. I deny from the outset their claim to a right to expand a definition.

Avatar wrote:

And fair has nothing to do with a great many things. They may or may not be "fair" but they still ARE.

So we should give up trying to make them fair? I certainly agree that life isn't fair. But if we are to cleave to certain principles, it behooves us to try and ensure at least fairness in our treatment of each other.

If it comes to that, what if decide that our design as humans is "unfair". Why are we mostly symmetrical but have only one head and one heart? Why can't we have gills, too? then people wouldn't have to drown. Why wasn't I born a woman? It's not fair!, etc. Point is, if something is admittedly a natural and normal thing, then talking "fair" about it is nonsense. Now if it is clearly and admittedly not a natural or normal thing, then of course, we want to do our best to correct it so it corresponds to that norm - that ideal. What we do not agree about is whether certain things are natural and normal. Where we agree, we will agree where fairness is applicable.

Avatar wrote:

Orlion wrote:I think it's a matter of whether you want rights, or you want liberty....

While the two may sometimes be mutually exclusive, I don't think they always have to be. In this case, the right ensures the liberty, wouldn't you say?

--A

This is only to speak of our desires - what we may want rights and liberty for. But are all of our desires good things, merely because we desire them? Do we not show, again and again, that a great many of our desires wind up being harmful for us? Should a society be free to destroy itself? Or an individual? Why have there always been laws against suicide? Having a right to do something (and even being free to do it) does not make us right in doing it.

My god...

danlo wrote:My god...

Can you stand having your worldview questioned as mine is at every turn here? It's not easy. It's be nice if we all believed the same general truths about the universe and the nature of man.

A total aside (just noting your sig), but as promised, I have put Tracie in my permanent prayer list (an advantage of Orthodoxy is seeing the dead as merely 'passed over to the other side' and so we can pray for them, and they can for us). Hope that means something to some people around here. I put up a candle for her last week.

If I was God, I would issue Parenting Licences ( Av) because I certainly wouldn't want any lesser creature (or government of them *shudder*) defining how kids should be brought up.

'Sexual organs for good behaviour' would, in my divine opinion, be a tremendous incentive for a better world.

rusmeister wrote:I deny from the outset their claim to a right to expand a definition.

You don't need a right to change a definition. Definition evolves naturally through usage.

Point is, if something is admittedly a natural and normal thing, then talking "fair" about it is nonsense. Now if it is clearly and admittedly not a natural or normal thing, then of course, we want to do our best to correct it so it corresponds to that norm - that ideal. What we do not agree about is whether certain things are natural and normal. Where we agree, we will agree where fairness is applicable.

If we are naturally beings, everything we do must by definition be natural, otherwise it couldn't be done.

This is only to speak of our desires - what we may want rights and liberty for. But are all of our desires good things, merely because we desire them? Do we not show, again and again, that a great many of our desires wind up being harmful for us? Should a society be free to destroy itself? Or an individual? Why have there always been laws against suicide? Having a right to do something (and even being free to do it) does not make us right in doing it.

Not all desires are good for us or others, agreed. But this one in particular isn't harmful to anybody at all. And as for harming ourselves, well, that is and should be up to us. Harming ourselves isn't a "sin." It's just stupid. If you want to harm yourself, go right ahead.

As for laws against suicide, one of the most ridiculous concepts ever. Firmly rooted in the attempt to convince us that we do not have ownership of our own wills and bodies. A direct contradiction in fact, to the idea of free will.

--A

An axiom I just thought up:

aliantha wrote:We're all happy to agree to "majority rules" -- until we disagree with the majority. Then we want special treatment.

aliantha wrote:An axiom I just thought up:

aliantha wrote:We're all happy to agree to "majority rules" -- until we disagree with the majority. Then we want special treatment.

I like it!

aliantha wrote:An axiom I just thought up:

aliantha wrote:We're all happy to agree to "majority rules" -- until we disagree with the majority. Then we want special treatment.

Someone [maybe Emerson, if not same period]said [from memory, maybe not exact]:

"If 10000 are wrong and I am right, I constitute a majority of 1."
This thread has gone some interesting places, but back on topic:
If I were god, every rational being would be born with the absolute knowledge THAT I was, and what I stood for.
Without knowing "Choice" and "Free Will" are delusions, guesses, hopes, or wishes: It's like trying to jump while falling from a cliff, all you get is a bunch of flailing around.

Stonemaybe wrote:If I was God, I would issue Parenting Licences ( Av) because I certainly wouldn't want any lesser creature (or government of them *shudder*) defining how kids should be brought up.

'Sexual organs for good behaviour' would, in my divine opinion, be a tremendous incentive for a better world.

Make that "Reproduction rights for good behaviour" or you'll take all the fun out of frakking!!

aliantha wrote:An axiom I just thought up:

aliantha wrote:We're all happy to agree to "majority rules" -- until we disagree with the majority. Then we want special treatment.

Did history ever record a case when the majority was right?

--A

Avatar wrote:

aliantha wrote:An axiom I just thought up:

aliantha wrote:We're all happy to agree to "majority rules" -- until we disagree with the majority. Then we want special treatment.

Did history ever record a case when the majority was right?

--A

I think last years winners for the Watchies was the first time this rare event
was recorded with statistical verification.