Slashdot Mirror


Armed Man Takes Hostages At Discovery Channel HQ

An anonymous reader writes "The manifesto of the man holding the Discovery Channel hostage with a bomb has been released. He has fired shots and taken hostages. His main complaints are about overpopulation, religion and civilization. He wants them to avoid encouraging people to produce more 'disgusting human babies,' to get people to accept 'Malthus-Darwin science,' reject civilization and its 'disgusting religious-cultural roots,' and to stop 'ALL immigration pollution.'" The man has now been shot by police, and the hostages have been freed.

1,090 comments

  1. Get Hell off the Planet!!! by CommieLib · · Score: 0

    A new meme is born...

    --
    If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    1. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This guy is not a teabagger despite the fact that he hates immigrants. He isn't a liberal despite the fact that he likes the environment. He is a dead crazy guy because he took hostages. He didn't need any help from political partisans to achieve his stunning degree of lunacy, I'm pretty sure he got there all on his own.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      I prefer, "a game show format contest would be in order."

      1. The Discovery Channel and it's affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael" pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other's inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order.

      This guy missed his calling. He should have been an internet meme generator.

    3. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some of his points are valid, but I don't think telling any lifeform that their babies are disgusting is good marketing, considering any successful species is pretty much hard-wired to love babies..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This guy is not a teabagger despite the fact that he hates immigrants. He isn't a liberal despite the fact that he likes the environment. He is a dead crazy guy because he took hostages. He didn't need any help from political partisans to achieve his stunning degree of lunacy, I'm pretty sure he got there all on his own.

      The mantra of fanboys everywhere goes something like "never miss an opportunity to associate a nut with any group you don't like. It furthers the whole 'us against them' bullshit that is so easy to exploit. This is so important that a false association is better than none."

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by konohitowa · · Score: 4, Funny

      any successful species is pretty much hard-wired to love babies..

      They taste suspiciously like chicken.

    6. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by johncadengo · · Score: 1

      He reminds me of the TimeCube guy, except that he was willing to hurt others and die in order to get his message out there.

      --
      My page.
    7. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure the Right will be just as understanding about the fact that this man does not represent liberal environmentalism as the Left was over the fact that Michael Enright's drunken attack on an Arab driver didn't represent conservative opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque.

      Karma's a bitch.

    8. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by bonch · · Score: 1

      That would explain MSNBC's and CNN's coverage of Michael Enright.

    9. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering the guy who attacked the arab while drunk worked as part of a group supporting the ground zero mosque and was a devout leftist, you're going to have problems running that one by. This guy however takes many points of the hyper-leftist environmentalism an ran straight forward with them.

      But hey, what does it matter? The left have been screaming wildly and blindly for the last year that all members of the tea party are conservative, and racist.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Psion · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, it's more like pork, with a slight hint of veal.

    11. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some of his points are valid,

      WTF? Some of his points? Are you arguing that civilization/technology is bad ... on an internet forum? If you're arguing that we need to "reduce the surplus population", well, you first buddy.

      Malthus was wrong. Overpopulation has not lead to unsurmountable obstacles, nor is the human population growing out of control. The worlds population is better fed than ever before (more people are overweight than underweight). Diseases are better controlled than ever before. High population density is usually a sign of a wealthy area, these days. This guy was a tool, and the only good thing about him is that he's dead.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by INT_QRK · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yet, were he were an "***old*** ***white*** ***male*** ***conservative*** ***Christian***" I can guarantee we'd never hear the freakin' end of it...F'n-A ditty-bag...

    13. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by dissy · · Score: 1

      Some of his points are valid

      If his points were valid, why didn't he himself believe in them?

      The correct answer is he was batshit crazy. But to play along, if he wanted humans off the planet, and really believed that, he would have started with himself.

      The fact he didn't kill himself first is proof he is a hypocrite and/or a liar. Or as the case is, both of those due to being crazy.

    14. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know who else screams wildly and blindly besides the left?

    15. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by David+Greene · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except how can a person be illegal? That's what I don't understand.

      --

    16. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      Cut your way into a military base with tin snips and I assure you, you'll figure it out.

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    17. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      " He didn't need any help from political partisans to achieve his stunning degree of lunacy, I'm pretty sure he got there all on his own."

      Is he a scientist? Is he a researcher? If not then he really didn't get there "all on his own", these ideas were still put in his head. I agree it's not a political party that did it, but he got his information from somewhere and in his mind he thought what he did was the solution. Perhaps the Discovery channel and other media is more to blame than it really knows, how many other crazies are they creating with all this environmental fear-mongering?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    18. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Fox's coverage of, well, pretty much anything.

    19. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the fuss. Is all of Manhatten Island ground zero now?

    20. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by FictionPimp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Besides, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Christians are abortion clinic bombers and all catholics are child molesters.

    21. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the fuss. Is all of Manhatten Island ground zero now?

      Oh yes. In fact, "Ground Zero" extends all the way from Florida to Alaska. Ground Zero is in our hearts, and mostly, in our heads.

      The notion that New Yorkers are experiencing "emotional trauma" because of an Islamic cultural center being built is absurd. There are the people who looked on with boredom as a woman was stabbed to death. Here, I got yer Ground Zero right here.

      Anyway, this whole "mosque" controversy had nothing to do with "Ground Zero" and everything to do with the fact that there's a black guy sleeping in the White House, goddammit.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      how many other crazies are they creating with all this environmental fear-mongering?

      The same number of crazies that believed they were told to kill John Lennon by a character in a J D Salinger novel.

      I suppose you believe it was Catcher in the Rye's fault, too.

      And I guess we need to blame the Bible for Scott Roeder murdering a man in church too, right?

      For trying to politicize this, "iamhassi" and for trying to make this about everyone who's against pollution, I think it would be best if you just went ahead and fucked yourself without me having to tell you to. It'll give you a chance to think about what you've done wrong here today.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      any successful species is pretty much hard-wired to love babies..

      Have you walked through a Wal-Mart lately?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Dunega · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Little bitches like you who don't have the balls to post under their actual login.

    25. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I can sometimes tell something about people just by looking into their eyes. James Lee doesn't look like the kind of person who would hold a particular grudge against Asians. I am afraid that YHBT. HAND.

    26. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Read a good religion bashing, I mean, discussion here sometime. I understand what you're saying, but you will find that there are many who are perfectly willing to agree with your assessments.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    27. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, not all of Manhatten Island.

      However, this specific site in question concerning the ground zero mosque had plane parts and if I'm not mistake body parts recovered from it due to the twin towers crash. Ground zero probably can be comfortably limited to all the areas the planes/plane parts and towers/tower parts hit instead of just the property lines of the twin towers property without to much exaggeration.

      If I remember right, and no, I'm not following this closely, the building/property in conflict was valued at about 3 times the amount or so that the Muslim group purchased it for before 9/11 and it lost value after 9/11 because of the damage is sustained from the 9/11 attacks. I would consider this building part of ground zero in much the same way I consider pearl harbor part of the Japanese attacks at the beginning of WWII and not just the memorials of the ships sunk in the harbor.

    28. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I have her number?

    29. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Malthus merely got pushed out and the curve extended. We found a new resource (oil) that allowed the curve to move substantially. Unless we find another resource to replace it, we'll eventually hit the curve again.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    30. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Except how can a person be illegal?

      It's easy. They (the illegals) make the decision to piss all over their legal counterparts who actually waited their turn to immigrate in accordance with the law, did the paperwork, and followed the rules. I'm not really sure what rhetorical strategy you're following, asking that question.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    31. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Count+Fenring · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's not how psychotic disorders work, sorry.

      People pick up elements of their environment and attach them to their personal madness, but the media they incorporate into psychotic fantasies isn't remotely causing it.

      I'd recommend a book called The Center Cannot Hold, by Elyn Saks - it's a memoir of a woman afflicted with psychotic episodes.

    32. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Nursie · · Score: 1

      "The fact he didn't kill himself first is proof he is a hypocrite and/or a liar. Or as the case is, both of those due to being crazy."

      Why?

      what use is killing yourself if nobody else is going to do it? In that crazy, whacked out world view it's perfectly valid to stay alive until such time as you have persuaded the world you're right.

      Then you kill yourself. Or probably not, because this sort of mania is likely ego driven and killing himself is pobably not something he'd ever consider.

    33. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      But on the flip side one should never be afraid to point out the nuts before they get out of control. That is one thing I respected McCain over Palin for, as when people at his rallies started screaming things like "Kill Him!" and "Nigger!" about Obama he was quick to say he didn't want to hear that kind of crap and his opponent was a decent person even if they didn't agree. From what I've seen of Palin post election she seems to not only enjoying attracting the nuts, but amping the hell out of them with talk of guns and "taking back the country".

      So while I'm sure this guy probably wasn't a teabagger, we should be quick to point out when the rhetoric on the ultra left OR right is getting a little too close to giving marching orders to the crazies. It really wouldn't hurt for those pumping up the crowds at teabagger or "save our world!" rallies to point out when they talk about "taking back our country" they are NOT talking about doing so with IEDs and hostages, don't you think?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    34. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by dissy · · Score: 1

      Yea I suppose I can see that as a sort of justification for staying alive.

      I do agree he probably wouldn't even in the end. If he thinks he is the one solving the problem, he probably would exclude himself from being part of the problem as a matter of course, even if it is his own claim.

      In the end we just have to be thankful no one else was harmed by this persons actions, and at least he won't be harming anyone else.
      It's a shame there isn't some form of help that he could have had, but I would be at a loss as to any suggestions.

    35. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malthus was wrong in specific claims he made about when and where overpopulation will take place, but the general idea that there exists a long run over which population growth is unsustainable is correct. History is replete with collapsed civilizations that did not manage their resources properly. Just because a part of the world is wealthy now doesn't mean it will stay wealthy forever. And the claim that high population density is usually a sign of wealth is questionable. What do you mean by wealth, per capita or total for the area? Obviously, if you have 10 million people making $10 a day, that's a large total wealth, but individually, these people are poor. That said, the largest population densities belong to cities in India, among them Mumbai and Dehli, which can't really be described as affluent cities.

      And no, we aren't claiming that civilization/technology is bad, or that we need to off people at random to reduce population surplus. Note that the claim was that some of his points are valid, not all.

    36. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Anonymatt · · Score: 1

      Come on, there are plenty of successful species that don't love their babies. Okay, no successful species that is susceptible to marketing.

    37. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is one thing I respected McCain over Palin for, as when people at his rallies started screaming things like "Kill Him!" and "Nigger!" about Obama he was quick to say he didn't want to hear that kind of crap and his opponent was a decent person even if they didn't agree.

      I'm sorry, dude, but you really scare the living crap out of me.
      Do you honestly not understand that it doesn't even make any logical sense to make a statement like that?
      McCain's legacy is that he inflicted that crazy delusional bitch upon the nation. Just because he paid blatantly hypocritical lip service to decorum does nothing to excuse the fact that he's the rotten bastard who invited those hate mongering scum into the spotlight. He knew he needed to cater to the lunatic fringe because all the sane people split the Republican party a long time ago and they have nobody left to drag out of the shadows.

      So while I'm sure this guy probably wasn't a teabagger, we should be quick to point out when the rhetoric on the ultra left OR right is getting a little too close to giving marching orders to the crazies

      But giving marching orders to the crazies has been the sole method of the Republicans to maintain relevance ever since Reagan. The only people still willing to vote to have themselves and their country looted and sold from under them for a few rich fuckers' benefit are batshit, and it's the policies we've followed since Reagan that have fucked us. The idea of an ultra left in America is laughable. The idea of a left nearly so. Please take the time to understand what words mean before you use them. By failing to understand the 3 basic political leanings, Left, Right, and Liberal, *you* are the one supporting the political polarization. You're taking the far out fringe right and the far out right and calling them left and right therefore redefining trivial distinctions as diametrically opposed positions.

      Hell, go read about Reagan, because this is the exact same thing yet again, and it's exactly what Barry Goldwater said would happen if that scary fucker Reagan won. He *had* to cater to the lunatic fringe to beat out Goldwater who was actually fairly sane...for a Republican. This is the reason why people like Palin are anything but objects of mockery. Reagan's need for the crazies is why we have faith based welfare leeching, gay hatred amendments discussed in Congress as if they were legitimate policy in a liberal secular country and the various America hating losers spewing lies about America being founded on Christian values...as if blind ignorant hatred and delusional nitwittery had a damn thing to do with it.

      McCain bringing in the people even dumber than the fuckers who thought Reagan was acceptable isn't new, it's SOP for the Republican party.
      That's all they have. Nobody who isn't dumber than a bag of rocks or evil as fuck and with a few hundred million cash could support them at any level, hence the fact that you keep seeing them pushing the right wing (that is to say the rabidly anti-American fringe by the very definition of the word right in a political context) to even crazier heights.
      This shit didn't happen by accident, Sparky.

    38. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      One may be in the country illegally, but a person cannot be "illegal."

      And waiting in line for hundreds of years is a little impractical, wouldn't you say? And yes, according to official immigration policy, that's how long it would take for some people to "follow the rules." In that case, civil disobedience is entirely appropriate.

      --

    39. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      What?

      --

    40. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      However, this specific site in question concerning the ground zero mosque had plane parts

      So that means it's within about half a mile of the impact?

    41. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      This guy is not a teabagger despite the fact that he hates immigrants.

      He sounds like bag of green tea.

    42. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Mmmm, baby, the other white meat!
      I like kids too - medium rare with some barbecue sauce.

    43. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by koreaman · · Score: 1

      Promise you don't take any hostages when you release this manifesto, mmmkay? (Not that I don't agree with it :) )

    44. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the words of "Cash Cab's" Benjamin Bailey, they're "Made of meat..."

      (You may be able to catch the short film on IFC or Sundance On Demand.)

    45. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by koreaman · · Score: 1

      "the overwhelming majority of people", not even "some people", :)

    46. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Hello Mr AC? Isn't it sad that so few here on /. have the guts to stand beside their beliefs, and instead hide behind AC? And I think I can tell the difference, thanks? would you like some examples of ultra left to go with the ultra right you named? Okay here goes-ELF, which is "Earth Liberation force" in case you haven't heard of them, most of PETA, which I swear I actually saw one saying that humans should be allowed to die and antibiotics outlawed because it was "murdering living creatures!" Okay sparky. put down the Tofu and just walk away...

      And sadly you don't seem to remember your history very well, I lived it so allow me to elucidate you...What gave Reagan the win can be explained in just two words...Moral Majority. Falwell pumped up every church in America and had them vote straight R on the ticket. Plus you have to remember that the Dems were running Jimmy "total failure" Carter, who came off as the biggest pussy ever, which after getting our embassy overrun was the last thing we wanted. And the funny thing about McCain is according to some of his staffers right up until the announcement he was on the horn to Hillary practically begging her to switch sides. when he couldn't get her he basically had his staff find a female replacement that was photogenic and ...well there really aren't very many photogenic female Repubs, are there?

      Finally I would point out you are doing THE EXACT SAME THING the teabaggers do when you say things like "people even dumber than the fuckers who thought Reagan was acceptable". While I don't really support either party (I actually was a "Barry Goldwater" style conserve and pay the debt kind and was run out by both parties blowing cash like drunken sailors) demonizing the opposition is frankly why we have such a horribly fucked up system now. One can't compromise anymore, one has to attack. One can't build friendships, because everyone on the "other side" is the enemy. That is why we have the "party of NO" VS a bunch of dems that couldn't agree on when to have lunch. Too much hatred, too much anger. All this is gonna do is stir up more unbalanced individuals just like what we saw in TFA. Or do you claim a militant "save the earth" type like in TFA is ultra right as well?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    47. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's more like pork, with a slight hint of veal.

      You have to be kidding me..... Multiple people modded this sick humor as Informative? /., your moderation system is truly broken, as well as is too large a portion of our society.

    48. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by indiechild · · Score: 1

      I call BS on the guy being a devout "leftist" -- he had a lot of hate for Muslims, possibly stemming from his "documentary" tour being embedded with the troops in Afghanistan:
      http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/08/26/who-is-michael-enright-tracing-the-suspect-in-the-taxi-stabbing/

      Never miss an opportunity to spread some lies, eh?

    49. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by metacell · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily.Population growth is low to zero in industrialised countries.

    50. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by thijsh · · Score: 1

      EAT MORE BABIES! -- These are the demands and sayings of Lee.

      This guy really was bat-shit crazy, even more than the PETA and ALF activists... Anything for the animals!
      But I really loved that last line of his manifesto! :-)

      I'm human, a mammal and an animal all at once so fuck you Lee James and every idiot who thinks we have no right to procreate. -- These are the demands and sayings of THD.

    51. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They taste suspiciously like chicken.
       
      I love children, but I couldn't eat a whole one...

    52. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by lxs · · Score: 1

      I don't know how it is in the US, but over here in Europe a significant part the left has come down a nasty case of xenophobia disguised as protecting liberal values.

    53. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by fbjon · · Score: 1

      No, we won't, the crisis has pretty much been averted. Population will still increase drastically before it starts planing out or even falling, but that's only lag in the system.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    54. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by drkim · · Score: 1

      Game show..?
      I'm thinking more like something on the E! channel: "Keeping Up With The Kaczynski's" chronicling the wacky exploits of a dysfunctional family of misfit sociopath bombers.

    55. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by wrook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Man, I don't even know who Malthus is, but you should probably research a little bit before you talk.

      First, more people are not overweight than underweight. That might be the case in your country, but I assure you that your country does not constitute anywhere near the majority of the planet. The number of obese (dangerously overweight) people in the world number about 300 million (from WHO). The number of malnourished (dangerously underweight) people number over 900 million (from the Wikipedia article on malnutrition).

      Maybe you are right about diseases being better controlled. But I for one can't find any data on the rates of pandemics. So who really knows. Our understanding is better, but our odds of world wide contagion is much higher due to the international travel.

      Finally, here is the list of the largest cities by population density. Stop me when you find one that doesn't have a huge poverty problem: Mumbai, Kolkata, Karachi, Lagos, Shenzhen, Seoul (maybe here?), Taipei, Chennai, Bogota, Shanghai, Lima, Beijing, Delhi, Kinshasa, Manila, Tehran, Jakarta, Tianjin, Bangalore, Ho Chi Minh City. Well, that's the top 20 anyway. There is wealth in many of these cities, but for the vast majority they also have crushing poverty.

      That guy may have been a tool, but he was crazy and is now dead. There's nothing we can do about him. But education is available for the rest of us. Please make use of it.

    56. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by somersault · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by that exactly? I know that there are plenty of individuals who don't like babies, or treat their kids like shit, but the majority of guys are hard-wired to want lots of sex, and many women are hard-wired to love/want babies. After the kids start growing up is when they are seen as the real pain in the ass.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    57. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying technology is bad at all, and I think his views on tech and global warming are pretty naive, but I do think the film Idiocracy made the point pretty well when it pointed out the flaws in our society, especially with regards to breeding. It tends to be that the smarter people don't have many if any kids, and the dumbasses just keep churning them out without considering if they're able to support them etc.

      I live in a country with a pretty low population density, and I'm doubting I'll ever have kids, so I am not a part of the "surplus population" problem - it's the families who have more than two kids that are contributing to any overpopulation problems, obviously.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    58. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by piotru · · Score: 1

      Mod this up!

    59. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Xest · · Score: 1

      "WTF? Some of his points? Are you arguing that civilization/technology is bad ... on an internet forum?"

      No, but then, that's not entirely what he was arguing either. If you read his script he looks to be supporting the use of technology and science to solve the problems.

      "Malthus was wrong. Overpopulation has not lead to unsurmountable obstacles, nor is the human population growing out of control. The worlds population is better fed than ever before (more people are overweight than underweight)."

      What portion of the population are you referring to? People in the West may be better fed than ever, but that doesn't mean everyone is.

      "High population density is usually a sign of a wealthy area, these days. This guy was a tool, and the only good thing about him is that he's dead."

      In your little area in the West maybe.

      You seem to completely miss the point about overpopulation, and simply not understand the problem at all. Effectively the overpopulation problem has meant that those rich areas such as Europe and the US are okay, but that's because whilst they're consuming far more resources than the world can sustainably provide, they're doing so at the detriment of poorer countries who don't even get their fair share. If resources were to be spread fairly amongst the world's population then you'd be living a drastically lower standard of living than you are now. Effectively you can live your lifestyle where "overpopulation is not a problem" precisely because many other people in the world can't live that lifestyle and are living in utter poverty, because you live in a country that's bled them dry.

      You also completely miss the point that there are many more indicators of population. Wars generally only occur when there is a battle for resources (religion is often a rallying tool, but not the underlying cause), this is really the problem in Israel and Palestine etc. but prominently it's the most likely reason the US actually invaded Iraq - to ensure a further supply of oil beyond that which can be reasonably produced and sustained within the US' own borders.

      I've no idea what you mean by "High population density is usually a sign of a wealthy area" either, this makes no real sense. From inner city slums in New York, to countries like India with massive populations squeezed into relatively small areas, those places with high population density are almost always the poorest, whilst in contrast the richest tend to live in nice rural/suburban homes, and in countries like the US where population density is much lower.

      The guy had some good points, he seemed to understand the subject of overpopulation far better than you at least, it's just a shame some of his other points were a little far fetched, and that ultimately he was a nut job that resorted to violence.

    60. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you mean by that exactly?

      Maybe women are hard-wired to love babies (mostly), but I don't think men wanting lots of sex translates to them "loving babies" at least in the abstract.

      Once they show up though, something kicks in. I guess either you're going to respond with love or you're not. When my daughter was born, I was flying back from a show and feeling complete dread. When I walked in and saw my wife holding her, you could almost feel the tectonic plates in my brain shifting. 20 years later, it doesn't change. I see my accomplished, beautiful daughter and I still see the little purplish monkey-looking thing my wife was holding that morning.

      Now when she was 13 she was a total snotty pain in the ass, but I still would have jumped in front of a bus for her.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    61. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You missed the part where they have to pay thousands of dollars per application, meaning most folks simply can't afford to emigrate "legally", and so have the choice between watching their families live in squalor and poverty, or try to get over the border to a life of hard work, in order to give their families a hint of a future. The bastards, right! It makes me sick!

    62. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    63. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Yup. A surgeon friend of mine says human meat is very similar to pork. There's a reason it's called "long pig" in certain places.

      And he said that, after a few years, the smell of cauterizing flesh makes you hungry.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    64. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by stubob · · Score: 1

      Isn't that just proof we're not supposed to eat chicken, either?

      --
      Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
    65. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      and all catholics are child molesters.

      You meant to say "all catholic priests are child molesters."

    66. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, a couple of blocks away is where the mosque is supposed to be, but yes, about a half mile or so of the impact is probably reasonable to consider ground zero.

    67. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by spun · · Score: 1

      Would it surprise you to learn there are Shinto shrines within half a mile of Pearl Harbor?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    68. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by lgw · · Score: 1

      I say: there are more people overweight than underwieght.
      You reply: there are more people malnourished than dangerously overweight.

      See the disconnect? I believe it's 1.3 billion who are "overweight or obese", vs simply obese.

      Also, many (most) of those cities you listed are centers of wealth within their respective countries - people are flocking there because that's where things are getting better.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    69. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by lgw · · Score: 1

      What portion of the population are you referring to? People in the West may be better fed than ever, but that doesn't mean everyone is

      Per the WHO, about 0.9 billion are underfed, about 1.6 billion are overfed. Malthus thought we'd simply run out of farmland, but technology moved faster than population growth.

      I've no idea what you mean by "High population density is usually a sign of a wealthy area" either, this makes no real sense.

      It means that if you do a scatter diagram of population density and mean income (e.g., by county, state, province, administrative region), you'll see some bias towards a positive slope, not a negative one.

      From inner city slums in New York,

      The median income in Ney York county is about twice the national average. Check out house prices in Bangalore some time. People move from the country to the city because of the opportunities for success.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    70. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by thecatt · · Score: 1

      You claim that demonizing the opposition is the problem with the current system. But you also openly ridicule those who believe (correctly, imo) that humans should be allowed to die and antibiotics use is "murdering living creatures!" Not that hypocrisy is anything new to Slashdot.

      The guy in TFA may indeed have been unbalanced. And it's definitely unfortunately that he choose the method he did to make his point. That doesn't mean, however, that he wasn't right (though perhaps not ultra right).

    71. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Per the WHO, about 0.9 billion are underfed, about 1.6 billion are overfed. Malthus thought we'd simply run out of farmland, but technology moved faster than population growth."

      As I stated already, food is a mere single facet of the problem- what about consumption of other resources? what about the bare necessities to live a healthy life such as proper sanitation, proper medical care and so forth? You know, the things you and I take for granted.

      "It means that if you do a scatter diagram of population density and mean income (e.g., by county, state, province, administrative region), you'll see some bias towards a positive slope, not a negative one."

      That seems to be complete speculation on your behalf.

      "The median income in Ney York county is about twice the national average. Check out house prices in Bangalore some time. People move from the country to the city because of the opportunities for success."

      No, they move to cities because of the perceived opportunity for success, not everyone actually achieves success- check out problems of poverty, and disease in Bangalore some time.

    72. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Your gas stove isn't, and can not be, gas either.
      And I'm pretty sure the last french fry you ate wasn't French.

      Please attempt to grasp a few more of the many ways in which compound nouns may be formed in English.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    73. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Psion · · Score: 1

      Oh you're just jealous. Here, sit down and have some roast pork.

      I made it myself.

    74. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by wrook · · Score: 1

      There are 1 billion people who are overweight *of which* 300 million are obese: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/

      Unfortunately they don't keeps statistics of those who are underweight but not actually malnourished. However, weight distribution in the world is almost certainly normal. There are 6.7 billion people in the world. About 1 billion are overweight and about 1 billion are malnourished. This leaves 4.7 billion who are eight at a healthy weight or underweight. Even if 75% of this group are a healthy weight (unlikely given a normal distribution) it still leaves the underweight and malnourished group at over 2 billion.

      With respect to your comment about things getting better in large cities with real poverty problems, I invite you to actually spend time in the slums to see if you change your mind. Notice that not one western city is listed in the top 20. It's not like London or even New York. People in these cities have no homes, no drinking water, no sewage and very little food. Yes, there is wealth there. People come because they are attracted to the wealth (or because they are born in the slums). They might be able to eke out some kind of living by begging. But again, go and look. Spend your holiday in one of these slums and see how much you enjoy it.

    75. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So then how do you feel about strip clubs in this sacred space? So they are OK but a mosque is bad?
      Personally I think it's time to get a grip on reality instead of pretending half the fucking island is a war cemetary.

    76. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't bother me to find it out either.

      The mosque doesn't bother me if that is where you were going. I was simply pointing out why ground zero is being considered as larger then the property the WTC Twin Towers sat on.

      However, I would say that there is a definite difference between the act of a country who's inhabitants tend to follow a certain religion and an act of members of a religion using the religion to justify it's actions- even when both sets of actions amount to an attack on a country. I would also say that tensions have dropped a little once you beat someone in war to the point that you gain an unconditional surrender. Perhaps these other idiots wouldn't mind the Mosque if we stopped out radical Islam first?

    77. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I personally don't care one way or the other. You could put a strip club inside the mosque for all I care and set it right next to the Twin Towers former location. I was simply stating that Ground Zero isn't specifically limited to a street address because of how big the carnage was and it didn't engross all of Manhattan Island.

    78. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by feepness · · Score: 1

      Right then. If I find a law "impractical" I'll just ignore it.

    79. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except shintoists didn't bomb pearl harbor, nor was the major factor that religion. However the guys who hijacked, and flew the jets into buildings, etc were muslim, practicing islam. And we've only had a mere +18k islamic terrorist attacks around the world in the last 9 years, and this hasn't changed very much in islam in the last 1300 years with the mantra of 'convert, die, or give us money'.

    80. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by spun · · Score: 1

      Shinto was the official state religion of Japan during WWII, you retard. The guys who bomber Pearl Harbor were Shinto. Your imaginary history of Islam and made-up number of attacks are also outright lies.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    81. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by lgw · · Score: 1

      That quote was actuall "more than 1 billion" - elsewhere on the WHO site it says 1.6 billion, BTW. In any case, there's no food shortage due to lack of farmland as Malthus predicted - people only starve when the government uses food as a weapon.

      And I've certainly spent time in the slums - not every /.er grew up middle class, you know (though of course American poverty can hardly be called such by any real standard). If you do a scatter diagram of populaiton density vs median income for counties (or equivalent) within a given country, you'll see the denser places tend to have higher incomes. People in developing nations go to the cities because they think there's an opportunity for a better life than on the farms. And just like in America in the late 1800s, they'll be right eventually.

      In any case, more people alive mean more people available to fix any problem, and it does seem to work out that way in the long run.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    82. Re:Get Hell off the Planet!!! by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Hey, those men represent their moral compass. It is those men they look to for help in how to live their lives. So if they are doing it....

      Just sayin....

  2. It's always refreshing by gameboyhippo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's always refreshing when Atheists are the psychos. I'm mean, c'mon! This guy is a representation of all atheists, right? :)

    1. Re:It's always refreshing by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Every last one. ;)

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:It's always refreshing by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Him and Stalin.

      Two peas in a pod. Just like all the other peas.

    3. Re:It's always refreshing by Peach+Rings · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's not completely psycho. Discovery's (TLC's) support of Jon and Kate Plus Eight, 19 Kids and Counting, etc is disgusting. Those parents should be in jail, not rolling in money.

    4. Re:It's always refreshing by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      <joke>Not me. I find human babies to be delicious, not disgusting! </joke>

    5. Re:It's always refreshing by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Chairman Mao. Pretty sure he wasn't too keen on religion either.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    6. Re:It's always refreshing by Doctor+Morbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TLC is the freak show network. All these ridiculous shows about dwarves, women with giant legs, women with no lower body, and families with too many kids are stupid.

      --
      If I disagree with you it's because you are wrong.
    7. Re:It's always refreshing by IICV · · Score: 2, Funny

      No no no, you don't understand. Most atheists are totally for TV shows like Jon and Kate - I mean, where else are we going to get a steady supply of fresh babies?

      Next you're going to tell me that I should be barbecuing some cute cows or something. Disgusting.

      On the other hand, if you're dealing with an atheist vegan, that's when you have problems.

    8. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's face it, the guy makes some good points re. immigration.

      On the other hand, he misused an apostrophe in point 1, which made me wince.

    9. Re:It's always refreshing by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      While Discovery Channel is paying these families, I really don't feel encouraged to have a lot of children. In fact, because of those shows I'm becoming more supportive of forced sterilization. Starting with the Duggars...

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    10. Re:It's always refreshing by TheDarkNose · · Score: 1

      Wow, did you RTFA? his nutsoism was OBVIOUSLY caused by his use of "WTF." Everyone knows that's a slippery slope...

      --
      "Obviously, you need to be an Einstein to navigate the Austrian Patent Office website." - platinumrat
    11. Re:It's always refreshing by Jartan · · Score: 1

      He's obviously a member of the environmentalist religion.

    12. Re:It's always refreshing by Cruciform · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They made Communism their religion.

      Dogmatic faith is a monster, whatever guise it wears.

      It is the enemy of reason. As soon as people tell you to stop questioning an idea, beware their intentions.

    13. Re:It's always refreshing by SpeZek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He might be an atheist, but he definitely has some very strong religious convictions regarding nature. I wouldn't be surprised if Mother Nature was his deity, in fact.

    14. Re:It's always refreshing by ShakaUVM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>19 Kids and Counting, etc is disgusting.

      Do you know that your great-grandparents, or their parents, probably had that many kids, right? That the 2 child household is a very recent development?

    15. Re:It's always refreshing by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1, Troll

      To be honest, he sounds a lot like a slashdotter.

      I'd bet he has a mac at home except that mac owners are frightened of guns or direct confrontation ....hmm.

    16. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, it's "The Learning Channel." They don't promise what you'll learn. You learn what not to be, how not to act, how many kids not to have, and good reasons not to get limbs lopped off. If it weren't for TLC I'd be a whiny bitch with 20 kids, 1 arm, no legs, and weigh 1/2 ton. Thank god TLC is there for me. Without god I don't know what I'd do.

    17. Re:It's always refreshing by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 1

      This guy is a representation of all atheists, right? :)

      Yes, in the same way that Christians can be generalized from the Crusades and Muslims can be generalized from 9/11.

      </explaining the implication>

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    18. Re:It's always refreshing by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if he is an Atheist though and I'm not sure if he even understand evolution ether. If you're pro evolution then humans are a result of it and the death of other lifeforms is just a result of out competition. Then if we are somehow aliens or the result of a crazy god then maybe he would have a point in being anti-human and pro-nature, but I don't want to stoke the crazy fire any more then it has been.

    19. Re:It's always refreshing by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I did not see anyplace in the article or the manifesto that states James Lee was an atheist. Besides, there is a difference between crazy person does something violent and crazy person does something violent in the name of religion (shooting doctors who perform abortion or bombing medical clinics). In this case, the person acted based on flawed environmental views, not because he was an atheist. In the case of shooting doctors, the shooter explicitly claims Christianity as justification for murder.

    20. Re:It's always refreshing by couchslug · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "This guy is a representation of all atheists, right? :)"

      He was clearly driven insane as part of a Vatican plot to distract the media from pedo priests. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    21. Re:It's always refreshing by bugi · · Score: 1

      I've long maintained that crazy wasn't exclusive to religioists. It's so nice to be finally vindicated. :(

    22. Re:It's always refreshing by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, even back then 19 kids was not normal. More like 6-12 at the most.

      Even so, back then, half the kids died before they reached 1 year of age. So it's not like there were families with a couple dozen kids running around.

    23. Re:It's always refreshing by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was questioning the idea that telling me to stop questioning an idea is a questionable idea.

      What's the idea of telling me to stop?

    24. Re:It's always refreshing by xmundt · · Score: 1

      Greetings and Salutations...
                Yea, but, Discovery also has a ton of interesting, science programs, including the new one called "Bad Universe". It is, as one might guess, about Astronomy, and his hosted by Phil Plait, who has had a great blog, called "Bad Astronomy" for some years...Well worth watching.
      regards
      dave mundt

      --
      YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
    25. Re:It's always refreshing by wjousts · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not been "The Learning Channel" for a long time. I believe they are officially know as TLC and TLC no longer stands for anything (quite apt actually). Kinda like how KFC insist that KFC doesn't stand for "Kentucky Fried Chicken" anymore and MTV isn't "Music Television".

    26. Re:It's always refreshing by wjousts · · Score: 1

      You know a lot more babies survive now due to advances is maternity care, right? So there really is no reason for 19 kids.

    27. Re:It's always refreshing by DeusExCalamus · · Score: 1

      Dude, it's "The Learning Channel." They don't promise what you'll learn. You learn what not to be, how not to act, how many kids not to have, and good reasons not to get limbs lopped off. If it weren't for TLC I'd be a whiny bitch with 20 kids, 1 arm, no legs, and weigh 1/2 ton. Thank god TLC is there for me. Without god I don't know what I'd do.

      TLC stopped being 'The Learning Channel' about a decade ago. Now it's just TLC, doesn't mean squat.

      --
      "...Sleep comes like a drug in God's country Sad eyes, crooked crosses in God's country..."
    28. Re:It's always refreshing by cyphercell · · Score: 4, Funny

      must be openbsd.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    29. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All these ridiculous shows about dwarves,

      They got a show about dwarves? What is it called? Dwarf fortress?

    30. Re:It's always refreshing by lobf · · Score: 1

      Do you know that your great-grandparents, and their parents, enforced Jim Crow?

    31. Re:It's always refreshing by houghi · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    32. Re:It's always refreshing by daem0n1x · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's nice that one appears from time to time, I get bored with all the religious nutjobs the whole time.

    33. Re:It's always refreshing by MrSenile · · Score: 1

      Sad how people are always ready to blame Religion or some other group (religious or otherwise) where more than one individual organizes together for a common goal as their 'cause' or their 'reason' for how they do things.

      I mean, heaven forbid that the actual cause is on the individual doing the crime. Why, that'd be too obvious.

      We live in a wonderful world. Regardless of what we do, we never have to take responsibility, because there's always someone else to blame.

      Bravo world. Bravo.

    34. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't see anything about the existence of god/s in his "manifesto." Not liking religion or culture (whatever that means) does not make an atheist.

    35. Re:It's always refreshing by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Yeah, one third was retarded, another third died from tuberculosis or typhus. The remaining third managed to perpetuate the species, however.

      So great.

    36. Re:It's always refreshing by ParanoiaBOTS · · Score: 1

      "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people". - Gregory House

    37. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think most environmentalists subscribe to this guys notions. Unfortunately he'll be the posterboy for right wing types (ie, the Fox News crowd) for the next few months to further marginalize the environmental movement. That's the thing people like this guy don't realize is they end up becoming the story instead of getting their point across. Worse, the media would much prefer discussing a hostage crisis than any points on environmental problems.

    38. Re:It's always refreshing by Kaenneth · · Score: 0, Troll

      Does that include global warming?

    39. Re:It's always refreshing by somersault · · Score: 1

      I wonder what "the book" is that this guy is referring to. He's obviously very easily influenced by other people's ideas. "Reverse" global warming my ass, we'd be warming (albeit at a slower rate) even without any pollution..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    40. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm ...
      Environmentalism!=Religion
      It is a science NOT a religion.

    41. Re:It's always refreshing by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Religion is only one flavor of crazy. There are many others...

    42. Re:It's always refreshing by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      I was always told that it's Communists that have children for breakfast and execute the seniors with an injection behind the ear when they become too old for work.

      Now you're telling me it's all a lie? Next you'll be telling me the bogeyman doesn't exist!

    43. Re:It's always refreshing by frogzilla · · Score: 3, Informative

      See Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" written in 1729.

      http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

      "I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout."

      and

      "The constant breeders, beside the gain of eight shillings sterling per annum by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year."

      Clearly this is an old idea. What's the delay in getting this wholesome food into the grocery stores?

    44. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I L'edOL.

    45. Re:It's always refreshing by antirelic · · Score: 1

      He's just another violent, racist, Tea Party activist.

      Right?

      --
      20th century Marxism is not progress...
    46. Re:It's always refreshing by huckamania · · Score: 1

      I'm sure most westerners can trace some part of their lineage back to a crusader or some other christian that lived during those times, who no doubtably supported the crusades. Most christians today probably don't feel very proud or supportive of the crusades. So how exactly does bringing up the crusades in this discussion make any kind of sensible point? It is about as insightful as bringing up the inquisition and using it to disparage current christians.

      The west, and christianity, turned away from state sponsored religion a long time ago. However, atheists and muslims have in common that they want the state they live in to revolve around their own doctrines.

    47. Re:It's always refreshing by jpapon · · Score: 1

      we'd be warming (albeit at a slower rate) even without any pollution..

      That's quite the hypothesis to be slinging around without any proof. But I suppose when you're making "scientific" arguments that there's no possible way to disprove, facts don't really concern you.

      That's my problem with religion. There's no possible way to prove or disprove any of its core tenets, so people can use it to make any argument, and to justify any action.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    48. Re:It's always refreshing by IICV · · Score: 1

      You can't really have barbecue for breakfast, it takes too much prep time. Atheists prefer to have children for lunch or dinner.

    49. Re:It's always refreshing by Cruciform · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People gathering together for a cause isn't an issue. It's when someone creates an element of unquestionable authority that you must submit to.

      Whether that's Skygod Crankypants, Sauron, or Mao.

      Dogmatism is a breeding ground for such "authorities".

    50. Re:It's always refreshing by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      I had to read that three times to get it, well played you magnificent bastard.

      In answer to your question though the trick is recognizing that it's an infinite loop to do that.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    51. Re:It's always refreshing by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Ishmael and My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel)

    52. Re:It's always refreshing by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's not completely psycho. Discovery's (TLC's) support of Jon and Kate Plus Eight, 19 Kids and Counting, etc is disgusting. Those parents should be in jail, not rolling in money.

      I personally think having that many kids is pretty damn weird, but who the hell are you to judge? It's not like they're on welfare and you're paying for it--apparently, they were fine financially before the reality stuff. The US isn't an overpopulated nation, either. Our birth rate is below replacement, so we can tolerate the occasional outlier--and "outlier" is exactly what these people are--like this.

      "In jail?" Fuck you.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    53. Re:It's always refreshing by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      No, meta-questioning doesn't count. Nobody should ever do that. It's just the initial questioning that shouldn't be discouraged.

    54. Re:It's always refreshing by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 0, Troll

      They made Communism their religion.

      oh yeah? what deity was involved? hmmm?

      the fact that you put those 2 opposing concepts together shows you know what neither of them really means.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    55. Re:It's always refreshing by horza · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sometimes an atheist can make themselves look like a psycho, as well as often religious people are able to put on the appearance of looking sane.

      Phillip.

    56. Re:It's always refreshing by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Maybe the commies cook the children the night before. Or maybe they have an old (soon to get the ear injection) slave to wake up early and prepare the barbecue.

    57. Re:It's always refreshing by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if he is an Atheist though and I'm not sure if he even understand evolution ether

      Dude, he was *mentally ill* - It's like wondering if someone who believes spiders live in his brain understands centripetal force...

    58. Re:It's always refreshing by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      None of my great-grandparents had more than four children. None of my grandparents had more than three, my mother had two total.

      One of my granduncles has five from two marriages, another had two, another had three and another had zero.

      My sister has two, my first cousin has three from two marriages and I have zero.

    59. Re:It's always refreshing by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      None of mine did.

      All immigrants who went to the Great Plains after 1900 or American Indians, none enforced Jim Crow laws

    60. Re:It's always refreshing by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      Environmentalism!=Religion
      It is a science NOT a religion.

      I think you're confusing it with Environmental Science. To me, a group that believes it is the noble duty of humans to "save" the planet smacks very much of religion. That's why there's an -ism on the end.

      I wonder if the planet can be "saved" merely by accepting Al Gore as its Lord and Savior. What happens to all of us when the Earth gets taken up by the rapture? If there's any chance that the Earth is gonna take along the believers, I might consider carpooling -- you never, couldn't hurt, right?

    61. Re:It's always refreshing by jpapon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe.

      [dictionary.com, wikipedia.com] Not that "religion" is necessarily the best way to describe communism, but religion doesn't require a deity. Besides, their point was that they made it a religion in that they accepted its ultimate goodness and truth on faith, which in turn allowed them to commit terrible acts in its name.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    62. Re:It's always refreshing by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Just as the crazy nut who knocks on your door and condems you hell represents all religious people.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    63. Re:It's always refreshing by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>No, even back then 19 kids was not normal. More like 6-12 at the most.

      I've got a family tree from the 1800s framed up in my guest room. Yeah, 6-12 was the average, but some had more. The average woman had 5 to 7 kids in the 1800s. A family of 19 wouldn't have been called "disgusting" - as the GGP did - back in the day.

      >>Even so, back then, half the kids died before they reached 1 year of age.

      A 50% infant mortality rate? I don't think so.

      http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography

    64. Re:It's always refreshing by JxcelDolghmQ · · Score: 0

      I agree wholeheartedly. This guy was definitely a nut job, but the real tragedy here was that he had a point with some of his rantings, and now because of what he did with this situation, whatever good points he had have been entirely lost. The same can be said about the Unabomber and Joe Stack.

      It really does sicken me how human culture is all about reproducing and consuming. I know that all the animals do this, but aren't we supposed to be smarter than that? Given the current global state of affairs you would think that more people would want to voluntarily put a lid on reproducing.

    65. Re:It's always refreshing by professionalfurryele · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you look at history you will find plenty of evidence of atheists doing unpleasant things. Pol Pot for a start.

      The question when we assign blame to ideologies is did the ideology lead the the unpleasant actions. Pol Pot and Stalin and so on didn't kill people because they were atheists. They killed people because they were radical communists, and communists need to have a look at their ideology and ask themselves why every time communists get sweeping powers they do such unpleasant things.

      Same goes for Christianity, Islam, every ideology / religion. Christianity encourages the respect of authority, the widely held conception of faith is dangerous, the idea that salvation through grace as opposed to works is dangerous. Some of the bad things people have done in history have been a direct result of their interpretation of Christianity and when that repeatedly happens people will begin to wonder if the ideology / religion itself is a good thing.

      Some ideologies are better than others, and if we measure them on their track record it is pretty darn clear that most religions are not conducive to a good social order. Communists should not go around acting all surprised when people point to Stalin and Pol Pot when they talk about their ideology and Christians cant complain when the Crusades and Slavery get brought up. That is the history of those ideologies and ideologies are judged on those histories.

      Which brings us nicely to atheism. By it's very nature atheism doesn't do diddly. Go ask your average theist and they will tell you that atheism has nothing to offer, and they are in essence right. No one gets anything out of being an atheist. It doesn't compel anyone to do anything. Are you compelled to do stuff because you don't believe in the tooth fairy? Or Thor? Of course not.

      This guy was a Malthusian whack job, you want to complain about that ideology have a field day. But suggesting that atheism had anything to do with his actions is just silly.

    66. Re:It's always refreshing by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Yeah, one third was retarded, another third died from tuberculosis or typhus. The remaining third managed to perpetuate the species, however.

      So great.

      So... you're with the guy who shot up the Discovery Channel offices, eh?

      The infant mortality rate was between 10%-20% during the 1800s, and I doubt 33% were retarded as well.

    67. Re:It's always refreshing by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      He claimed that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" created an awakening in him. Something to that effect. Or so the current media reports are claiming. That said, I find it weird that you somehow partition crazy and violent people based upon whether they lay claim to a recognized religious movement or not. Crazy is crazy.

    68. Re:It's always refreshing by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      They made Communism their religion.

      oh yeah? what deity was involved? hmmm?

      "Religion" does not necessarily imply belief in or worship of a deity. It can mean "[A] cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This is fully consistent with its Latin root, which means "to bind again". Any beleif or practice that binds or connects us to something -- in a positive or negative sense -- can rightfully be called religious. Religion does not require deities or supernaturalism.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    69. Re:It's always refreshing by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Do you know that your great-grandparents, and their parents, enforced Jim Crow?

      It's very interesting you assume I'm white.

    70. Re:It's always refreshing by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Sounds like he made "reason" his religion.

    71. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must live in a very backwards country.

      Live births:
      Me: dad's dad - one of three. dad's mum - one of two. mum's mum - one of three. mum's dad - no records
      g/f: dad's dad - one of three. dad's mum - one of two. mum's mum - one of three. mum's dad - one of three

      One or two of those live births didn't survived beyond the cradle. So all our great grandparents together can barely muster more than 19 kids.

      And don't think those ggps were sprogging in the 50's or something. My partner and I are quite old, and our respective parents had us when they were quite old - most of the 19 listed above were born within a decade of 1900.

    72. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like dogmatic faith in atheism is a religion? Everybody believes in something even its its nothing.

    73. Re:It's always refreshing by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>None of my great-grandparents had more than four children.

      I don't know how old you are, but if that's around 1900, they're par for the course. Go back another generation or two and six kids were the average. And so forth.

      As I said, we haven't had a 2-kid average until very recently (1980, in fact).

    74. Re:It's always refreshing by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Whooooooooosh!

    75. Re:It's always refreshing by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Um, if he has religious convictions regarding nature, then by definition he can not possibly be an atheist.

    76. Re:It's always refreshing by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Why does a religion require a deity? Buddhism is generally considered a religion, yet does not have a deity.

      According to Merriam-Webster:

      Religion : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    77. Re:It's always refreshing by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're up to the Nobel Prize of Logic! I made a joke about people having too many children, then you conclude I support crazy nutheads that take hostages at a TV station. Your logic is so incredibly twisted that it gives you a sure future in politics.

    78. Re:It's always refreshing by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Well, I know on my material grandmother's side back to 1720s. On my material grandfather's side to 1712.

      No generation had more than six total and no more than four survived childhood. This is in Prussia/Poland and Cornwall.

    79. Re:It's always refreshing by SpeZek · · Score: 1

      Atheists don't believe in a deity, but they might still have some spiritual component. Buddhists are atheists, for example.

    80. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha

    81. Re:It's always refreshing by Peach+Rings · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a child protection issue not a financial issue. There's no way that the parents can pay adequate attention to each child. They educate each other (public school is evil etc), take care of each other, and fend for themselves most of the time. There is such a thing as a criminally irresponsible parent (leave your kid in a locked car for example).

    82. Re:It's always refreshing by nutrock69 · · Score: 1

      ...So there really is no reason for 19 kids.

      Sure there is. It'll help you get on tv, where you can become a household name, an internet meme, infamous for your bad example to future generations everywhere, and then eventually end up on "Dancing With The Has-Beens" once your 15 minutes are over.

    83. Re:It's always refreshing by Auto_Lykos · · Score: 1

      Isn't belief in the goodness of reason also a dogmatic faith? Shouldn't we also be questioning reason?

      I agree with you to a degree, but it begs the question.

    84. Re:It's always refreshing by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      The west, and christianity, turned away from state sponsored religion a long time ago. However, atheists and muslims have in common that they want the state they live in to revolve around their own doctrines.

      I'd be inclined to belief that you're trolling, except that a sad number of my fellow Americans do in fact believe such nonsense.

      If Christianity turned away from state sponsored religion a long time ago, perhaps you can explain why so many Western nations still have some form of Christianity as their official state religion, and why the Religious Right is trying to rewrite history to make the U.S. a "Christian nation", despite the very clear wording of the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli?

      Every American atheist and Muslim that I know wants the nation they live in to be free from government establishment of or restriction on religion. Do you actually know any atheists or Muslims?

      There are Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., who support freedom; and there are Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., who would gladly have teh state point guns around to have their way.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    85. Re:It's always refreshing by moonbender · · Score: 1

      "Family size declined between 1800 and 1900 from 7.0 to 3.5 children." Far fetch from 19. Not sure if it was ever significantly higher than in 1800, either. Seems reasonable that the high mortality rate of both child and mother would lead to a "natural" cap in historical times. (Although I was surprised to see that Wikipedia states that the historical maternal death rate was only 1 in 100 and actually increased in the 18th century.)

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    86. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Mall Cops.

    87. Re:It's always refreshing by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Yep, just like the WTC bombers represent all muslims!

    88. Re:It's always refreshing by morari · · Score: 1

      The summary makes him sound alright. ;)

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    89. Re:It's always refreshing by jpapon · · Score: 1
      Well, we try to question reason, but it's difficult. The main problem is how do you question it without using it? You can't use reason to disprove reason, because then, by definition, you've disproved your own argument.

      So you need to find an alternative to reason. Faith is one, but I consider it to be a predecessor to reason. We need to find the successor to reason. Unfortunately, I believe our puny human brains are most likely incapable of conceiving of such a thing.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    90. Re:It's always refreshing by euxneks · · Score: 1

      He's not completely psycho. Discovery's (TLC's) support of Jon and Kate Plus Eight, 19 Kids and Counting, etc is disgusting. Those parents should be in jail, not rolling in money.

      I wish I could mod you up beyond 10.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    91. Re:It's always refreshing by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Atheists don't believe in a deity, but they might still have some spiritual component

      Yes, but that's because the word "spiritual" is completely fucking useless, and can mean absolutely anything.

      Buddhists are atheists, for example.

      No, they're not. You may have noticed that the word "atheism" contains the word "theism". I know, it's hard to see, but it's in there.

      Funny enough, the ancient Greeks used to refer to Christians as atheists, because they didn't believe in the Greek Gods. If you're going to use such a limited definition of the word, you're making the same mistake the Greeks did.

    92. Re:It's always refreshing by bmajik · · Score: 1

      He's not completely psycho. Discovery's (TLC's) support of Jon and Kate Plus Eight, 19 Kids and Counting, etc is disgusting. Those parents should be in jail, not rolling in money

      I see the "J" in your Meyers-Briggs classification is out today.

      Now then: Why?

      Why should "those parents" be in jail?

      The situation between the Jon and Kate people and the 19 (or 20 or whatever) families are entirely different. Is having a larger than average family AND a TV show really grounds for incarceration?

      Incidentally, I don't at all subscribe to the idea that the world has an overpopulation problem. THe world perhaps has a lack-of-ingenuity problem, but the antidote to that is more people with more freedom to excercize their minds.

      At least in the case of the 20-kid family, the parents and kids aren't TV media whores, and are actually a strong close-knit family -- the best kind of environment for turning children into productive adults -- the ones that can close our ingenuity gap.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    93. Re:It's always refreshing by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Did you know that your great-great-grandparents probably also thought it was perfectly OK to sell their barely nubile daughters into, essentially, slavery to a much older man in order to have those 19 kids? And that your great-great-grandmother was probably repeatedly raped by your great-great-grandfather because a wife was property and couldn't say no?

      What was once normal is now disgusting. Times change. Celebrating some morons who are collecting children is fucked up and insane.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    94. Re:It's always refreshing by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      It's a child protection issue not a financial issue. There's no way that the parents can pay adequate attention to each child.

      So you'd throw the parents in jail and put the kids in foster care? How exactly would that help anything?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    95. Re:It's always refreshing by SpeZek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Buddhists are atheists, for example.

      No, they're not. You may have noticed that the word "atheism" contains the word "theism". I know, it's hard to see, but it's in there.

      Yeah, try actually looking to see what "theism" means. It means a belief in a deity. Buddha isn't a god. Hence Buddhists are atheists with spiritual beliefs (such as reincarnation).

      I don't know what "definition" of [a]theism you're using, but it isn't the correct one.

    96. Re:It's always refreshing by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "oh yeah? what deity was involved? hmmm?"

      Stalin was the demi-god, he split the orthodox church, one half fled to the Ukraine, the other half became his acomplices. He convinced the population to willingly take down their picture of Mary or Jesus and replace it with his own. Even the people in the camps could not free themselves from his propoganda, they thought along the lines of "if Stalin knew about this he would rescue us".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    97. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about 19, really now.

      But I understand what you are saying, my parents generation (from Ireland) had about 7-8 siblings each. But, then again kids were 'useful' in a sense, they could do work on the family farm of course!

      And going back a generation before that, had kids going to live with uncles or aunts permanently. Why? well that's pre-antibiotic times, childbirth more risky, not unheard of for both parents to be dead before they were 40.

      Also people tended to have more children because the kids didn't always live long enough to grow up, seriously. Not that long ago.

    98. Re:It's always refreshing by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Only if you are grilling them. A good BBQ takes at least 8-10 hours.

    99. Re:It's always refreshing by tftp · · Score: 1

      oh yeah? what deity was involved?

      The holy trio of Marx, Engels and Lenin, with other people sometimes added as required.

      The rituals of CPSU were quite comparable to religious rituals of established churches. They had their hierarchy, their rites of passage, their own universities, their special offices, their own money reserves, and their own influence.

    100. Re:It's always refreshing by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Actually before the advent of synthetic formula it was VERY difficult for a woman to have 19 kids since nursing acts as sort of a natural birth control pill. It's not perfect of course, and if a baby dies the woman becomes fertile again pretty soon, but it's estimated that the "natural" rate of fertility for women is 1 baby every 1.5-2 years. So it would take around 35 years for a woman who didn't have access to other ways of feeding her baby to produce 19 kids.

    101. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read up on the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Not EVERYBODY believes in something, and it's kind of amusing to watch reactions to the idea of agnosticism - apparently for a lot of people, both atheists and religious folk, agnosticism is the most uncomfortable position conceivable.

    102. Re:It's always refreshing by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Not likely, 19 kids is almost impossible without modern medical advances. Women of that generation may have gotten pregnant 10 or more times, but the likelihood of surviving that many pregnancies, let alone getting viable babies out of it is highly unlikely. Even in India and China pre-regulation, the average family size was much smaller than that. Even the families in that average the largest family size in India are still averaging under 6. This is more than 3x as many children under arguably better conditions than our great grandparents had. Indian states ranking by household size

      They have families that size because there isn't an equivalent to Social Security in India, and so they need the extra children so as to have support in old age. Additionally to counter the higher mortality rates. Not sure how much of that is still the case, but historically those were very serious concerns which drove family planning. If they've been able to get away with families that size, I think it's perfectly fair to call 19 children obscene.

    103. Re:It's always refreshing by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, they should be in jail. The only way that a family like that can subsist is by making the older children parent the younger ones, and all the children end up suffering the effects of neglect. Having food, shelter and medical care isn't all the a parent needs to provide for a child to grow up to be a well adjusted, contributing member of society.

    104. Re:It's always refreshing by VanGarrett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the large problems with religion, is that people use it to justify their prejudices. For the sake of example, Christian scriptures, and the New Testament in particular, promotes friendship and kindness to everyone, regardless of who they are and what they do. Somehow, people are able to build doctrine around these scriptures, which justify the bombing of abortion clinics, or the hatred of Jews and those of African decent. It makes absolutely no sense, but people feel vindicated about this sort of belligerent ideology, because someone has shown them which individual passages to take out of context and focus on. It really seems to me, as though people start with bad ideas and build their religion around that, rather than building their ideas around their religion.

      By definition, religion can have no solid proof. It wouldn't be faith, if we could prove the whole thing scientifically. Personally, when I encounter a discrepancy between my faith and my science, then I can only assume that my understanding of one or the other is incorrect. Science has a history of being wrong, and faith has a history of being misinterpreted. I am comfortable with worshiping God, without really understanding precisely what He is.

      At the end of the day, one has to acknowledge that something, be it anywhere from inanimate to super-intelligent, at some point in history, had the capacity to cause the universe to exist. From there, you can either choose to make no opinion of what that thing is/was, or pick a religious view that you can reconcile with demonstrable science.

    105. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, women 'back in the day' did NOT have 15-20 kids. They had maybe 3 to 6, then died in childbirth. The "patriarch" then remarried and started the cycle again.

    106. Re:It's always refreshing by Com2Kid · · Score: 2, Informative

      17% to 20% is still pretty miserable. Even then those numbers don't show how many children died young, just infants.

    107. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Questioning an idea does not make it invalid.

    108. Re:It's always refreshing by Jesse_vd · · Score: 1

      Uhhh... first line

      Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael"

      And to answer your sig, all of them.

    109. Re:It's always refreshing by Macrat · · Score: 1

      >>19 Kids and Counting, etc is disgusting.

      Do you know that your great-grandparents, or their parents, probably had that many kids, right? That the 2 child household is a very recent development?

      Most of them died off at an early age.

    110. Re:It's always refreshing by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Why should having many children be a crime, in your opinion? This is an honest question... if they aren't welfare cases leeching off of the government or tax-subsidies for low-income families, what is the problem?

    111. Re:It's always refreshing by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism#Zen_and_the_Absolute

      One sample:

      "At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience"

      You going to pull the no-true-Scotsman card now?

    112. Re:It's always refreshing by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      lol no. 19 is freakshow at any point in human history in any society.

    113. Re:It's always refreshing by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      I don't mean actually arresting those parents. I mean that there should be legislation forbidding having so many kids, so that if they did it anyway they'd be convicted.

    114. Re:It's always refreshing by RaymondKurzweil · · Score: 1

      Ah. Reminded once again why I always want to see: Slashdot. The Stupid. It Burns.

    115. Re:It's always refreshing by mark-t · · Score: 1

      "There's no way that the parents can pay adequate attention to each child."

      Do you have a specific example of that actually happening in this case, or are you just making a generalization based on what seems right to you?

    116. Re:It's always refreshing by SpeZek · · Score: 1
      Did you not read the whole quote?

      At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience ... To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, 'panentheism', according to which God is ... all and one and more than the totality of existence .... As I mentioned before, Buddhists do not make use of the term God, which characteristically belongs to Christian terminology. An equivalent most commonly used is Dharmakaya ... When the Dharmakaya is most concretely conceived it becomes the Buddha, or Tathagata ...

      The "god" he's describing to Christians isn't a deity. It's pantheism at best, but it's not much of a distinction from Atheism, as there's no deity, just the universe.

    117. Re:It's always refreshing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like he made "reason" his religion.

      You think he was being reasonable, do you?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    118. Re:It's always refreshing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, we try to question reason, but it's difficult. The main problem is how do you question it without using it?

      You start by going to church.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    119. Re:It's always refreshing by Raenex · · Score: 1

      They made Communism their religion.

      Equivocation. Anytime somebody does something bad, just say whatever they believe in is a religion. The problem isn't that somebody like Mao or Stalin were "religious", it was that they were fascist assholes.

    120. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I was questioning the idea that telling me to stop questioning an idea is a questionable idea.
      > What's the idea of telling me to stop?

      To avoid stack overflow?

    121. Re:It's always refreshing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      All these ridiculous shows about dwarves, women with giant legs, women with no lower body, and families with too many kids are stupid.

      Wait, this is on TV??

      Now I definitely gotta go subscribe to cable. I've gone these years thinking there was nothing good on TV.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    122. Re:It's always refreshing by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You may have noticed that the word "pantheism" contains the word "theism". I know it's hard to spot, but trust me, it's there.

    123. Re:It's always refreshing by mark-t · · Score: 1

      By all accounts I've heard, the children are well adjusted, healthy, and loved. What's the problem? I think people are against it are just having a bad gut reaction to things like that because it's so different from what they recognize as normal that to them it feels that it must somehow be ethically wrong.

      And it seems to me that's about how certain types of people feel about homosexuality, to give just one example.

      Different does not equate to wrong. When somebody comes up with some solid dirt to show that these kids are not being raised right (and there's no lack of people trying, as quite a few people feel similarly to the view you've expressed above, so it's only a matter of time until it's discovered, assuming it's actually happening), then it will be perfectly fine to accuse them of being bad parents. Not until then, however. For the time being, they are just really weird people. Weird or different isn't criminal, and nor should it be.

    124. Re:It's always refreshing by SpeZek · · Score: 1

      Pantheism isn't theism (words don't always mean the same things in different configurations; some pantheists might take offense to be grouped as believers in a personal god), and it was more of an example than a statement that Buddhism is pantheism. You need to work on your reading comprehension; it was analogous, a comparison. There's no creator god in Buddhism, nor are there any supernatural beings, nor is the universe a stand-in for supernatural beings. It's atheistic, without gods, full stop. Argue all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

    125. Re:It's always refreshing by anagama · · Score: 1

      And so what -- you've made fantasy your religion?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    126. Re:It's always refreshing by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Well, let's see. On the one hand, I've got Lamas telling me that Buddhism isn't atheistic. On the other hand, I've got some guy on slashdot who doesn't seem to understand that pantheists can't be atheists trying to tell me that Buddhism IS atheistic.

      Who to believe, who to believe ....

    127. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are referencing an era where most families needed the farm labor or that many "seeds thrown into the wind" to support the family. Modern families do not need this many members. Investing more time and energy into one or two children means they will have a better chance at survival. Concerned about their socialization? Make an effort to get them involved in activities and involved your parents in their lives.

      People who have "litters" in this day and age are either sick, ignorant, or a combination of the two.

    128. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also didn't have knowledge of a looming population sustainability crisis, smartass.

    129. Re:It's always refreshing by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>What was once normal is now disgusting. Times change. Celebrating some morons who are collecting children is fucked up and insane.

      That's exactly my point. Norms change. And you being disgusted at lots of children is case in point.

      I don't believe any of my great-great-grandmothers were sold into a marriage. Are you confusing 100-200 years ago with 1000-2000 years ago?

    130. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference being, compared to a religious fanatic of course, that we laugh first as we learn their motive, then shoot them to death and finally honor them with the Darwin Award.

    131. Re:It's always refreshing by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      A family of 19 would almost certainly have had two mothers. When you had extremely large families back then it happened when a man's first wife died after giving birth to 6-12 children, but while the children were still young enough to "still needed a mother". The man would marry again and then his second wife would have 6-12 children.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    132. Re:It's always refreshing by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      They made Communism their religion.

      Dogmatic faith is a monster, whatever guise it wears.

      It is the enemy of reason. As soon as people tell you to stop questioning an idea, beware their intentions.

      No, you are confusing religion with the more general concept of ideology. Religion and communism are not the same but they are both ideologies. So faith does not necessarily have much to do with it (although it can), it is the dogmatism itself that is the important factor.

      Any dogmatic ideology can be an "enemy of reason".

    133. Re:It's always refreshing by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      The west, and christianity, turned away from state sponsored religion a long time ago. However, atheists and muslims have in common that they want the state they live in to revolve around their own doctrines.

      Definitely not true in the USA. Religious politicians may not be very open about it, but we are very much a christian nation defined by christian ideals. American troops aren't necessarily fighting in the middle east to recapture the holy lands, but go ahead and try to get an abortion, marry someone of your own gender, or receive government services on a Sunday.

      Our Presidents swear their oaths of office on the Bible. Most of them bring their own.

    134. Re:It's always refreshing by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It's a child protection issue not a financial issue. There's no way that the parents can pay adequate attention to each child.

      So you'd throw the parents in jail and put the kids in foster care? How exactly would that help anything?

      I think his point was probably that the parents deserve to be in jail, but that would make the children even worse off.

    135. Re:It's always refreshing by vacarul · · Score: 1

      communists where atheists, they destroyed a lot of churches in Romania. Also there was a law that prohibited woman to have an abortion because they wanted to have more people. More people = more workforce. The workforce was paid with money but because you couldn't buy anything (food = scarce, car = maybe one in a lifetime, flat = never, just rent) or leave the country that meant they paid people with plain paper. And so on...

    136. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn I thought Jews did 9/11. So hard to keep up!

    137. Re:It's always refreshing by mjwx · · Score: 2, Informative

      A 50% infant mortality rate? I don't think so.

      According to your own link, it was about 25% accounting for the difference between black and white kids. That's a lot worse then the ~1% we have now.

      That being said, fewer children are being born into western societies because we no longer need a large family to support ourselves into old age. If you look at a young adult from the Philippines (not Phil-Am, one who was born and grew up in the Philippines) they will tend to have a larger number of siblings, 5-7 is not unusual, even 9 is not abnormal. This is because in third world nations, the younger generation are required to support the elder members of the family so the more kids there are, the easier life the parents will have. The story is the same across most developing nations in Asia, Africa and South America but the situation in the Phils is a bit worse because of deep rooted Christianity (opposition to contraceptives) as compared to Thailand or Cambodia (both governments actively support contraceptive use as a way to stop the spread of STD's).

      The economic need to have children is gone from western and advanced societies, only the biological need remains and that's strong enough (normally) to ensure a growing population. People like to drag up examples like OctoMum without realising just how much of an anomaly they are. I believe about 2.4 kids is normal per couple (at least for Australia).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    138. Re:It's always refreshing by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Kind of like dogmatic faith in atheism is a religion?"

      Atheism is a religion as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    139. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey. You're dumb.

    140. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty arrogant to assume that kids that aren't brought up in optimal nurtured conditions don't turn into well adjusted contributing members of society.

    141. Re:It's always refreshing by Prowler50mil · · Score: 1

      As refreshing as a Muslim suicide bomber representing Christians, they're all theists, right? ;)

    142. Re:It's always refreshing by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If you look at history you will find plenty of evidence of atheists doing unpleasant things. Pol Pot for a start.

      The thing is, Pol Pot is an atheist in the same way Hitler was a Christian. Technically it's true but no-one has any doubt that Hitler didn't declare a war on Jews in the name of God. In the same way Pol Pot was a monster who happened to be Atheist, Hitler was a monster who happened to be Christian.

      Also, Cambodia is a Buddhist country, so technically they are all Atheists. Although having personally seen the parts of Angkor where the Khmer Rouge had ripped out Buddhist artefacts to fund their war/genocide I doubt they were devout Buddhists either.

      But back to the matter at hand and to further your point, history has plenty of examples of wars launched in the name of god, god being used as a cover for other purposes (most of the crusades were to gain control of the spice/silk routes into Asia) I've never actually heard of atheism being used as an excuse for a war or genocide. Genocide in particular as it's hard to get a large group of atheists (lack of strong beliefs) to follow such reckless orders precisely because atheism is not organised. An atheist may have done terrible things but terrible things have not been done in the name of atheism, there is an important distinction there.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    143. Re:It's always refreshing by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 1

      That begs the question - isn't Atheism the same?

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    144. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The west, and christianity, turned away from state sponsored religion a long time ago. However, atheists and muslims have in common that they want the state they live in to revolve around their own doctrines.

      So is Glenn Beck an atheist or Muslim?

    145. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

    146. Re:It's always refreshing by khallow · · Score: 1

      The only way that a family like that can subsist is by making the older children parent the younger ones

      So how is that worse for children than the usual routes? I'd think the converse. Having experience doing responsible stuff should give them an edge when they become adults in the legal sense.

    147. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was questioning the idea that telling me to stop questioning an idea is a questionable idea.

      To avoid stack overflow?

      Oh, you just had to bring himinto it, didn't you, fellow AC? :)

      This guy was crazier than that guy. I can't wait to see what memes come out of this.

    148. Re:It's always refreshing by urmish · · Score: 1

      theres a fine line between insanity and freedom. and laws are made with an understanding that people know (at least vaguely) where the line lies. ask a 8 year old whether its ok to have 19 siblings and you can know the answer. the problem lies with people who want to achieve fame for all the wrong reasons while still obeying the law.

    149. Re:It's always refreshing by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      The birth rate in nearly all developed countries is below the replacement rate. We do have a population crisis, but it goes the other way.

      Damn hippies.

    150. Re:It's always refreshing by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      >>Do you know that your great-grandparents, and their parents, enforced Jim Crow?

      It's very interesting you assume I'm white.

      It's very interesting that you suggest you may have no white ancestry.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    151. Re:It's always refreshing by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 1

      The difference is that religion, and its adherents, have a anciently long track record of atrocity, sanctioned and endorsed at the very top. Religion is a hindrance the to evolution of the species, but its not the only one. If we are going to survive, we must shrug it off the same way we shrugged off leeching blood and burning witches.

      --
      "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    152. Re:It's always refreshing by fferreres · · Score: 1

      YOU are to judge, because it's YOUR world as well, and if somebody else is going to increase the tax on YOUR planet, it's going to affect us all. You should very well ask your worldmates what they think they are doing, or how this is going to be sustainable not just for us, but for the balance the earth seems to need to be a nice place for all.

      Look at it with a Club analogy. If there are too many members beyond what was the potential ideal, the experience is ruined for everyone. They have all the right to stop accepting members until they find ways to add more Tennis courts, ping pong tables and chairs at the bar.

      What we are doing today is akin of having people sit on the floor to eat, play ping pong where the garden is and take turns to use the pool with no chances of having some space to enjoy it. Likewise, 80% of the clubs are oversaturated (lots of natural resources, lots of overpopulated cities, etc). A few are undersaturated...but that doesn't mean you should not question what's happening.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    153. Re:It's always refreshing by mgblst · · Score: 1

      True, but this only happened for a short period of time. After the time it was necessary to have so many kids, to have a few survive, due to early deaths. And before the time when people figured this out.

    154. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the resources used for those 19 kids could do a lot more in the 3rd world, when a north american has a child they are choosing to let a starving child that has already been born die to further their egotistical craving to recreate their own genes.

      North American breeding IS 3rd world genocide until every hungry mouth on the planet is fed.

      I'm all for freedom, and I think taking liberties away because of perceived terrorist threats is criminal, but while you read this many children starved, and a new group of spoiled yuppies has been born. we should be encouraging people to adopt rather than ignore suffering just to have a fresh new child of "their own" .

      We are killing them, at least until the value of human life isn't geographically based; it is sad but true.

    155. Re:It's always refreshing by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      Eywa has heard you!!!

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    156. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not been "The Learning Channel" for a long time. I believe they are officially know as TLC and TLC no longer stands for anything (quite apt actually). Kinda like how KFC insist that KFC doesn't stand for "Kentucky Fried Chicken" anymore and MTV isn't "Music Television".

      Much like how "wjousts" no longer stands for "Would Jesus Open Up Some Termite Soup?".

    157. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They made Communism their religion.

      And the whole country is fucking rich right now. Richer than the USA. Richer than pretty much any country.

    158. Re:It's always refreshing by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1
      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    159. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad that such an obtuse comment gets such a high rating.

      So? What's your point? Washing your hands and wiping your ass is a recent development, too. Its disgusting when people don't perform these activities. We also didn't bathe at one point. Is it unreasonable to be disgusted at those who do not bathe because we as a species, at one time in our history, did not do so?

      My great grand parents had 10 kids. It worked for them and they were not aware of over-population and resource depletion. We are. Having 10 kids is disgusting.

      Times change.

    160. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know several families with 8 to 10 kids, with several of the 'kids' now approaching their 30s. They were raised by good people with good principals and are turning out to be productive members of society. A large number of children in the family doesn't make it automatically irresponsible and mean that there is neglect. I've seen parents with only 1 or 2 children who inflect more neglect on their children than any of the large families I know. Having that many people in one house you quickly learn how to play nice with others ;)

    161. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for fuck's sake, every post in this series has contained hypocrisy. You think you aren't just some guy on slashdot to the rest of us trying to argue that Buddhism and pantheism are theistic? You think it's not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy to proclaim that your club, atheists, contains no Buddhists and no pantheists?

      This whole thread is an argument about what words should mean, rather than an actual exchange of ideas.

      Buddhism describes a range of positions (as does "theism"), and much of that range is pretty clearly atheistic, unless you're using a variant of atheism with which I'm unfamiliar. In which case, give that definition. Because mine deals with the nonexistence of supreme beings, and has doesn't really have anything to say about Nirvana.

      Pantheism is, as Richard Dawkins says, "sexed-up atheism". Yes, theism is in the word. It's also in the word atheism, and that doesn't mean atheism isn't atheistic. Antitheism is also not incompatible with atheism. Stop getting caught up in the word theism, or in metaphorical uses of the word "god".

      I say this as an atheist with no spiritual beliefs.

    162. Re:It's always refreshing by Denihil · · Score: 1

      one word. ZARDOZ

      --
      WÌÌfÍ--ÍSÌÒÍ...Í...ÌHÌÍfÍÍÍ--ÍÍÍ
    163. Re:It's always refreshing by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      In the same sense that "Syfy" stopped being the Science Fiction Channel quite some time ago as well,. . . ;-)

    164. Re:It's always refreshing by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      There go Nadya "Octo-Mom" Suleman's chances of ever landing a reality show with them,. . . (I guess there's a bright side to everything ;-)

    165. Re:It's always refreshing by huckamania · · Score: 1

      "but go ahead and try to get an abortion"
      That's not difficult to do. Not sure where you live, but abortions are performed at a rate of 2 a minute or more in the god fearing USA.

      "marry someone of your own gender"
      There are 10 states that recognize gay marriage, move to one of them.

      "receive government services on a Sunday"
      The web is 24/7 and the government makes all sort of services available on the web. Not sure what the point is, banks and most people are off on Sunday. Saturday as well, but that doesn't fit your narrow narrative.

      There are prominent government employees and elected officials of virtually all faiths, including atheists. Christians make up the majority, but that is a reflection of the population, not some plot to enshrine a national religion. The 'christians' in the USA would never, ever be able to agree on a single version of Christianity to enshrine. One of the tenents of Christianity is the voluntary acceptance of faith. Again, that is in stark contrast to Atheism and Islam, both of which will convert you by force if necessary.

    166. Re:It's always refreshing by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Sweet, sweet hyperreality.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    167. Re:It's always refreshing by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      As soon as people tell you to stop questioning an idea

      I dont know where you got your ideas, but that sounds an awful lot like a strawman to me. Im pretty sure most studied religious teachers welcome discussion and questions alike.

    168. Re:It's always refreshing by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Oh, get over yourself. Both my parents came from large families and turned out fine, and there are plenty of idealogues with small families who homeschool their children so as to better indoctrinate them in some fringe belief or other. Having a larger than typical family is no great sin.

    169. Re:It's always refreshing by huckamania · · Score: 1

      I can explain. Except for a few very small nations, none of your examples work. There is no requirement for any one to belong to any of those churches and no punishment or penalty for not belonging. Other religions are freely practiced.

      As far as rewriting history, it is almost laughable when someone tries to make a case for the founders not being christians. Even today, after decades of decline, christians are the majority in the USA and make up a majority of the government.

      I don't know any Buddhists who would point a gun at anyone. If they do, they are not Buddhists. The same applies to Christians. Most just want the government to stay out of their lives and to stop spending money on idiots who put crucifixes in a bottle of urine and idiots who need abortions.

      "Every American atheist and Muslim that I know wants the nation they live in to be free from government establishment of or restriction on religion."

      That's great. I feel so much better. I guess I can ignore the Koran which espouses that Islam will conquer the world and that it is the duty of every muslim to spread Islam.

    170. Re:It's always refreshing by metacell · · Score: 1

      What about the scientific method?

    171. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always count on a slashdotter to vilify a religion regardless of the situation.

    172. Re:It's always refreshing by metacell · · Score: 1

      I'd say you are correct with regards to Mahayana buddhism (the larger fraction). It believes in a kind of cosmic presence ("The Cosmic Buddha") which can be equated to God, and Bodhisatvas are prayed to much like saints are prayed to in catholicism.

      Theravada buddism (the smaller fraction), however, does not have these kinds of beliefs, and I think it can be considered truly atheistic.

    173. Re:It's always refreshing by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

      Government, and its adherents, also have a long track record of atrocity. Should we get rid of it too?

      I think it's kind of hypocritical to treat religion as such an evil, when people are equally (or even more) likely to worship a TV celebrity, which often isn't even a good example in any way.

      Religion, by itself, isn't evil. It is often full of good intentions (yes, I know the idiom). The problem is in the religious organizations. They get powerful, consequently they get corrupt (if they don't begin that way) and start attempting to manipulate people.

      If someone is religious independently of any institution, they are much less likely to be led into doing something harmful.

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    174. Re:It's always refreshing by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      I don't particularly disagree with any of your point in particular. I just wanted to add that it isn't sufficient to hold an ideology to account that something be done in the name of that ideology. The Reign of Terror was done in the name of reason but no one would blame reason for the Reign of Terror.
      I think if we are going to say X caused Y we need a strong link between the two. Hitler is actually a good example again. He stated on more than one occasion that he felt the extermination of the Jews was desired by the Biblical god. That alone doesn't impart responsibility for the Holocaust on Christianity (that said there are some rather unpleasant ideas still floating about in Christianity that may have contributed, watch "The Passion of the Christ" if you want to see what they are).
      The point you make about organisation is a good one, in addition to lacking the motive (at least from atheism), atheists also lack the means to atrocity through lack of organisation, at least in so far as atheism, unlike Communism, Christianity, etc, lacks controlling structures.

    175. Re:It's always refreshing by Spad · · Score: 1

      What? Question everything because if you're right about it being wrong you'll get lots of grant money?

    176. Re:It's always refreshing by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > Do you know that your great-grandparents, or their parents, probably had that many kids, right?

      And if they had had fewer kids we would not now have an over-populated planet, and peak-oil would be centuries away. European countries would have had less need to expand into the Americas and Australasia, much to the benefit of those already lived they. Etc. Etc.

    177. Re:It's always refreshing by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>I think it's perfectly fair to call 19 children obscene.

      Benjamin Franklin was, what, 15th kid out of 17?

      I don't think any particular note was taken of the size of his family... perfectly normal for those times.

    178. Re:It's always refreshing by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>We also didn't bathe at one point.

      So? Giving birth isn't the same as infecting people with Cholera or something.

      >>What's your point?

      The point is that the two-child household is a very very recent development in the history of humanity, so it's very odd to hear having lots of kids described as disgusting. And very interesting to see how many people support the changed norms for family size.

      Not that I really disagree (my wife and I plan on >It worked for them and they were not aware of over-population and resource depletion. We are. Having 10 kids is disgusting.

      The current threat to the modern world is under-population, not over-population. You should get your memes checked out the next time you're in the shop.

    179. Re:It's always refreshing by SakuraDreams · · Score: 1

      Atheism means absence of belief in supernatural gods. However, it does not preclude any political system. Definitely the founders of socialism such as Karl Marx were atheist by way of reason and sought to get rid of religion because it impeded mankind, they did not intend to create a totalitarian state where a handful of people had power, they intended to create a system were government was not necessary and people gave according to their abilities and received according to their needs. An ultimate utopia based on altruism and reason. In order to get to that stage the undesirables, those who would or could not convert had to be eliminated.

      Communism was not the religion of the USSR anymore than respect for the Constitution or Democracy is religion in the USA. In a Communist society there is no government, in the USSR there existed a transitional government - a socialist one. The lack of respect for individual life was key in this society and this extended to the lowest levels as people betrayed their neighbours to the police, low level functionaries arrested people to get ahead and more senior party officials right up to Nikita Khrushchev submitted long lists of people for execution or deportation. At the lowest level they did away with religion and many of the inhibitions religion would have so that the family unit was no longer sacred, marriage was not sacred, Father Lenin (or the state or society) could replace your parents, and so on. The guys at the top in the Politburo did not behave like this however and were no more than a gang.

      So please atheists don't distance yourselves from Marx, Engels and Lenin. They were firm atheists by way of reason and they sought to install a form of government based on reason by getting rid of old Russian Orthodox superstitions and force people to play fair, initially with rhetoric and ultimately with the use of force. The fact is that simple people need heroes like Stalin and Kaganovic and numerous other heroes such as athletes and exemplary workers. It was just a method of ensuring fairness and fighting egotism and social inertia to the new ideology which was meant to enlighten all. The end result was to be a new classless society where science, knowledge and art were favoured over superstition, religion and old traditions. People in the USSR were told that things were tough but they did not have to worry because Communism was just around the corner and then everything would be ok. The sad fact is that most people aren't altruistic and don't play fair. There will always be those who are more astute and daring who will assume leadership or start businesses (legal or not, and in the SU all business was illegal anyway) and those who just subsist as slaves to their jobs. Communism tried to change that and to do that its architects thought that they had to be merciless and extreme especially after the fall of the Parisian Communes in the 19th c.

      The same can be said of reason based approaches. Scientists will deliver the knowledge but those who implement it will always have to deal with masses of people who just want to subsist as well as people who will always want to cheat the system to favor themselves over others. Mere transfer of information does not help, people work because they are rewarded for it. Humanism is just redressed Marxism.

    180. Re:It's always refreshing by kale77in · · Score: 1

      I'd say that as a Christian I have about as much in common with the management of medieval Christendom as most western atheists have with the management of any of the avowedly atheist totalitarianism states of the 20th century. The imputation of historical collective responsibility to Christians or Atheists doesn't work in either direction.

      I also think that by making Christianity a sub-class of ideology, you're using 'Ideology' in an essentially pejorative sense. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology for a sensible definition.)

      On the one hand Atheism has spawned ideologies. It has justified fascism (via the Nietzschean super-man's right to power), eugenics and social darwinism, forms of anarchism and nihilism ("If there is no God everything is permitted" a la Sartre) and of course the various Marxist positions. These were all social visions often leading to action, which claimed an atheistic basis, so are correctly termed atheist ideologies. You can say that atheism learned from that and moved on (or at least that those forms died a natural death to no-one's sorrow), but you can't say they weren't ideological commitments. The ideal of a secular society, with separation of state from church (and I would add business and education) is an ideological-political commitment by any standards -- but show me an atheist who won't support it? So to picture atheism as the alternative to ideology is somewhat inaccurate.

      On the other hand, Christianity has taken plenty of politically non-ideological forms. I think these were in most cases truer to it's foundations than any part of it's cooption by the Roman Empire, or its entanglement in the Platonist social synthesis of Augustine, or the Aristotelian synthesis of Aquinas, or 'Christian Reconstructionism' in the U.S. today -- all of which pressed it into service as a framework for government, something to which I find it, in it's own premises, unsuited and disinterested. That's not the kind of thing it is. This was the story of the first few centuries: the late-3rd century philosopher Porphyry critiqued Christians in his time for refusing military or government service on principle, saying this was a dereliction of their civil responsibilities. In the gradual shake-up leading back to disestablishment after the Reformation, John Locke's 'Letter Concerning Toleration', as a public policy document, has I think been the best and most influential expression of the idea that genuine Christian faith can't in any case be externally compelled so and that governments should respect freedom of conscience in faith.

    181. Re:It's always refreshing by SakuraDreams · · Score: 1

      Dogmatism is inevitable in any system. It is impossible for everyone to know everything and the reasons behind it all. Ultimately people have to take everything on good faith. You may be an expert in your little field but you have to take it on good faith that everyone else is right (following the most correct method) and create institutions which will act dogmatically to ensure this. For reason to work without faith or dogma, everyone would have to be of infinite intelligence and knowledge.

    182. Re:It's always refreshing by lxs · · Score: 1

      Damn right! It's irresponsible to encourage impressionable youngsters to become dwarves.

    183. Re:It's always refreshing by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > have a anciently long track record of atrocity

      Hey there's a reason why they have a long track record. The weaker and less fit ones died out. Survival of the fittest and all that. You might even argue that Atheism is a default (most animals do not appear to have much of a religion), and that religion has evolved and outcompeted Atheism in humans.

      So I doubt that this recent resurfacing of Atheism will beat the major religions.

      Most humans will always want to be part of a greater something. So they will always find something.

      I see football/soccer fans attending their "worship services", making pilgrimages and even waging holy wars against infidels who worship the False Teams. Heck there might even be far more "Holy Vegetarians/Vegans" (who make Veganism a near religious practice) than there are Strict Atheists (those who when in deep shit won't start crying for help to God or Gaia or the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc).

      Some religions might actually provide more benefit than cost to believers as a group. Atheists might insist on not seeing them, but research done by scientists certainly have indicated that the religious live longer. There are plenty of other benefits. Many of the top hospitals and schools were established by the religious. So while this increased the cost to those individuals, society has benefited greatly.

      It is also easy to reason that since the placebo effect is real and effective in many diseases, someone who believes in a God that helps, can more easily self-administer the placebo effect (via praying) than some Atheist who doesn't.

      Thus if a particular religion does not cost its adherents (as a group) very much, than with these benefits (and other benefits), it would be evolutionarily fitter than Atheism which does not provide much benefit.

      And what benefits does Atheism actually provide to its adherents? Plenty of historical evidence shows that the religious are also capable of rational and scientific thinking - many great scientists and innovators have been religious.

      If Atheism provides fewer benefits than religion then the religions that cost less will be better for humans in that respect. Of course there are some religions that cost more, but encourage adherents to eliminate everyone else. But that does not mean all religions are worse for humans than Atheism.

      If benefits of Atheism are few, rational atheists who aim to help humanity should actually encourage the following of certain religions over other religions or even Atheism ;).

      --
    184. Re:It's always refreshing by SakuraDreams · · Score: 1

      Definition of ATHEISM

      a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

      So it's a doctrine that there is no deity. The USSR would be a perfect example of a country where it was doctrine that there was no deity.
      That's it. No weaseling out about reason, reason is not part of this definition.

    185. Re:It's always refreshing by metacell · · Score: 1

      How much grant money would you get if you (hypothetically) found indications that man-made global warming may be wrong, and wanted to do research to confirm it?

    186. Re:It's always refreshing by grayshirtninja · · Score: 2, Informative

      and they all died of dysentery.

    187. Re:It's always refreshing by Kuruk · · Score: 1

      If only he a had a method of training many children to think like him he could compete with the non-atheists.

    188. Re:It's always refreshing by professionalfurryele · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some modern Christians have little in common with historical Christianity, but many if not most have plenty in common. If you attend a church then you are organised, like historical Christianity. If you think that it is grace and not works that are most pleasing to YHWH then you have something in common with historical Christianity.

      My intent is not to use ideology pejoratively, nor do I think I was suggesting Christianity was an ideology, although maybe I got sloppy with language at one point or another. I have an ideology so if I'm being pejorative about them I'm insulting myself. To be fair that wouldn't be uncalled, my ideology has had problems, they are just nothing to do with atheism.

      Before we talk about atheism spawning ideology we are going to need to agree what atheism is. If atheism is the assertion there is no god then it is true one can draw conclusions from this statement. I would term an atheist as someone who has not been compelled to a belief in God. If you want to term the ideologies that result from the belief there is no god 'atheist ideologies' you are at liberty to do so, what I don't understand is why you think that term is particularly informative.

      To what extent can we say that Fascism is drawn from atheism as opposed to Thomism being drawn from Christianity? In the case of National Socialism which played a larger role in the less desirable attributes of the ideology, atheism (which most National Socialists were less than enamoured with) or anti-semitism which has a history drawn primarily from a particular application of the source text of Christianity?

      Atheism hasn't learned from "it's" mistakes because it hasn't made any. It cant make any. This isn't a particular achievement on atheism's part. Belief in Santa hasn't done much by way of significant harm or good throughout history either. Both positions are essentially devoid of direct consequences and as you have pointed out at most have secondary effects through other ideas. The negative content of those ideas is almost exclusively drawn from sources other than atheism because atheism says virtually nothing.

      I wouldn't assert that atheism is an alternative to ideology. I have an ideology and it isn't atheism, it is a mixture of Western social democracy, the enlightenment and secular humanism. It has nothing to do with atheism. It is also not without it's problems in history. Problems I'm well aware of and have studied.

      That was the whole point of my post. I was responding to someone who had swapped something which was an ideology (politically active religiously motivated political ideologies) with something that was not (atheism).

      If when you talk about Christianity you aren't talking something which has a drastic impact on your politics then when you use the word Christianity and I use the word Christianity we aren't talking about the same thing. When I use that word I'm referring to a representative depiction of the religion of about 1 billion of my fellow humans. It is a socially conservative, politically active and includes a moral philosophy which has a dramatic impact on the social and political reality of most Western states and has (sometimes for better, usually for worse) had a significant impact on a variety of related political ideologies.

      If your ideology isn't inspired by Christianity in any way good for you. If it is, then I think it is important to take a good look at history and make darn sure you don't repeat the myriad mistakes committed as a direct result of specific interpretations of your religion's source text.

    189. Re:It's always refreshing by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The question when we assign blame to ideologies is did the ideology lead the the unpleasant actions.

      Really? Because, based on my experience, we assign blame to ideologies based on whether we happen to like or dislike said ideology.

      Pol Pot and Stalin and so on didn't kill people because they were atheists. They killed people because they were radical communists, and communists need to have a look at their ideology and ask themselves why every time communists get sweeping powers they do such unpleasant things.

      This here being a good example of what I mean.

      Stalin and Pol Pot didn't kill people because they were atheists, and they didn't kill people because they were communists. They killed people because they were evil, power-hungry dictators, and killing people both helped them cement their power and an opportunity to use it. However, you dislike communism, so you're trying to attribute their evil to their communistic political leaning; you don't dislike atheism, so you don't try to attribute their evil to their atheist tendencies. A religious person would likely attribute it to their atheism.

      There have been numerous left-leaning governments who came to power in a peacful and democratic way and continued to conduct in such a way. There have also been numerous revolutionaries who came to power through a bloody civil war and continued bloodletting it once they seized power; some of these tyrants are left- and some right-leaning.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    190. Re:It's always refreshing by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      In principle I'm also against huge families like that, but I'm not so sure about your conclusions. Food, shelter and medical care aren't enough that's for sure, but are you quite sure that they won't get what is needed from the huge family? It's not like the 'normal sized families' don't often have their own problems and still end up producing well adjusted, contributing members of society

      --
      It is what it is.
    191. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The west, and christianity, turned away from state sponsored religion a long time ago. However, atheists and muslims have in common that they want the state they live in to revolve around their own doctrines.

      I personally know of counter-examples to all of those generalizations.

    192. Re:It's always refreshing by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Erm, I'm a social democrat to the left of most people in Europe. I have nothing against the political left. I didn't say that Stalin and Pol Pot killed people because they were communists, I said they killed people because they were radical communists. This is not nit picking, saying the 9/11 Hijackers killed people because they were radical Islamists is not the same thing as saying they killed people because they were Muslims. One is patently false, the other clearly a partial truth.

      If you want to point out that being radical communists wasn't the only thing that lead Stalin and Pol Pot to kill people, go ahead. Mea culpa, my statement was misleading in this regard. But if you want to absolve communism entirely of the role the ideology played in some of histories worst excesses I remain to be convinced.

    193. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Dad was one of 16. His Dad was one of 14. There was a war on. There were higher rate of infant mortality. There were fewer religious hypocrites ("I'm a Catholic but use protection", that sort of crap).

    194. Re:It's always refreshing by somersault · · Score: 1

      What the hell? There have been many, many discussions about this on /. before, but by your UID I guess you're new here. Google it. It's to do with the sun's solar cycles, ie Mars is warming too, but slower than earth.

      I hate religion thought patterns too, though I only managed to de-brainwash myself from my religion a couple of years ago, and that type of thinking is pervasive in all walks of life, and probably naturally occurring in parts of my own life. The fact that global warming is occurring is not just a religious idea though, we've had plenty of cycles of ice ages and heat. It's retarded to suggest that these cycles are not going on.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    195. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of a famous show by Groucho Marks about a guy that had something like 20 kids. Groucho took the cigar in his mouth, shook it and said, "You know, I like cigars, but I like to take them out of my mouth sometimes!"

    196. Re:It's always refreshing by somersault · · Score: 1

      Science has a history of being wrong, and faith has a history of being misinterpreted. I am comfortable with worshiping God, without really understanding precisely what He is.

      This type of thinking is exactly the problem with religion. A failure to accept that your religion may actually be at fault - when clearly there are hundreds of religions out there. They can't all be right. Billions of people out there have faith in something that we have just made up.

      I don't actually believe any of the religions out there are anything other than something we have made up. I know it's incredibly hard to accept - as I've gone through that journey myself, it was one of the scariest times in my life. I know you'll also probably just ignore me because you *want* your religion to be true, and your confirmation bias will only let you process things that agree with your beliefs rather than allowing you to truly question them without going through the necessary life experiences first. Basically you need to be in a very open or "brainwashable" state to change your beliefs on such a basic level.. I wish I'd been able to accept the reality of the situation at a younger age though.. just because 2 billion people agree with you does not actually mean your beliefs are real. There are billions more who don't agree, and who believe in their own religions just as fervently as you believe in yours..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    197. Re:It's always refreshing by piotru · · Score: 1

      "Atheism means absence of belief in supernatural gods." You talk of agnosticism. I suggest this: "Atheism means belief in the absence of supernatural gods."

    198. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the OP didn't say a family of 19 was disgusting, he said "Discovery's (TLC) support of a family of 19 is disgusting" ... and I agree. Go forth and multiply all you want ... just keep that shit off my cable.

    199. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this guy is just following through on the secular philosophy he's been taught.

    200. Re:It's always refreshing by Krommenaas · · Score: 1

      "communists need to have a look at their ideology and ask themselves why every time communists get sweeping powers they do such unpleasant things." Perhaps you need to take a look at history and ask yourself why only communists who did unpleasant things managed to get and hold on to power, and what happened to all the communists who just wanted to rule with popular support. Hint: you might want to take a look at US military history and the history of CIA-involvement in foreign affairs.

    201. Re:It's always refreshing by Smekarn · · Score: 1

      Who am I to judge?

      I'm the guy whose entire species will die out like a virus in a petri-dish because of egoic thoughts like yours. I'm the guy who has to explain to his girlfriend how I personally want kids, but I feel I don't want to add more resource-munching, polluting egoistic creatures to the already crowded world.

      Who are you to raise a small army of piss-ants whose only possible way of life is getting goods cheap from countries in abject poverty? Who are you to put your instictive biological clock ahead of the interest of the entire world?

      "But I don't have any kids!"
      No, but you are most definately defending peoples right to give birth like machineguns, and that's almost just as bad.

    202. Re:It's always refreshing by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Erm, I'm a social democrat to the left of most people in Europe.

      Then you should know that there are communistic parties in all European countries, and also that they don't go around murdering people in the name of communism.

      I didn't say that Stalin and Pol Pot killed people because they were communists, I said they killed people because they were radical communists. This is not nit picking, saying the 9/11 Hijackers killed people because they were radical Islamists is not the same thing as saying they killed people because they were Muslims.

      One might draw from this the conclusion that it's the willingness to kill in the name of your belief system that's the problem, not said system itself.

      If you want to point out that being radical communists wasn't the only thing that lead Stalin and Pol Pot to kill people, go ahead.

      No, I'm saying that communism had absolutely nothing to do with either Stalin or Pol Pot killing people. They simply used it to whip their followers to a frenzy; they may or may not have belief it to be a good economic system themselves.

      But if you want to absolve communism entirely of the role the ideology played in some of histories worst excesses I remain to be convinced.

      You pointed out yourself that this kind of behaviour is in line with what non-communistic evil people have done. In fact it's in line with what every evil tyrant in human history has done. Communistic dictators are no better or worse than non-communistic ones, so the logical conclusion is that they being communists was irrelevant.

      And in any case, either absolving or condemning communism would require quite a bit of anthropomorphization. We don't live in Discworld, you know :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    203. Re:It's always refreshing by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Would you say that National Socialism had nothing to do with the Holocaust?

    204. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh well, consider the fact that Pol Pot and Stalin were the children of the age of enlightenment, which basically emphasized the human capability to rationalize stuff, reason things logically et cetera.
      So what's religion to do with these guys? I don't quite get your "commie religious" reasoning...:)
      But then, being a romantic must be The Good Thing!
      Oh, wait ....
      Hitler was a romanticist.
      Sorry 'bout my poor spelling, not my native language.

    205. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jon and Kate at least seem to have stopped after what was initially supposed to be a third child. They had twins through a fertility treatment (identical, so there was no reason to believe more than a single embryo would implant during the second time), and decided to have another. They were pregnant with six and decided to not selectively abort. Having 18 and deciding to have a 19th is a entirely different matter than having 2 and wanting a 3rd.

    206. Re:It's always refreshing by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      For the sake of example, Christian scriptures, and the New Testament in particular, promotes friendship and kindness to everyone, regardless of who they are and what they do. Somehow, people are able to build doctrine around these scriptures, which justify the bombing of abortion clinics, or the hatred of Jews and those of African decent.

      That's just human nature. If there was no such thing as religion these same people would find another reason to hate the people they hate.

      It wouldn't be faith, if we could prove the whole thing scientifically.

      I think you're looking at the wrong definition of "faith." I think it means being faithful, as in being faithful to your wife; not "believing".

    207. Re:It's always refreshing by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yes, he IS (actually was; the cops shot him) completely psycho. Hating Jon and Kate Plus Eight, 19 Kids and Counting, etc is normal, but taking hostages and threatening lives because of a coupld of stupid TV shows is about as psycho as you can get.

    208. Re:It's always refreshing by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Another issue is that western women start considering having children later in life, thanks to education, work, and basically living a independent life takes focus.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    209. Re:It's always refreshing by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Ok, I don't like the Duggers at all, but I think these criticisms are either misguided or don't warrent throwing the parents in jail.

      There's no way that the parents can pay adequate attention to each child.

      It's true that parents with multiple kids need to split their attention between them. I can't, for example, pay attention solely to my oldest child or I'll wind up paying no attention to my youngest. And, while I personally think that 19 kids would be too many for my wife and I to handle, I don't want the government stepping in and telling me "We've made a law that says people can only have X amount of kids and you just went over the limit so we're taking your kids away from you."

      They educate each other (public school is evil etc),

      It's called home schooling. A lot of parents do it and their kids turn out fine. (For the record, my kids go to public school.)

      take care of each other,

      I've known people with large families and that's the only way you can get by. With one kid the parents might be able to do everything while the kid just sits around playing. With two, you might get by with this too. But with 19 kids? Plus, what happens if a parent is sick? Do you really think the kids shouldn't have any household responsibilities? My kids are still young (oldest is 7) but as they get older, I plan on having them take care of things around the house. (In fact, now that he's turned 7, my oldest might start taking on some light household chores.)

      and fend for themselves most of the time.

      Is it "the parents go out and party leaving the kids by themselves" or is it "one parent is doing laundry, the other is working and the oldest, teenaged kids are watching the younger kids"? Both situations might be called "fending for themselves most of the time" but one is neglect while the other is simply running the household as best they can.

      Unless you can prove specific child abuse happening (e.g. refusing to feed the kids, beating them, etc) I definitely wouldn't want the government stepping in to take the kids away from the parents. And I wouldn't want to see forced sterilization or anything along those lines either (ala China). Again, I don't support the Duggar's quest to see how many kids she can have before her uterus runs off to Bermuda, but I don't think government intervention is needed either.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    210. Re:It's always refreshing by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The Earth is in a warming period after an ice age, so yes it is warming up regardless of what we humans do. The AGW people just believe that we humans are accelerating this process. I unfortunately have problems believing in the AGW crowd as they take any criticism of their work by attacking the person giving the criticism, not addressing it. Anyone who doesn't believe in AGW is a nut job and must be publicly ridiculed.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    211. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, god forbid they teach their children to be responsible and self sufficient. What horrible parents.

    212. Re:It's always refreshing by Sally+Forth · · Score: 1

      What matters to me is not how many children someone has, but how much we're paying for them.

      I am less opposed to a father and mother supporting and raising six children than I am to an unwed mother on welfare dumping one child on the system for you and I to support.

    213. Re:It's always refreshing by Toze · · Score: 1

      FDA approval. Government's always interfering in the implementation of good ideas!
      (For those who don't clue in, btw, Swift was kidding to make a point.)

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    214. Re:It's always refreshing by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Actually, for now on, the opposite is true. I'm gonna say that is exactly what wjousts stands for.

    215. Re:It's always refreshing by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Cracked had a very informative piece on SyFy.

      Quoting:

      We'll get the heritage and the track record of success, and we'll build off of that to build a broader, more open and accessible and relatable and human-friendly brand."- Dave Howe, President of Syfy

      "The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the female audience in particular...We spent a lot of time in the '90s trying to distance the network from science fiction, which is largely why it's called Sci Fi."- Tim Brooks, founder of Sci-Fi

      So basically, the SyFy channels think their viewers are sub-human geeks. Nice.

    216. Re:It's always refreshing by mldi · · Score: 1

      Starting with the Duggars...

      No kidding. Not only is it terribly irresponsible, but vaginas aren't clown cars. (Joke Credit: someone out there in the interwebs).

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    217. Re:It's always refreshing by mldi · · Score: 1

      It's also become just slightly more expensive to take care of a kid. If you have 19 kids nowadays, unless you are filthy rich, a bunch of tax payers are supporting your irresponsible life choices (at least in the US). And as a tax payer, I say "fuck that!!".

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    218. Re:It's always refreshing by Sally+Forth · · Score: 1

      Because a 16-year-old girl can bear and raise her own children to be a well-adjusted, contributing member of society, but there's no WAY she could EVER help her parents raise her 1-year-old brother to be a well-adjusted, contributing member of society, because at some point teenagers just cross a magic line and suddenly become PEOPLE.

      I am the eldest of five, thank you very much. I changed the diapers of my youngest three siblings. I tutored my youngest brother in algebra.. I was a paid calculus tutor at the time. Now I'm a mother of my own, and guess what! I didn't need to go to a class to learn how to change a baby.

      Live it, or at least watch it in action, before you assume it's nonsense.

    219. Re:It's always refreshing by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      At the end of the day, one has to acknowledge that something, be it anywhere from inanimate to super-intelligent, at some point in history, had the capacity to cause the universe to exist. From there, you can either choose to make no opinion of what that thing is/was, or pick a religious view that you can reconcile with demonstrable science.

      If I believe that the Big Bang was the beginning (or "cause") of the universe, why does this have to involve any religious view at all?

      I believe you are just begging the question by implicitly assuming that any "cause" has to have an outside actor to initiate it. In fact, I would suggest that it is meaningless to say that there was anything outside or prior to the Big Bang.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    220. Re:It's always refreshing by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Kinda like how KFC insist that KFC doesn't stand for "Kentucky Fried Chicken" anymore and MTV isn't "Music Television".

      MTV never was "music television". It's just txt-tlk for "empty-V". Nothing of value was ever shown there.

    221. Re:It's always refreshing by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Would you say that National Socialism had nothing to do with the Holocaust?

      Now that you mention it... yes. Nazi Party was a fringe group of nasty people until Hitler was made the leader, and Hitler was an antisemitist and a nasty man long before he encountered Nazi ideology. All the lead nazis were the same: very un-well individuals who were willing to do anything for the sake of power. That they were eventually caught in their own web of lies does not change the fact that they spun it, and thus it reflects their evil, not the other way around.

      The Nazi ideology was designed to appeal to German masses and allow them to be controlled. It was simply a tool; it is no more the reason to Holocaust than any other murder weapon is the cause of murder. By the same token, those who adhere to Nazi idology nowadays do so because they find the ideology a good match for their own evil. The ideology didn't make them evil, they were evil first and thus found the ideology appealing.

      Nazi ideology, repugnant as it may be, is not to blame for its followers actions. At the absolute worst, it might serve as a convenient excuse for an evil actions, but then agian, any excuse will serve a tyrant.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    222. Re:It's always refreshing by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the planet can be "saved" merely by accepting Al Gore as its Lord and Savior.

      He has ridden the mighty moon worm...

    223. Re:It's always refreshing by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I can explain. Except for a few very small nations, none of your examples work.

      You haven't "explained" anything, you've backpedaled. If Christianity and the West had abandoned state support for religion, there would be not states with Christianity as their official religion. But there are. Ergo, you're just wrong. The fact that such support does not include locking up those who follow other religions, does not change that; it's still an state establishment of religion.

      I don't know any Buddhists who would point a gun at anyone. If they do, they are not Buddhists. The same applies to Christians.

      Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Many people who call themselves Buddhists and Christians have indeed pointed guns at others, often at the urging of religious leaders. If you get to say that they aren't "real" Buddhists and Christians, then Muslims get to say that violent extremists aren't "real" Muslims. That does not alter the fact of people who call themselves Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians and who also commit violence.

      I feel so much better. I guess I can ignore the Koran which espouses that Islam will conquer the world and that it is the duty of every muslim to spread Islam.

      As much as you can ignore the Biblical passages that command you to kill followers of other religions (Exodus 22:18), kill women who have pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), kill people who work on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and to sell your extra possessions to arm yourself (Luke 22:36).

      And are you pretending that Christians don't believe that it is their duty to bring the world into their religion? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    224. Re:It's always refreshing by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Kinda like how KFC insist that KFC doesn't stand for "Kentucky Fried Chicken" anymore

      Which is my restaurant "Fried Unique Chicken Kentucky-style Ordered From Fresh" is allowed to exist.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    225. Re:It's always refreshing by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      A family of 19 wouldn't have been called "disgusting" - as the GGP did - back in the day.

      Neither would child labour or slavery.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    226. Re:It's always refreshing by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be faith, if we could prove the whole thing scientifically.

      I think you're looking at the wrong definition of "faith." I think it means being faithful, as in being faithful to your wife; not "believing".

      It's both, isn't it? It's both being faithful to your god's expectations, and having faith in their existence and nature.

      To follow your example, I am both faithful (show fidelity) to my wife, and I have faith (believe) that she will act according to what I know about her.

      That said, we're talking about personified entities, here, regardless of your diety or dieties of choice. They are more psychology (soft-science) than physics or math as far as understanding or 'prooving'. There's a reason why the Bible and Greek/Roman/Norse mythologies (and probably others I'm less familiar with) speak of emotions with respect to God and the gods behavior (anger, as a common example), rather than logical rules that one gets from the hard-sciences. As such, one doesn't need faith to believe in gravitational or magnetic forces, but does need faith to believe in God's compassion.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    227. Re:It's always refreshing by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I'm an outlier myself, and I'd like my rights protected. Nobody has ever dropped dead because of my kids. They don't strain "our" resources -- they strain MY resources, which are none of your business, thank you. And they don't strain my resources that much; we may never go to Disney World, and we don't have cable TV. But we do have enough to eat and do a lot of fun things together, including travel and educational opportunities most people never take advantage of.

      Everybody else needs to mind their own business. When my kids point a gun at you or steal from you, I'll support your use of force against them to defend yourself. Until then, I agree with your sentiment.

      I found this interesting outlier the other day: he's an atheist, has five children and thinks kids are great and not an overpopulation problem, and recently signed himself up for cryonic suspension in case it provides the means to live longer: http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2009/05/11/interview-with-alcor-member-david-croft/ Talk about an interesting and unique guy. I support his right to live the way he wants, and I wish everybody did.

    228. Re:It's always refreshing by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Really? Older siblings looking out for you is negligent? Hell, my parents split up when I was 7, and by the age of 9 my only babysitter was the television. Having an older sibling around would have been substantially better than that.

    229. Re:It's always refreshing by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I personally think having that many kids is pretty damn weird, but who the hell are you to judge?

      I personally find pedophilic rape and murder abhorrent, but who am I to judge, eh?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    230. Re:It's always refreshing by Painted · · Score: 1

      Discovery's support of those shows in no way change the fact that he is, in fact, pretty demonstrably completely psycho.

      --
      http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
    231. Re:It's always refreshing by fatphil · · Score: 1

      From my .sig file, this seems appropriate:

      I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
      than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
      gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    232. Re:It's always refreshing by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      one... does need faith to believe in God's compassion

      Not if you've witnessed it. If God has shown himself to you, you need no more faith in his existance than you need faith in your dog's existence.

      What I find fascinating is athiests who are sure of God's nonexistance because his existance can't be proven, yet they're 100% sure that there is life, even intelligent life, on other planets despite the lack of any evidence whatever that there is such life.

    233. Re:It's always refreshing by mano.m · · Score: 1

      No, because atheism does not have a book requiring atheists to murder theists.

      --
      Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
    234. Re:It's always refreshing by jpapon · · Score: 1

      It's retarded to suggest that these cycles are not going on.

      I understand that there are cycles. I just think it is fairly pointless to make statements such as "The Earth would still be warming, absent of humanity". I think there are really far too many variables for such a statement to ever be proven concretely one way or the other. To me, that's like saying WWII would have still happened, even if Hitler had died during WWI. Sure, it may be true, and it may even be an interesting thing to discuss, but in the end, there's no way to prove either side.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    235. Re:It's always refreshing by huckamania · · Score: 1

      You are a fool and I will waste no more time with you. If you believe Islam is the religion of peace, then you are a deluded fool.

    236. Re:It's always refreshing by noodler · · Score: 1

      "Some of the bad things people have done in history have been a direct result of their interpretation of Christianity and when that repeatedly happens people will begin to wonder if the ideology / religion itself is a good thing."

      In christianity there is no such thing as a definitive ideology.
      Just look at the many sub-genres of christianity, they all have their own twist on the book.
      There is just no such thing as a 'correct' way to interpret the bible.
      In stead there is a bag with may possible ideological combinations.
      Interpretation is at the basis of all of christianity.

    237. Re:It's always refreshing by noodler · · Score: 1

      As long as you're questioning you'll be all right,.

    238. Re:It's always refreshing by wjousts · · Score: 1

      You must be too young to remember when MTV only showed actual music videos.

    239. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your statement one of authority? Do scientists make claims of unquestionable authority?

      It seems like you just made an absolute statement about no one being able to make an absolute statement. The problem with your world view is that it's self defeating, it's completely irrational. You should add yourself to the list "Whether it's Skygod, Crankypants, Sauron, Mao, or you".

      Besides on who's authority do you make the claim that people should be rational? What reason do you have for trying to be rational?

       

    240. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, right, like Abraham Lincoln and MANY other families in that century who couldn't afford dedicated education but somehow ended up better disciplined than us?
      The problem is perhaps a social one, then? I taught my younger brother math and he was literally two years ahead of the rest of his class in that subject.

    241. Re:It's always refreshing by sarysa · · Score: 1

      There was also a lot of virgin land that needed those extra hands to tend, build, and manage. Birth rates went down when we started needing to build up to house everyone. Sure, it's not disgusting when your nearest neighbor is 10 miles away, but it's disgusting if you're living in NYC.

      Also, if you read the fine print on the page, it suggests that a general average of 4-5 living children was the norm. (where infant mortality rate is provided)

      --
      Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
    242. Re:It's always refreshing by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with anything you have said, I'm just not sure what the relevance of your point is. Yes Christianity has many different interpretations, but we can form a representative form of the religion with certain core doctrines. Or if we wanted we could look at commonalities between Christians that are different in a wider population of people. Christianity is not a monolithic belief structure where everyone thinks the same thing, sure. That said one can meaningfully talk about what Christians believe and one can meaningfully talk about Christian beliefs.

    243. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not overpopulated?

      How do you figure? So if everything was covered in paved highways with cities stretching from coast to coast with no wilderness in between would that be ok then?

      The US is overpopulated as is the rest of the planet. The human race is essentially the scourge of the earth.

    244. Re:It's always refreshing by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I bought Led Zeppelin's first album the day it came out (they were playing it at the record store and I was like "WOW!").

      I'm old enough to remember that empty-v ruined rock and roll. Rock kept getting better and better from the late '60s-early '70s to when empty-v came around. After they came along with their schmaltzy pop videos disguised as rock, that's what the radio started playing. (Gah! Rick Springfield? WTF is this shit anyway?) I was actually GLAD when they stopped doing music.

    245. Re:It's always refreshing by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I'm the guy whose entire species will die out like a virus in a petri-dish because of egoic thoughts like yours.

      ...

      No, but you are most definately defending peoples right to give birth like machineguns, and that's almost just as bad.

      There's half a dozen responses similar to yours that I'm not going to bother to respond to individually. Apparently, you didn't really "get" what I was saying, and decided to paint me as someone who wants to see humans overrun the world like locusts and destroy ourselves. Not interested in that outcome, thanks.

      What you all seem to ignore is that the US (and the EU for that matter) are, in general, not overpopulated, and, in fact, our societies are producing children at below the replacement rate. As such, there is nothing ethically wrong with the occasional outlier producing children in litters--assuming they can provide for those children, that is. I'm not at all familiar with the subject family (other than their name, and the fact that they have a reality TV show), but from what I understand, they are perfectly capable of supporting their children, without being a burden on anyone.

      By the way, your closing bit, "But I don't have kids" does in fact describe me--my wife had ovarian problems as a teenager and can't have children. We're talked about fertility treatment, etc, but you know what? I personally don't want to have children in litters, and many fertility treatments seem to make that a very possible outcome.

      So, to me, this isn't at all about ego. This is about being pissed off about someone telling someone else how to live their life, simply because they don't approve of that lifestyle.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    246. Re:It's always refreshing by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I personally find pedophilic rape and murder abhorrent, but who am I to judge, eh?

      You really don't see a difference between having children and raping them? What's next? Can we equate jaywalking with participating in the international trade in sex slaves?

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    247. Re:It's always refreshing by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      I've chosen a religious path which I can reconcile with the demonstrable scientific facts which I am aware of. If you can demonstrate the science, then I am willing to accept it, and if it conflicts with I religious view that I possess, then I will have to re-evaluate that view. I will not argue against that which is proven.

      People try to use their religion to explain everything in their world, and that's when it conflicts with science. I believe that my religion explains very little about my world, and that there are only a very few key points that it is important for me take from it. Anything beyond those few key points are unimportant to my faith, and if I really feel I need an explanation for those things, then I am free to seek those answers through science and logic.

      You believe that all religions are based purely in fiction. I submit that many religions have some basis in truth, and that some may be closer to the truth than others. There is a great deal more that we do not know about the universe, than that which we do know. In both religion and science, people need to acknowledge that not everything is explained. There are very large regions of doubt and uncertainty in both realms of knowledge.

      I believe that people go much too far when they seek science from their religions. I believe that people act foolishly, when they cling to religious beliefs that conflict directly with facts that can be demonstrated. I believe that people act foolishly when they hold strongly to religious principles which have no fundamental grounding in the scriptures which form the base of their religion.

      In the end, only you can determine for yourself, what set of beliefs is right for you, but I would urge you to make your decisions based on the scriptures of your candidate religions, and not the stereotypes associated with them, nor the drivel of some idiot evangelist.

    248. Re:It's always refreshing by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      As far as rewriting history, it is almost laughable when someone tries to make a case for the founders not being christians.

      Many of them were Deists -- Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington, at the least. Read Paine's The Age of Reason and then try to argue that he was a Christian. But the question was not "Were the founders Christian?" ?(some were), or "Are a majority of Americans Christian?" (sure), but "Was the U.S. founded as a Christian nation?" And the answer to that is no. Again, that fact is clearly stated in the Constitution and in the Treaty of Tripoli.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    249. Re:It's always refreshing by somersault · · Score: 1

      That was a good post. Personally though I'm just not sure what the "candidate religions" would be in my case.. put it this way.. I already try to be a good/nice person in general and am enjoying my life. So unless some religion out there is 1) true and 2) going to condemn me if I don't believe or worship its deity or whatever then it's probably not worth my time. And aside from that, if any religion *does* have those two truths and there is no proof of it being the real religion, then the god in charge of that religion is a complete bastard if he sends people ignorant of the religion to his hell or whatever - considering that many people are never exposed to a wide variety of religions. And at what point did this god start sending humans to hell? When they developed tool usage? Language? etc. If you believe a god simply created humans that gets around this part, but more and more parts of evolution are being explained and demonstrated experimentally all the time, so it seems silly to me to try to pretend we were created in such a way that it just looks like we've evolved parallel to other primates, etc, such that our DNA is similar right down to certain defects like lack of ability to produce our own vitamin C and such.

      All of that mostly applies to Abramic religions, but for any others I've heard of and looked at they generally seem to be based around obvious superstition and lack of basic scientific knowledge. Some religions and martial arts do have aspects that I think of as cool or even useful, ie visualising your body's energy is probably quite a useful technique for certain sports and exercises.. though I never remember to try it for myself, but I've been getting by fine without it anyway..

      In essence I just don't see the purpose of religion or why I should devote any time to it. If you believe that we evolved all the way from random chemicals then I don't see any chance that life is linked to any anything supernatural like a soul.

      Sure I'd like to believe in souls and heaven and eternal happiness and such, but since all the current evidence seems to weigh against such things, I don't see any point in me wasting time wishing for them. Though occasionally I do wonder how I actually am here inside my brain as a conscious entity. It's easy to see how other people work if you think of them as machines, but actually seeing out from your eyes and controlling your body consciously is a pretty wondrous thing and I can see why people would think that there must be a soul involved somewhere.. but based on what I said before it just doesn't seem likely. Consciousness still freaks me out sometimes though. When/how did it start? What will it be like when it stops? Will I ever stop rambling? Perhaps I should.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    250. Re:It's always refreshing by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      If you believe Islam is the religion of peace, then you are a deluded fool.

      I have not called any religion "the religion of peace". Any of the large religions is much too diverse to make any such statement. If you think that all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Hindus, Pagans, Taoists, whatever, are or are not peaceful, then you only reveal more of your own ignorance.

      Rumi was Muslim, but so is Bin Laden. Martin Luther King was Christian, but so is the Ku Klux Klan.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    251. Re:It's always refreshing by thecatt · · Score: 1

      Plenty if you actually found hard evidence to support your position (instead of just repeating whatever you heard on FOX News) and managed to get some attention amidst all the fools crying wolf.

    252. Re:It's always refreshing by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Minorities are called "minorities" for a reason, though lobf would have done better to have kept the "probably". IE, "Do you know that your great-grandparents, and their parents, probably enforced Jim Crow?"

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    253. Re:It's always refreshing by ELProphet · · Score: 1

      Research in child development clearly shows the most important factor in the well-adjustment in a child is the presence of attentive adult influence. In a situation where older (adult and nearly adult) children are the primary care providers and role models for young (infant and preschool) children, it is very possible that the younger children would receive the attention and encouragement needed to grow up as a well-adjusted adult. Thus, it is not necessarily factual that these parents are providing a deficient environment for their children- they may have found an alternative support structure for their family. However, I do not know of any studies examining the well-adjustedness of children from such large families (the vast majority study two-parent heterosexual one to three children families compared with one-parent one-to-three children families). Citations: Perry V Schwarzenegger (9th Cir. 2010) Findings of Fact 69 through 73, and discussion (ruling pages 94-96, or pages 97-99 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010)

    254. Re:It's always refreshing by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>It's very interesting that you suggest you may have no white ancestry.

      I didn't say anything about my ancestry (I have a lot of different ethnicities, in fact), I just found it amusing that a guy automatically assumes that someone named Shaka is white.

    255. Re:It's always refreshing by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Actually I did, and then I read the manifesto. I lost brain cells when I did that.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    256. Re:It's always refreshing by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      >>It's very interesting that you suggest you may have no white ancestry.

      I didn't say anything about my ancestry (I have a lot of different ethnicities, in fact), I just found it amusing that a guy automatically assumes that someone named Shaka is white.

      I think my point was that if you're American, even if you did have African ancestry, it is probable you also had a white ancestor who supported Jim Crow or slavery. I don't think GP's post assumes anything about your ethnicity.

      +1 Pedantic, I guess. Oh well!

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    257. Re:It's always refreshing by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      He specifies the book in the opening paragraph: Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael". It's a shame, because this guy just discredited an already-marginal group's best (or, most palatable in the mainstream) spokesperson. I haven't read My Ishmael, but the first book in the series—Ishmael—is an excellent introduction to the critique of civilization, and particularly well suited to explaining the critique to people who think even the idea of engaging in such a critique is outlandish heresy.

    258. Re:It's always refreshing by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I remember when MTV still had music and they used to play TLC. Chilli was hot.

    259. Re:It's always refreshing by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      He makes no such thing, and it's a horrible embarrassment to the radical environmental movement to be associated with this vomit.

      If you object to immigration from overpopulated countries, you should be focused on ending globalist economic policies—which come straight out of the first world—that encourage conditions of poverty and subjugation in the third world. Overpopulation is a third world problem because it's a poverty problem, first and foremost. Oppressed people have more children because having more children means having more hands around to help.

      In other words, if you want to stop seeing a growing Mexican-American population, end NAFTA. Also, maybe recognize that a huge portion of the US was stolen from Mexico, and maybe letting some folks in to live a pretty meager second-class existence is a small price to pay for the benefit of sharing ownership of that stolen land.

    260. Re:It's always refreshing by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Some of his notions are either popular or gaining traction in the environmental movement (overpopulation has long been a hot topic; critique of civilization is increasingly accepted as a part of the discussion; Daniel Quinn is a pretty popular author), some are completely alien (the desire to stop all human procreation; immigration). I haven't been paying much attention, but I suspect the Fox News crowd will tread lightly seeing as this guy is as much in their court as in ours (and they'll no doubt end up with guests pointing this out). Or they'll just shout "ecoterrorist" until they're blue in the face, then go to commercial. Either way.

    261. Re:It's always refreshing by rhendershot · · Score: 1

      It's a child protection issue not a financial issue. There's no way that the parents can pay adequate attention to each child. They educate each other (public school is evil etc), take care of each other, and fend for themselves most of the time. There is such a thing as a criminally irresponsible parent (leave your kid in a locked car for example).

      And in just such circumstances my Aunt's 10 kids are well adjusted, all. They're successful, generous, well-liked and I never had so much fun as a kid as the days me and my 2 sibling spent "fending for ourselves" at their place. I call your comment BS.

    262. Re:It's always refreshing by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      There's really no scientific definition for the soul. It's not clear whether it's unique to humans, or if everything has such a thing. It seems to be associated with an individual's consciousness and identity. Self-awareness is thought to be an emergent property of complex systems (such as the human brain), but it's difficult to wrap your mind around the idea of something which is essentially a computer, being able to develop its own elaborate software out of its own natural structure, and thus resulting in self-identity. Hence, the concept of a soul.

      Something I'd like to point out about Christianity, is that it's a popular fallacy that the soul goes to Heaven or Hell after the body dies. I would guess that this sort of tradition was picked up from a pagan religion at some point by the Catholic church (the Catholics had a great PR department-- to ease the transition of pagans into their religion, they'd incorporate the pagans' traditions). In fact, the only description resembling the modern concept of "Heaven" in the whole of the Bible is an anecdote told by Jesus in the New Testament, where the place is referred to as "Abraham's Bosom" (which I suppose is an ambiguous name, as it could literally refer to Abraham, or perhaps a bit more metaphorically to the bosom of God, the Father). The only references to "Hell" are descriptions of places like Gehenna, which was the trash dump outside of Jerusalem, which was forever on fire. The actual described procedure of after-death existence, starts with a place called, "Sheol", which is described as being "Underground", and not in a neat, Elysium/Tartarus/Hades sort of a way. A person being in Sheol is said to be inactive and unaware of the passage of time, or, well, anything, really. There is no thought, no sensory perception, and not even enough awareness for there to be darkness, which, as it turns out, sounds a hell of a lot like being dead. The whole "Heaven or Hell" thing doesn't really even become involved until Judgment Day, when the dead are made to rise (no telling how this works, exactly), and everyone who has ever lived is individually held accountable for what they did in their lives. Those who are found worthy are given new bodies, and brought to Zion to live with God, and those who are found unworthy, the wicked, if you will, are cast into the "burning lake of fire", which is compared to Jerusalem's "Gehenna". I personally take the latter to mean that the wicked are merely disposed of, and it's not clear to me that there's an actual "eternity of suffering" as was so popularized by Dante's Inferno.

      The biggest purpose that the New Testament pushes for the establishment of a church, is to create a social grouping not just for people to worship together (though from a psychological standpoint, it's important to surround yourself with others who believe as you do, if only to keep yourself from thinking that you're crazy for your faith), but also to create a collective community that will have the resources to assist in improving the circumstances for the larger community surrounding them. An individual generally can't do much more than give a few dollars to a homeless man, or mend a fence here and there. A larger group, however, can organize food drives, operate a soup kitchen, and see to it that all the yards of the elderly are well taken care of. A good, properly prioritized congregation can have a tremendous positive effect on its surroundings. If you ever have a hankering to engage in charity work, a church is always a good place to start.

    263. Re:It's always refreshing by somersault · · Score: 1

      Even things like the confusion about basic concepts like that I now see as evidence that Christianity is no more divine than any other religion.

      from a psychological standpoint, it's important to surround yourself with others who believe as you do, if only to keep yourself from thinking that you're crazy for your faith

      If you are thinking of yourself as crazy rather than simply having other people thinking you're crazy, then chances are that you don't have any real evidence to base your beliefs on. IMO any belief that you constantly need to look to other people to affirm isn't healthy as it probably isn't actually true - your brain is constantly trying to point this out to you but you keep doing your utmost to drown out common sense. Of course religion conveniently describes this as the work of the devil which makes people guilty for even trying to use logic and common sense when evaluating their beliefs.. it's all so ludicrous and designed to control and give excuses for everything such that even if you have evidence that Christianity is fake many people would still just take it as some kind of test and refuse to change their beliefs.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    264. Re:It's always refreshing by somersault · · Score: 1

      To me most of the ideology behind the stuff he was saying was already stuff I'd considered despite never reading any such political books. It's interesting to consider how much of our behaviour is just driven by evolution, and how we can now self-correct any detrimental virulent behaviour by using our ability to reason, ie governments in some places already having rules about the number of kids you can have to stop overpopulation - which some people may see as really fascist, but it's perfectly good sense unless you'd rather have a significant portion of your population go homeless and hungry..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    265. Re:It's always refreshing by Smekarn · · Score: 1

      Well ok. That makes a lot more sense.

      To be honest I am highly uninfiormed regarding the actual replacement-rates etc.
      Thank you for enlightening me, and godspeed on your recreational endeavors!

    266. Re:It's always refreshing by metacell · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there is rarely hard evidence for anything before you get the grant to study the issue. The more uncertainty there is, the more room there is for politics and personal prejudices.

    267. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? This is deserves a rare "fuck you". Unless you have some pretty strong objective evidence that what you describe isn't a perfectly good way to raise a family, I don't want to hear about you telling me how to raise my kids.

      Yeah, I think many of us can agree that those shows are stupid and/or disgusting, but that doesn't mean every parent with N kids is negligent, or that parents with N kids are any more likely to be negligent than with 2.3 kids or 1.9 kids or whatever it is now. I don't really watch the shows, so I couldn't say if they're negligent in particular, although whoring yourself out to a TV network doesn't seem like a good start to me. But I'm not claiming even that practice should be outlawed, particularly since it's out in the open for us and law enforcement to see.

      Do you also claim divorce should be illegal, because it's bad for the kids? (Is it? I can't prove it, although I find the claim that divorces hurt kids more plausible than that big families hurt kids.)

      Are public schools negligent while they have custody of the children, because of a 20:1 student:teacher ratio? Why wouldn't an independently wealthy couple be perfectly capable of supporting and raising 20 kids, or 40? Or a solid earner be able to support a family of 10-20 kids in modest accommodations, with a spouse providing daily care?

      There *is* such a thing as criminal negligence, but "more kids than I think they can pay as much attention to as I think they should" is not a standard by which to judge that.

      I take it you believe our grandparents were criminally negligent because they let our parents run around the neighborhood unsupervised all summer? Sometimes they let them operate FARM EQUIPMENT while they were LEGALLY MINOR! [Gasp.]

      And, indeed, the GP is right. Western birthrates are below replacement and declining. All indications point to the same thing happening as the developing world comes up. Birth rates are declining all over. So there's no global social imperative not to have kids. That aspect of 1960s sci-fi overpopulation apocalypse does not seem to be panning out anymore. Stop leveraging it to control people. Also, go fuck yourself.

    268. Re:It's always refreshing by raphael75 · · Score: 0

      They used to have really interesting shows about science, technology, history, etc. (and fun stuff like Robotica & Junkyard Wars) but they also had this show called "A Wedding Story" and "A Baby Story" in the daytime. Someone at TLC decided that those shows they had in the daytime for women were the greatest things ever, and in the early 2000's they got rid of all the good shows they had in the evenings and made everything like their daytime programming.

    269. Re:It's always refreshing by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      Actually, the need to surround yourself with others who believe as you do isn't limited to religion. If the only people you had contact with day in and day out were of the mind that the Earth is flat, then given a few years, you'd start to wonder about that, too. It has less to do with evidence, and more to do with social pressures. It takes an exceptionally stubborn mind to hold a uniquely held conviction for a long length of time.

      As for the confusion issue, I remind you that people are, on the whole, quite dense, and prone to arbitrarily adapting their doctrine to fulfill their prior beliefs or current needs. The scriptures, on the other hand, have been observed to be virtually unaltered in the last two thousand years, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, found between 1947 and 1956. The Dead Sea Scrolls can't verify the New Testament, but regardless of the New Testament's status, I find that it contains much valid wisdom, anyway. So, as I've said-- evaluate it for yourself.

    270. Re:It's always refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. This guy is my hero, for the lack of a better word. This disgusting human race (I do love people, but hate the human race) is destroying our poor planet, exterminating wildlife and breeding like f...ing rabbits. We are running out of food, drinking water, resources.... etc. Religion is evil, it brings nothing but ignorance, judgement, oppression and suffering to this world and to people. Immigrants, oh well, I am one, but am not reproducing or leaching off of others.... people who are "collecting" babies (the 19 kids couple are freaks, I mean who does this shit, keep having freaking one kid after the other, so the other siblings have to take care of the younger ones, disgusting....) or or even two parents don't have enough time to hold and love all those kids and she keeps having more and more and more and more and more and more and more..... She is a hole, an incubator, nothing else, they are hoarders of human babies and live in lala land).

    271. Re:It's always refreshing by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      one... does need faith to believe in God's compassion

      Not if you've witnessed it. If God has shown himself to you, you need no more faith in his existance than you need faith in your dog's existence.

      But there's a difference here. I was speaking of faith in the nature of something. I know dogs exist, but I take it on faith that they truly care for their owners. It's one thing to say 'my dog saved my life', and another to say 'I know my dog would save me from a fire, even if he knew it would get him killed'. That's the kind of faith I'm talking about.

      Semantically, I would call what you are referring to as the belief portion of faith, rather than faith in its entirity. I can believe someone exists and believe what they say without having any faith in their abilities or sicerity.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  3. Wanted... by ShaunC · · Score: 1

    Dead or alive!

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  4. Well... by u38cg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess he did his bit for over-population.

    --
    [FUCK BETA]
    1. Re:Well... by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      If you take hostages and demand the the UN condemn Hitler, you're still going to be hated and reviled for threatening innocent lives. That is just the way it is and probably the way it should be.

    2. Re:Well... by mike260 · · Score: 1

      World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!

      And made so eloquently too.

    3. Re:Well... by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      I guess he did his bit for over-population.

      China calling... I hear you have radical atheist baby hating wackjob. Discovery...Yes. China ...send him right over.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    4. Re:Well... by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      So did Ingrid Newkirk. She had herself voluntarily sterilized in her 20s.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    5. Re:Well... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Even the craziest people generally do.
      There's no shortage of simple and correct points which never the less aren't or can't be acted upon because people tend to act in their own short term best interest.
      Things like

      "there and inconveniently large number of people" true.
      "war is bad for people and the environment" also generally true

      but then there's problems like the fact that both euthanizing large sections of the population and forced sterilization can cause people to become prone to starting wars to stop you from euthanizing and sterilising them.
      Even taking the non-violent approach and simply starting a massive add campaign to get people to sign up voluntarily runs into the problem that pretty soon your entire audience will be made up people who's parents for one reason or another were unwilling to sign up and are so less likely to sign up themselves.

      a 5 year old could probably solve half the worlds problems if everyone were willing to actually follow advice like "be nice to other people" or "don't dump poison in other peoples drinking water" and other naively simple yet also technically right advice.

    6. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god!

    7. Re:Well... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Even taking the non-violent approach and simply starting a massive add campaign to get people to sign up voluntarily runs into the problem that pretty soon your entire audience will be made up people who's parents for one reason or another were unwilling to sign up and are so less likely to sign up themselves.

      This is actually exactly what happened to the Quakers.

      Also the 'population disaster' is bunk, has been for the last few decades, and becomes moreso all the time.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    8. Re:Well... by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're thinking of the Shakers. They're the disappearing "no sex at all" sect, not the Quakers. There are Society of Friends churches all over the place, and they're just as likely to have children as anyone else.

    9. Re:Well... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Your linked post assumes that the internal populations of developed countries won't also change.

      There's a current falloff as women take control of their own reproduction but the same mechanism which eliminated the Quakers could also bring back the old problem.
      Over a few generations any group which has far more children than average like religious groups who reject birth control or encourage large families will eventually make up the majority of the population.
      Once they make up a majority of the population in a developed country then the birth rate will shoot right back up again.
      Even without religious reasons in an environment where even children who's parents are utterly unable to provide for them make it to adulthood then any traits which cause you to have more kids are selected for.
      So for example even a genetic trait which causes women to have a stronger drive to have children gets selected for.

      either way long term the birth rate goes back up.

    10. Re:Well... by hardburn · · Score: 1

      There's a key difference between Malthus and Neo-Malthus thought. The original idea, as you state, is indeed bunk. Malthus didn't have the foresight to see that a well-educated populace (particularly a well-educated female populace) would slow its birthrates down and halt geometric growth.

      Noe-Malthusian theory is a little different. They don't focus on just birthrates, but also on how much each person consumes. That very much does remain a problem in well-developed countries.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    11. Re:Well... by moonbender · · Score: 3, Informative

      The sanity of a few of his points along with the insanity of most of them makes his manifesto such a fun read (if you can blend out the whole hostage-taking business). "Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order." That last bit just cracks me up.

      Also the book he refers to ("channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael" pages 207-212") is described on Wikipedia: "My Ishmael is a sequel to the novel Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Its plot revolves around a gorilla named Ishmael who describes his philosophy regarding tribal society to Julie, a twelve-year-old girl." This might be a good political book or not (I have no idea), but in terms of analytical quality and intellectual depth I assume it's not quite in the same league as Das Kapital.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    12. Re:Well... by moonbender · · Score: 1

      It does sound like a fairly typical Slashdot post, doesn't it? Typical replies would urge the author to move to Digg...

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    13. Re:Well... by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      True. He was not coherent by any means. But I think his points about unchecked consumption and destruction of natural resources are not far from true. It's another matter that he had lost it and went batshit on Discovery.

      On related topic, Discovery network do need to take a look at their programming. I have gotten rid of cable now as those few 'better' channels started sucking long time back.

      PS: Das Kapital - Do you know gutenberg.org still does not carry a copy?

    14. Re:Well... by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      >> "... but also on how much each person consumes"

      I think that's what it comes down to finally. Malthus or even James Lee were probably and indirectly driving to the same point, albeit in very roundabout way.

    15. Re:Well... by moonbender · · Score: 1

      I didn't know. It's readily available in both German and English, though. Not sure why Gutenberg doesn't have it since they do have other stuff, maybe there is some legal reason for not including it. I admit I've only read the first few chapters, though, it really is quite heavy reading -- it takes an effort --, though it has aged well.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    16. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if only others would ever feel so strongly about the causes they "believe" in.

    17. Re:Well... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      DOS Capital? Isn't that somewhere in Redmond?

    18. Re:Well... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Those are nice hypotheticals, but they are not observed phenomena. It remains a fact that each generation of women is having fewer children per woman, and this has been going on uninterrupted for five decades. Just as growth cannot continue forever, neither can a reduction. At some point it will only be natural for the trend to reverse, and unless you're keen on extinction, it is also right that eventually that trend should reverse.

      Either way, the population disaster is still bunk. ;-p

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    19. Re:Well... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, I was confusing them.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    20. Re:Well... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      it's not as big nor as immediate a problem as it was believed to be 50 years ago but exponential growth is still exponential growth.
      And even if the most developed countries are not suffering the same problem the vast majority of the human race still lives in countries where the population is going up exponentially.
      So if you don't give a damn about the poor people in other countries then it's no problem.
      Just sit in the richer countries who's populations are sinking and laugh at the poor forginers.
      You have a few generations before the problem comes back.

      If you're in the 3rd world then the problem isn't going to get much better as people become even poorer.

    21. Re:Well... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Apparently you didn't look at the links in the post I referenced. The third world has been improving over the last century, but if people admitted that then they couldn't have hero complexes like yours.

      Also, population is not growing exponentially. That is a lie based on a clear oversimplification of growth trends. You'll note that frequently when the 'exponential growth of population' is discussed it is noted that the assessment depends on growth remaining the same, but as I earlier demonstrated, growth is not remaining the same, it has been decreasing in 90%+ of nations on earth for half a century, including all of the most populous (which also include several of those 3rd world countries you're whining about like India and Indonesia).

      You clearly want to get all emotional about this so that you can feel morally superior about being compassionate and caring and indict the coldhearted fat cats, but sorry, there are real, factual numbers that indicate that your basic assumptions are built on misinformation. The world doesn't need saving as badly as you want to think it does.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    22. Re:Well... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Its plot revolves around a gorilla named Ishmael who describes his philosophy regarding tribal society to Julie, a twelve-year-old girl.

      It's not exactly The Bourne Identity, is it?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:Well... by Antimatter+Beam+Core · · Score: 1

      I've read four of Daniel Quinn's books, and the gorilla is only there to provide an outside perspective. The basic thesis of Quinn's books--or at least the ones I've read (Ishmael, The story of B, My Ishmael, Beyond Civilization, and If They Give You Lined Paper, Write sideways)--is:

      1. That different animals have different social structures that work well for them (fish live in schools, wolves live in packs, etc.) and that the social structure that works best for humans is a tribe or, as he defines it:a group that exists in interdependent relationships and that works together to support the general good of the group.
      2. That our culture encourages us to think that we know what's best for everyone and everything, including other cultures and the natural world. Our culture thinks that what's best is that everything should work for us.
      3. That this leads us to try convert as much biomass as we can to food and other things that are useful to us, at the expense of biological diversity.
      4. That this has caused our food supply to rise well beyond what would naturally be available to us.
      6. That our artificially high food supply allows us to wage war more affectively than other societies, and that our culture (see 2) makes us think that that's what we should do.
      6. That increasing the food supply to any species--including humans--will lead to an increase in its population.
      7. That eventually some disaster will occur which the environment won't be able to handle due to reduced biological diversity (see 3) and that we will almost certainly go extinct, and possibly take a lot of the planet with us.
      8. To avoid this, we should adopt a more tribal (see 1) culture. Note this does not mean living in caves and hunting with spears.

      What the books DON'T say:

      1. They don't say humans are bad, just our culture.
      2. They don't say technology is bad, just how our culture uses it.
      3. They don't even say that war and weapons are inherently bad. In fact they point out that hunter gatherer tribes engaged in perpetual, low level warfare.

      Lee was clearly disturbed. "These are the demands and sayings of Lee" sort of gives that away (delusions of grandeur anyone?) It sounds to me like he found a book that seemed to him to support his ideas and deluded himself into thinking they supported his entire philosophy. The best analogy I can think of is Charles Manson thinking Beatles songs were telling him to kill people.

    24. Re:Well... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      pretty much every living organism on the planet tends to increase it's population exponentially when provided with excess food and a reasonably livable environment until it either runs out of food or screws up it's own environment and humans are no different.

      you on the other hand are making some stunningly shaky assumptions that a trend in the rate of growth will continue indefinitely into the future or only turn around when it's convenient.

      http://xkcd.com/605/

  5. Why discovery channel by 0racle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seriously, who holds the people at the Discovery Channel hostage for anything?

    This won't affect shark week will it?

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    1. Re:Why discovery channel by blair1q · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seriously, who holds the people at the Discovery Channel hostage for anything?

      People looking for their hostage situation to become a long-running reality series.

    2. Re:Why discovery channel by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I thought shark week was over.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    3. Re:Why discovery channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, who holds the people at the Discovery Channel hostage for anything?

      A disgruntled American Chopper fan?

    4. Re:Why discovery channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are showing too many re-runs of "How it's made", also the annoying Intel sponsorship.

    5. Re:Why discovery channel by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      Rule 1 at Discovery channel:
      Shark week is NEVER over.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    6. Re:Why discovery channel by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 1

      Suspect indeed. I think this is just a setup to enable them to film their next new series of Most Dangerous ~ in the Discovery studio...

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    7. Re:Why discovery channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they send Mythbusters with wrong aspect ratio!
      (the only discovery show among tattoo "artists" social life, chopper-kit-builders social life and lobster-fishers social life still worth seeing)

      At least here it is 16:9 letterbox in a 4:3 frame, stretched horizontally to a full 16:9.
      I.e. short and fat people in a 2.35:1 area with black bars on top and bottom to fill the entire 16:9 screen.

      MythTV can zoom and stretch, but only horizontally ... not vertically.

    8. Re:Why discovery channel by theaceoffire · · Score: 1

      Discovery presents: "Anal Adventures: The life of an American Terrorist".

      Stay tuned later for Jon and Kate Plus Eight!

      --
      I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
    9. Re:Why discovery channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! and I forgot an other reason:
      The local Discovery branch in my country have changed the name of the Mythbusters show three times, and it shows up in the EPG. So my MythTV recording pattern to catch all new Mythbusters have failed on some season starts. Something I don't notice until several episodes have aired :-(

      For a while they also claimed that reruns of old episodes were infact brand new (in the EPG), so when the actual new ones were aired (with the same names, but correctly so), the duplicate detection in MythTV did its work and didn't record them. I had to allow for already recorded shows to be re-recorded and now I get all old, but still missed 13 episodes of the latest season because it was named entirely different.

    10. Re:Why discovery channel by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone who wants to see shows about real science and nature, and not a bunch of stupid melodramas about boneheads building crappy motorcycles?

      This guy should have shot whichever person at Discovery was responsible for American Chopper.

    11. Re:Why discovery channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use VLC.

    12. Re:Why discovery channel by cgenman · · Score: 1

      "Next week on Mythbusters, Grant and Tori will test whether or not you can bring down a car park with a tanker truck full of diet coke and a thousand Mentos. Kari will see if fiberglass surf boards and an upside-down motorcycle can be combined into a deadly needle gun. And... the US Government will not negotiate with terrorists? Adam and Jamie put this myth... to the test."

    13. Re:Why discovery channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are you getting at here? surely you're not propping up prison rape as the norm when, while it happens, is not anywhere near the level that the media/pop culture seem to think.

    14. Re:Why discovery channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it does. Prisoners need a dick in the ass like I need air.

    15. Re:Why discovery channel by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      Not so far off from the truth -- turns out the guy pitched a series a few years ago and it got shot down.

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    16. Re:Why discovery channel by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I miss the Discovery Channel... it used to be mostly about science. Now the closest thing to "science" on it is MythBusters.

    17. Re:Why discovery channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, nothing can deter the shark week, except frigging lasers.

    18. Re:Why discovery channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For every season except the current one, they somehow managed to set whatever broadcast flags correctly so normal zooming (with aspect intact) worked like expected.

  6. Ok you first... by thejuggler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    eliminate yourself first and maybe others will follow.

    1. Re:Ok you first... by matt_hs · · Score: 1

      Indeed. He feels human beings are a problem. Okay, first thing you do is stop contributing to the problem. Ergo, take care of yourself first.

    2. Re:Ok you first... by thejuggler · · Score: 0
      Oh well, the police got him first "3 hostages safe, gunman shot, killed at Discovery"
      • http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=2042177
      • http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

      Left Wing Envrion"Mental" Nut
      "Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans."

      Al Gore's scare and doom movie caused this.
      Lee said at the time that he experienced an "awakening" when he watched former Vice President Al Gore's environmental documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

    3. Re:Ok you first... by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Ingrid Newkirk first. :p

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    4. Re:Ok you first... by jpapon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can understand. An Inconvenient Truth made me want to kill myself too.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    5. Re:Ok you first... by amn108 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah well, truth hurts.

    6. Re:Ok you first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I experienced an awakening reading your post too. Oh, wait, it's just gas.

      It's your fault that the room reeks now though.

    7. Re:Ok you first... by conspirator57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indiana Jones: Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    8. Re:Ok you first... by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He also advocated ending all immigration and the "Anchor baby Filth'. I'm not going to blame him in the right just for that, but if you read his manifesto enough to find your quote and ignored that part, you are deliberately lying. Lee was insane. Trying to use him to paint a political movement you don't like as the cause is a good way to get more violence going. I doubt you have enough discipline to control your hatred by actually seeking to speak the truth first and foremost, but I do urge just that on you - learn to care more about the truth and human life than you do about spreading lies and hatred. Actually reading Lee's manifesto with understanding reveals he thought many people were valueless or of negative value. Your own life is worth more than he thought - don't waste it in lies and prove him right.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    9. Re:Ok you first... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      >Al Gore's scare and doom movie caused this.
      Lee said at the time that he experienced an "awakening" when he watched former Vice President Al Gore's environmental documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

      Al Gore's movie caused this incident. Video games caused columbine. And...apparently the internet causes terminal stupid. Are you sure you want to be online?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    10. Re:Ok you first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Froggies, lol

    11. Re:Ok you first... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that it only reduces the population by 1. If you shoot other people first, before shooting yourself, you can increase that number by a minimum of 100% easily.

    12. Re:Ok you first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no. The genocidal maniac has to kill everyone else first, then himself. Don't folks read any sci-fi/fantasy now-a-days?

    13. Re:Ok you first... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apparently Mr. Lee did exactly that. Now, who would like to follow in his footsteps?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    14. Re:Ok you first... by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this guy was mentally ill. So it must definitely be Al Gore's fault. I say ban environmentalist movies, they make people go nuts and make hostages.

      When some other crazy idiot makes hostages and pulls up some shit like this, it's business as usual. But I guess this situation is going to be exploited until exaustion by the right-wing and their puppet media to make environmentalists look like fanatic nutcases. Well, a small minority is, but the vast majority really has a point.

      You talk about the bees and the ants, but you forget a very important thing. Life in a polluted, overpopulated and infertile planet is not so fun. Nature couldn't care less about it. It's the human population that will have a sucky life.

      I must clarify I fucking hate Al Gore's guts.

    15. Re:Ok you first... by tgrigsby · · Score: 1


      Al Gore's scare and doom movie caused this.
      Lee said at the time that he experienced an "awakening" when he watched former Vice President Al Gore's environmental documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

      Yeah, and David Chapman blamed his murder of John Lennon on "The Catcher in the Rye." We should definitely form our critiques based on the actions of the criminally insane... Like George Bush forming his opinions based on the advice of Karl Rove, for instance...

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    16. Re:Ok you first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also advocated ending all immigration and the "Anchor baby Filth'. I'm not going to blame him in the right just for that, but if you read his manifesto enough to find your quote and ignored that part, you are deliberately lying.

      So, he can't read a little of the manifesto and state that Lee went off because he believed Al Gore's scare and doom movie, but you can read his post and state that he is "deliberately lying". Sounds like you might be a little bit environ"mental" yourself.

    17. Re:Ok you first... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      And "X" never, ever marks the spot

  7. the manifesto by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 5, Informative

    is cached.

    --
    Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    1. Re:the manifesto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.

      What more nobel cause is there than saving the froggies and, of course, the squirrels. And all their little woodland friends.

    2. Re:the manifesto by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 1

      THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!!

      5 exclamation marks. In the words of the great Terry Pratchett: "A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head."

    3. Re:the manifesto by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

      There are only four question marks!

      Oh wait, I hope this doesn't turn out like that episode of Star Trek...

  8. It's a good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... this guy was against religion. We all know how crazy religious people are!

    1. Re:It's a good thing... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I really hope the militant atheist faction on Slashdot takes note of this. Crazy people look for an ideology to justify their actions and prejudices. Sometimes they find one ready made in the form of Christianity, Islam, environmentalism, or the FSF. Other times they invent one. Similarly, all of these ideologies have a lot of mostly rational members (I've never met a completely rational human - and neither have you). Blaming the ideology for the crazy person is a lazy cop-out.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:It's a good thing... by mano.m · · Score: 1

      I really hope the militant atheist faction on Slashdot takes note of this. Crazy people look for an ideology to justify their actions and prejudices. Sometimes they find one ready made in the form of Christianity, Islam, environmentalism, or the FSF. Other times they invent one. Similarly, all of these ideologies have a lot of mostly rational members (I've never met a completely rational human - and neither have you). Blaming the ideology for the crazy person is a lazy cop-out.

      Atheists aren't the ones with a book telling them to slaughter people who believe differently, nor do are they the ones who insist eternal damnation awaits those people. They are certainly not trying to take away anyone's right to believe in any hokum they like. See the (many) differences?

      --
      Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
  9. Well... by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

    However crazy he has acted or he sounds, he has some valid points.

  10. Really? by KillaGouge · · Score: 1, Funny

    If he has all of these complaints, he shouldn't have wanted to blow things up. More pollution would have been created by the clean-up and re-building had he blown the building up. I think these crazy people need to think before they engage in their crazy plots. That way, we might listen to them.

    --
    GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
  11. This guy... by clo1_2000 · · Score: 0

    needs to take his own advice and remove himself from the gene pool.

    --
    "In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change" --Thich Nhat Hanh
  12. re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    dear crazy guy,

    we stoped producing babies (or even trying to) years ago.

    the slashdot readership.

  13. Sure fire way by Rijnzael · · Score: 1

    Lashing out in violence is a sure fire way to turn away people sympathetic to your cause and make it easy to label anyone with your beliefs "extremist" and marginalize them. Committing violence is never the way to gain true followers.

    1. Re:Sure fire way by melikamp · · Score: 1

      May be gaining followers was not his point. Looks more to me like he punished the Discovery channel, successfully.

    2. Re:Sure fire way by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 5, Funny

      Committing violence is never the way to gain true followers.

      Violence is like XML -- if it's not solving your problem, you're not using enough of it!

      (See, naysayers! We can turn anything into News for Nerds.)

    3. Re:Sure fire way by jasno · · Score: 1

      That worked pretty well for the world's fastest growing religion.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    4. Re:Sure fire way by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Let's see what this incident does to TDC's viewership and Nielsen numbers before we declare the channel "punished".

      Were it not for the apparent loss of life, this would smell more like "publicity stunt" than "terrorist event".

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    5. Re:Sure fire way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Lashing out in violence is a sure fire way to turn away people sympathetic to your cause and make it easy to label anyone with your beliefs "extremist" and marginalize them. Committing violence is never the way to gain true followers.

      Well said. Just look at American policy in Iraq & Afghanistan.

    6. Re:Sure fire way by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Committing violence is never the way to gain true followers."

      Bullshit:

      "Deus Vult!", "Allahu Akbar!", "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!", "Peace, Bread, and Land!" (Bolsheviks, who had enough "true followers" to smash the Tsarist government then win the Russian civil War), "To rebel is justified!" (Maoists, the most successful violent revolutionaries of the last century whose victory put China into the modern age).

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Sure fire way by moonbender · · Score: 1

      It works great for spreading democracy, though!! Oh, wait...

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    8. Re:Sure fire way by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      the violence didn't gain them followers they didn't already have. All the ones who went with them later (with a few statistically insignificant exceptions) weren't following, they were going in the direction they were told at the point of a bayonet (or a gun, or... you get the picture).

      --
      FGD 135
    9. Re:Sure fire way by GiveBenADollar · · Score: 1

      May not gain you true followers, but history shows it's a good way to get your way.

    10. Re:Sure fire way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean that one with the crusades, the Inquisition and the atheist burnings?

    11. Re:Sure fire way by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Well, it stands to reason that violence is not going to gain you followers among the recipients of the sharp end of the stick. But there is no doubt that violence and ostracism against another group can unite people under a banner, for many reasons: shared guilt, shared relief at belonging to the "victor" and not the victim, other social group phenomena. Those don't really come into play in this specific instance, though. And of course in your examples, there were numerous other factors involved besides violence; I'm not sure if violence was the driving force in any/all of those cases. I agree that GPs statement was sweeping and incorrect, as sweeping statements often are.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    12. Re:Sure fire way by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Well, it stands to reason that violence is not going to gain you followers among the recipients of the sharp end of the stick.

      Many sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome and Battered Wife Syndrome would like to have a word with you. It's entirely possible for people to suffer horrific violence at the hands of another, then convince themselves they had it coming and somehow deserved it.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    13. Re:Sure fire way by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Okay, but now we've moved from using violence in a political context to gain followers to a psychological condition individuals suffer from after certain events.

      The original statement in question was "Committing violence is never the way to gain true followers.", I don't see Stockholm Syndrome being relevant to that, and I don't think the population of the near and middle east were thinking they had it coming when the crusades (which GP brought up) hit them.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    14. Re:Sure fire way by corbettw · · Score: 1

      OK, then how about the many religions which have been spread by the sword, Christianity and Islam especially? They certainly gained converts using violence.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    15. Re:Sure fire way by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Yes, converts in the same way that I can get you to make a sizable donation to my account -- if I hold you at gunpoint. Religious follower converted by the sword are probably not the most faithful bunch. Though perhaps following generations are, if they actually stick to the enforced religion, so maybe it's more effective than I think. I'm not sure how popular the practice has actually been, incidently. It'd be interesting to see raw historical data on those issues, minus all the rhetoric.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    16. Re:Sure fire way by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Violence is like XML -- if it's not solving your problem, you're not using enough of it!

      "XML is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- Salvor Hardin, Foundation (Isaac Asimov)

  14. Slashdot/CNN by Matt+Perry · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is Slashdot trying to turn into CNN now? This isn't news for nerds.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:Slashdot/CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is Slashdot trying to turn into CNN now? This isn't news for nerds.

      ...unless it affects Mythbusters

    2. Re:Slashdot/CNN by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I think this being the Discovery Channel has a lot to do with it. It's interesting to me anyway.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    3. Re:Slashdot/CNN by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 3, Funny

      But he took over the Discovery HQ! Think of the sharks!

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    4. Re:Slashdot/CNN by metacell · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should send in some lawyers to rescue them?

  15. Think of the Froggies! by srobert · · Score: 3, Funny

    Won't somebody please think of the Froggies!

    1. Re:Think of the Froggies! by magunning · · Score: 2

      And, of course, the Squirrels.

    2. Re:Think of the Froggies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sense a disturbance in the force, as if a thousand future snide, referential Slashdot comments to "please think of the froggies" were all born at once.

      Maybe this guy just spent too much time at genki-genki.com

    3. Re:Think of the Froggies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't somebody please think of the Froggies!

      We already did.

    4. Re:Think of the Froggies! by NotOverHere · · Score: 1

      Won't somebody please think of the Froggies!

      ...and the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu..

      ...Skip a bit, Brother...

    5. Re:Think of the Froggies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and of course the Squirrels" !!!

    6. Re:Think of the Froggies! by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know. The guy's a whackjob, and any "manifesto" that includes the word "froggies" is going to go down in infamy. Not arguing it. Ever. At all.

      Still, though, froggies do need thinking about, if not with a pipe-bomb vest. Amphibian declines and extinctions nowadays are horrific. Chytrid's toll throughout so many areas is no joke.

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
  16. Thanks a lot, Jackass by StefanJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This disturbed jerk has provided the Pave the Earth right wing with a new Emanuel Goldstein.

    "SEE? We told you all the environmentalists hated humanity! This is all the proof we need that global warming is a hoax and that Yellowstone Park should be sold off to create timeshare resorts!"

    1. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now you understand how Right-wingers feel at being labeled 'The American Taliban.'

      Seriously, judging any movement by it's most extreme elements is silly.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Replying AC (and in another browser) to keep the moderations I've already made to this thread.)

      You DO realize that you've just countered your preception of the right's ad hominem with your own straw man, right? You think they (we) will equate all environmentalists with this nut job in an attempt to discredit them so that we can pave over Yellowstone? Uh, ok.

      You may be surprised to know there are nature-loving conservatives.

      By the way, I didn't and will not moderate you. Any moderation that happens to your post is someone else. But, I guess you just have to trust me on that.

    3. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They'll have to work a lot harder to undo that one as long as the tea party is around.

    4. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize all of your movement's leaders were the extreme elements.

      Perhaps you should do something about that.

    5. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      While I obviously would not stereotype all conservatives as being knee-jerk reactionaries, many are. Take a look at the Drudge Report headlines regarding the incident:

      POLICE KILL ECO-TERRORIST WHO STORMED DISCOVERY CHANNEL BUILDING...

      'Awakened' by Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'...

      Demanded halt to birth of 'parasitic human infants'...

      The first one is a fair description of what happened. The second two are clearly designed to reinforce stereotypes about environmentalists and link this guy to anyone who agreed with Gore's documentary.

      To be fair, though, if this guy had instead demanded that they stop propagating the "myth" of global warming, I'm sure many liberal knee-jerk reactionaries would be all over it.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    6. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you understand how Right-wingers feel at being labeled 'The American Taliban.'

      Seriously, judging any movement by it's most extreme elements is silly.

      Except that enforcing a certain brand of Ten Commandments morality is effectively part of the Republican Party's Platform.

    7. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Considering that Yellowstone is theorised to be near its next eruption, I'm all in favour of packing its top with as many greedy assholes as possible.

    8. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 0, Troll

      In all honesty, given your attitude, I'll bet there is nothing the tea-party could do to 'undo' whatever damage you feel they've done. Just like the wacko in this story is not a good representative of the environmental movement, people who oppose the environmental movement will not suddenly agree with environmentalists just because people like him disappear. Their opposition of the environmental movement is not based on the crazies, it's based on the opposition to the environmental movement.

      Likewise, you will never agree with the tea-party movement, even if it were 100% sound, because you disagree with them on things that are a matter of opinion. Kos wrote his book as a result of his opposition. He was looking for things that he didn't like about the 'other' guy, and that's what he found. Even though the fundamental thing he dislikes is they hold a different opinion than him.

      Don't fall into the trap of letting your own partisan biases color the world. That is something I try to avoid whenever possible.

      --
      Qxe4
    9. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      None of my movement's leaders are extreme elements. You seem to have made a false assumption that I belong to some movement or another, when in fact I am a member of none; I try to be an observer, and if I favor anything, I try to favor the truth.

      --
      Qxe4
    10. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Maybe they have a lot harder work to do because of fucktards like you.

    11. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by yyxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now you understand how Right-wingers feel at being labeled 'The American Taliban.' Seriously, judging any movement by it's most extreme elements is silly.

      There are left/right-wingers, moderates, and centrists. The something-wingers are, by definition, the "most extremist elements".

    12. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's true, except it's not. Don't use hyperbole so much that you start to believe it, try to get an accurate view of reality.

      --
      Qxe4
    13. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do I really have to point out that the train of logic you just used there is very similar to the train of logic Glenn Beck used to connect liberals with Hitler? Finding parallels between two groups does not make them the same. Sometimes I wish the level of logic was higher on Slashdot. Whenever I feel too bad, I go to youtube and read some comments. Then I come crying back to Slashy.

      --
      Qxe4
    14. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, he has embraced the conspiracy theories of both the left and right. He goes on about anchor babies and illegal immigration in his insane diatribe as well.

    15. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now you understand how Right-wingers feel at being labeled 'The American Taliban.'

      And how Muslims in NYC feel when people try to punish them for 9/11.

    16. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Now you understand how Right-wingers feel at being labeled 'The American Taliban."

      You mean _RELIGIOUS_ Right-wingers, and sorry, when your ideology (like the Islamovermin who are the other side of the same coin) flows from the contemptible superstition of desert tribesmen, being "Taliban Light" for _lack_of_current_political_Dominion_ doesn't meant "Not Taliban".

      I'm fine with freedom of religion, but that means freedom FROM religion, not freedom to install a theocracy.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    17. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by treeves · · Score: 1

      False trichotomy. There's nothing in-between extreme extremists and moderates?
      You're either morbidly obese, just the right weight, or severely anorexic?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    18. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Jodka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The irony of your comment is that the so-called "Pave the Earthers" who want to sell off Yellowtone Park to create timeshares are no more representative of the right wing than is this disturbed jerk representative of the left. You engage in the same partisan misrepresentation which you ridicule, though with opposing polarity.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    19. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Maudib · · Score: 1

      A position about any group based on the actions of a single crazy individual is absurd.

      Basing an opinion of a political or religious organization off of a series of statements and actions made by the leadership of said organization, is totally reasonable.

    20. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree with the Tea Party and their hangers-on in matters of "fact" that they claim. Things like America being founded as a Christian nation. That religion is the answer to America's ills (hint: we're fighting terrorists who believe the same fucking thing, only a slightly different religion). Pretty much ANYTHING Sarah Palin states as fact.

      I don't like the Democrats or Republicans, and I try my damndest to not be partisan. The current Tea Party is based on misinformation and exploiting emotions rather than anything factual.

    21. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all honesty the GP is an idiot beating the dead horse du jour.

      Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition (2.5 million "extremists" and counting) predated the Tea Party by decades. Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority predated that.

      In all honesty, I don't give a damn how big a cross the ruling party has shoved up their ass. What I want to do is make sure that the apocalypse-bringers like Falwell stay the hell away from the Big Red Button, because what's going to happen is that God will refuse to appear on their schedule, and they'll get us all killed for nothing.

    22. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by bonch · · Score: 1

      Welcome to how conservatives have felt since a drunken Michael Enright attacked an Arab cab driver.

    23. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      At first I thought you were simply wrong. 'The American Taliban' after all clearly referring to the Americans who have left to fight abroad in the name of Islam. Sadly you were serious.

    24. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by bonch · · Score: 1, Informative

      Only to people who disagree with their politics and can't tolerate the existence of opposing viewpoints.

      There have actually been plants exposed at Tea Party rallies, placed there to intentionally espouse racist views in front of cameras. A Soros-funded commercial used footage of one of these plants and didn't show the footage of the rally members subsequently expelling the guy and saying his views don't represent them.

      I've never gotten the crazy bitterness that liberals have over the Tea Party. It's just a bunch of anti-tax, anti-government people. It's like the fact that conservatives have a grassroots movement equivalent to Obama's grassroots movement in 2008 really bothers liberals and drives them nuts. Well, part of living in a democracy is accepting that other people think differently than you.

    25. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      But what if the entire movement is defined by its most extreme elements (i.e. Intelligent Design, limiting homosexual rights, and scoffing at the environment)?

      --
      -David
    26. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You mean they'll stop erroneously pointing to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and point to this guy for a change?

      Oh noes. What shall we ever do.

    27. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Things like America being founded as a Christian nation.

      It wasn't exactly Christian, no. Religion/Deism, and the Bible, were pretty big deals back then. Let's not ignore that part of history. Yes, I know about Jefferson's Bible. Yes, I know about other Deists. Yes, I know a lot of people were not "Christians." Yes, I know a lot of Christians want to Christian-ize history. I'm against all that stuff. I'm also against atheism-izing them if they weren't atheists.

      only a slightly different religion

      Slightly? Either you are being facetious or you don't have much of a clue about the differences :)

    28. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all honesty, given your attitude, I'll bet there is nothing the tea-party could do to 'undo' whatever damage you feel they've done.

      Of course they can't, because the average member of the Tea Party is a lot closer to this whacko than they are to sanity. Insane rants like his are the status quo for Tea Party members, not an outlier. It's only a matter of time before one of them sets off a bomb at some bizarrely inappropriate venue.

    29. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Taking any group of people and saying they all believe the same thing is silly, there are typically shades. For example, intelligent design, you have people on one end who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution can't happen. On the other end, you have people who accept all the modern evidence of evolution, and only postulate that it was god that started it all, which is at least a logically consistent position (although not the most vocally promoted, there are many intelligent designers who do feel this way).

      Any time there is more than one person in a group, there will be more than one viewpoint. To paint them all with the same brush is to lose resolution (often useful, but you should be aware that you've lost resolution). To paint them all with the same brush based on what a few outliers do is to lose track of reality.

      --
      Qxe4
    30. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      You cease being labeled the American Taliban when you cease trying to impose your religious views on the rest of us. Simple no?

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    31. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      No true scotsman would do such a thing...

      http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    32. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not interested in discussing the merits of tea-party 'solutions' here, but I want to address some biases you have that are hurting you.

      You disagree with pretty much anything Sarah Palin states as fact? Really? I don't know how you can come to that conclusion reasonably. Do you doubt that she has a daughter with down's syndrome? Do you think she wasn't governor of Alaska? Do you think America should stay a democracy? Do you respect George Washington? I'm going to guess that you actually agree with the vast majority of what Sarah Palin believes.

      Secondly, your information gathering skills must really suck, because the common thread between the tea-party members isn't religion, it's economic policy. If religion alone were capable of starting such a big political movement, Pat Robertson would have been president. This is stuff you can figure out for yourself if you apply yourself to understanding. As another measurement of the religious nature of the tea-party, consider Mike Huckabee, who makes a point of appealing directly to the religious elements of the Republican party, and does it well. He doesn't do as well in the tea-party, though. Typically he can pull around 30% of the Republican party, which about matches the religious sector of the Republicans (and also explains why Republicans talk about religion but don't do much about it). In the tea-party poll, he only managed to get 4%, whereas Romney, who markets himself on economic issues, did much better.

      In other words, I'm not saying I'm 100% right with what I just said, but you need to make your analysis more carefully and more nuanced. The way you're doing it now is blinding you to things.

      --
      Qxe4
    33. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's dumb. Most people are trying to push their morality onto other people in some way or another. Glenn Beck calls many people on the left 'marxist' for that very reason. It is impossible to live together in society without forcing some version of morality on others. Try to think more clearly.

      --
      Qxe4
    34. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Nothing the Tea Party movement has ever been accused of is remotely as bad/as "Taliban like" as "taking hostages at a TV network you don't like." Apparently the craziest element of the radical Left did precisely that this afternoon. But no, slashdot and the real media are jumping to the correct conclusion, i.e. "This guy was crazy. Not all leftists, but this guy."
      On the other hand, what if he was there to get them to stop talking about evolution? Think people would start blaming Glenn Beck?

    35. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point. We haven't been judging the right wingers on their most extreme element. We've been judging them for not noticing the most extreme element and being not bothering to distance themselves from it. Ultimately, anybody that tunes into O'reilly, Coulter, Tucker Carlson, Beck or Limbaugh, is in part responsible for what comes of their rhetoric.

    36. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      Hah! You think those guys are the extremists! Wait until you see a real extremist!

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    37. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Now you understand how Right-wingers feel at being labeled 'The American Taliban.'

      The Taliban is a very large conservative religious and political movement with a twenty year history, I am sure that it has at least a few decent human beings involved. Also, Hermann Georring did not represent the average member of the Nazi party either. Take any sufficiently large political movement and you will find a broad range of people involved, not just evil caricatures, the comparison is fair.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    38. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Foogle · · Score: 1

      People who write parenthetical "hints" are toolboxes. Don't be one of them.

    39. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Informative

      The current Tea Party is based on misinformation and exploiting emotions rather than anything factual.

      Then you obviously haven't been paying attention to what the people in the Tea Party have actually been saying. I tried to find an easy summation of what I have seen various people who identify themselves with the Tea Party movement have said that it is to them. Here is the best I could find: # Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
      # Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
      # Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.
      # Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution.
      # Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities
      # Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
      # Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010
      # Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation.
      # Reduce Earmarks
      # Reduce Taxes

      Not all of the people who identify themselves as part of the Tea Party movement would agree with all of these points, they are all consistent with what people who have identified themselves with the Tea Party movement have said the movement is about. Some people who identify with the Tea Party movement would say that one or more of the points on this list are not the best way to accomplish the goals of the Tea Party, but the vast majority would say that these points represent legitimate ideas about how to do that.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    40. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      How is saying that putting a mosque as close to Ground Zero as they want to put what was originally going to be Cordoba House was insensitive to the feelings of those who lost loved ones there an attempt to punish Muslims? Especially when you consider that Cordoba is noteworthy as a city where Muslims built a mosque on the foundations of a church that they destroyed after they conquered the city?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    41. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by theripper · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension is your friend here.

      There are left/right-wingers, moderates, and centrists.

      left wing + left moderate + centrist + right moderate + right wing = pentachotomy.

      And if you really want to take what the GP said to the extreme:

      left wing + left moderate + left centrist + centrist + right centrist + right moderate + right wing = heptachotomy.

      So while you're correct that there's nothing in what he said between moderate and extreme, there are definitely more than three things to choose from. In reality it's probably more like this:

      left wing + moderate left wing + left moderate + left centrist + centrist + right centrist + right moderate + moderate right wing + right wing

    42. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by timeOday · · Score: 1
      In other words, some people did something, therefore some other people hundreds of years later on the other side of the planet should be held responsible.

      By your reasoning, I assume you are firmly in favor of whites now paying slave reparations to African Americans. Also that adherents to the bible should be punished for the atrocities of the Old Testament (e.g. genocide).

    43. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by cain · · Score: 1

      I can try to explain it simply, but I suspect you will not acknowledge the direct comparison.

      [group] gets mad when people assume [thing about the group] based on the actions of a very, very few extreme members of the group when that is not at all true.

      [Right-wingers] get mad when people assume [they are as bad as the Taliban] based on the actions of a very, very few extreme members of the group when that is not at all true.

      [Muslims] get mad when people assume [they want to violently kill Americans] based on the actions of a very, very few extreme members of the group when that is not at all true.

      It is no more complicated than that. Get it?

    44. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      NO, some people did something terrible a few years ago that has a superficial resemblance to something that some other people did hundreds of years ago. It is insensitive to the feelings of the victims of the first group to build a memorial to the second group more or less on the site of the first group's actions.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    45. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what the people in the Tea Party movement have been saying is "Obama is a Muslim and possibly a terrorist. Let's listen to what Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have to say. Vote Fox News!"

    46. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by timeOday · · Score: 1

      The people behind the project never claimed it was a memorial to Muslim conquest; that's just spin invented by Newt Gingrich and his ilk.

    47. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The whole idea that "environmentalists hate humanity" would be less convincing if environmentalists sided with humans once in a while, when there's a humans vs. animals (or trees) choice to be made. Also if there were fewer environmentalists preaching against human populations.

      Lots non-environmentalists like nature. They just don't think the welfare of minnows or frogs or trees or owls or rats should come before things that help people.

    48. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well when they go and name it Cordoba House, alluding to the mosque built on the church destroyed in the conquered city of Cordoba, that does sort of suggest a memorial to Muslim conquest.

    49. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Just wait until Mr. Beck finds out that all of the street signs within three miles of the World Trade Centre site are now printed in Arabic numberals, and have been for at least the last nine years.

      Then you're going to see some serious hoo-hah.

    50. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TEA Party originally stood for "Taxed Enough Already" and was full of people railing against big government spending ever more money. The current Glen Beck / religion tie-in is other people hijacking the original movement. Fuck that shit, let's focus on what's important. The real rate of taxation is the rate of government spending. Our current and last administration have dug holes that will take generations to dig out of.

    51. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because some event happened there doesn't mean Newt Gingrich gets to decide that's the "real" meaning of the namesake. The Cordoba House developers said they were commemorating Cordoba as an homage to the city in Spain where Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together centuries ago in the midst of religious foment (that's a quote from the New York Times).

    52. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      The problem is that anybody slightly left of center is called a left-winger these days while the center doesn't seem to have much of a boundary on the right.

    53. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Kohath · · Score: 1

      How about helping the rest of us protect against terrorism rather than filing lawsuits and going on a media offensive and playing grievance politics when a security decision doesn't go your way?

      Terrorism is bad for everyone. I don't see why Muslims alone should escape any consequences of terrorism in the US.

      All the Muslims I have dealt with (which is every day) are great folks. But one thing holding back togetherness and community is the same destructive sense of entitlement that, in non-Muslims, harms every other part of American society. If we're all on the same side, let's all do our part.

      (The other thing holding back togetherness and community is the fact that we can't all go out for beers.)

    54. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Read a bit about "Abrahamic religions". I'll wait. Islam has MUCH more in common with Christianity than any other religion except Judaism.

      I have much more of a clue about the "differences" than you seem to.

    55. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      You disagree with pretty much anything Sarah Palin states as fact? Really? I don't know how you can come to that conclusion reasonably. Do you doubt that she has a daughter with down's syndrome? Do you think she wasn't governor of Alaska? Do you think America should stay a democracy? Do you respect George Washington? I'm going to guess that you actually agree with the vast majority of what Sarah Palin believes.

      It was hyperbole. I don't disagree with everything Sarah Palin says or believes. But when she says shit like "refudiate", can't even understand the First Amendment, is a hypocritical asshole who goes to Canada for medical care, has to write notes on her hand because she's a moron, her hypocrisy with her own daughter getting pregnant while she's on the abstinence is the only way to prevent teen pregnancy train... I think I could easily be forgiven for a bit of hyperbole.

    56. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by metacell · · Score: 1

      Christianity and Islam belong to the same group of religions, together with Judaism - the Abrahamitic religions. They all share belief in a single, exclusive deity (although Christianity says their single deity is at the same time trifold). They are all authoritarian and based on revelation - i.e. their important tenets were handed down by God, not discovered by men. They are all patriarchal and place women in a subservient role to men.

      There are also lots of differences, like: In Christianity, the Bible is inspired by God, while in Islam, the Quran is dictated by God. Christianity emphasises faith, i.e, belief in God as a way to salvation in itself, while Islam emphasises devotion and servitude to God. Depending on your perspective, these differences may be seen as large, or as minor variations between similar religions.

    57. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're doing it again.

    58. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      strange that my posts on this subject and the totalitarian wanna be republicans in office's logical fallacies keep getting deleted. Slashdot does have a republican at the wheel of editing posts for public consumption.

      voice of reason

    59. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or how cartoonists feel when they get killed for drawing Mohammed..

    60. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      I don't consider myself a tea partier, but looking at a few such self-described groups, their platform is mainly reduced government spending and avoiding tax increases. I see some other positions that include enforcing current immigration law, and general opposition to incumbents - not really extreme positions. To address the post below mine, the TP sites I checked out didn't mention religion or America being a "Christian Nation". I saw more pictures of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck than I'd like, but that's it.

    61. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by n+dot+l · · Score: 1

      Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.

      Does the bit after "pollution" describe the start of the sentence or propose a better system? If the latter, in what particular way does it differ from Cap and Trade?

      Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.

      I say Clinton balanced the budget. You say he cheated. The government ignores the constitution while we bicker over the meaning of the word "is".

      Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words - the length of the original Constitution.

      Oh come on! You want to limit the length of the tax code to a number of words that you picked based on nothing but a sentimental attachment to a document that nobody with power gives a shit about these days? Let's not even get into the real reasons that limiting the tax code of a nation as large and diverse as yours to a few pages is a bad idea, that's just silly...

      Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities

      Such agencies already exist. The GAO is one of them. They publish reports. The reports are often surprisingly candid. Nobody seems to care, or even know that they exist. I don't think attaching blue ribbons would be much use.

    62. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If it looks like a duck...

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    63. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There have actually been plants exposed at Tea Party rallies

      Only at a Tea Party rally would it be difficult to tell the plants apart from the humans...

      (Sorry - I couldn't resist such a perfect set up)

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    64. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      (The other thing holding back togetherness and community is the fact that we can't all go out for beers.)

      Yes you can, and the Muslims can drive you home afterwards. They won't drink the beer, but if not drinking the beer stops the evening being fun then you probably need better friends.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    65. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by cain · · Score: 1

      And this has what to do with Park51, the topic at hand? No one has filed a lawsuit. There is no security decision.

      Your comment is a non sequitur.

    66. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by cain · · Score: 1

      It's no use trying to convince these idiots. They simply refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't cause them to be outraged and afraid. I went to the "anti-mosque" rally a few weeks ago to take photos. They are a delusional bunch of people.

    67. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Lol well... the AVERAGE of the right wing is much more religious than the left. Much much more war mongering. And caused the war on terrorism which was viewed basically as a terrorist act by most places outside of the united states.

      There is a difference between a lone crazy taking hostages. And hundreds of thousands of crazy people gathering on martin luther king day. The lone nut might do some damage the tea party could break america.

      BTW his manifesto talks about anchor babies which isn't left wing to begin with. Though some of his ideas do coincide with the left for sure.

    68. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >False trichotomy. There's nothing in-between extreme extremists and moderates?
      >You're either morbidly obese, just the right weight, or severely anorexic?

      These discussions are pointless without curve parameters and designations in terms of e.g., standard deviation.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    69. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Basically your argument amounts to, "I think right-wingers are crazy because I disagree with them." I don't care what you believe or agree with, but you should at least be aware of that.

      Also, immigration isn't really a democrat/republican issue, it's more of a poor/rich issue (but even then not completely, since some programmers are vehemently against H1 visas, and they typically make tons of money). Unions are typically opposed to immigration, even though they typically align themselves on the left.

      --
      Qxe4
    70. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

      Which TV channel do they own? I might want to watch some.

    71. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      That's incorrect. I voted for Ron Paul and would like a smaller government but the tea party in general don't know their own country's history but instead pine for days that never existed, they are generally racist and overly religions and for a group that talks about the constitution they pick and choose the bits they want to believe just like they do with their bible.

    72. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Repeal the healthcare legislation from 2010 is fine but what about medicare? That is part of my problem. There are a lot of old jerks moaning about socialised healthcare while being on medicare themselves.

      I don't care if the US doesn't have free healthcare. My concern is that it should have equal healthcare. So no free healthcare for the elderly or poor if the people who actually pay into the system get bent over by the government to pay for it and bent over by the insurance companies especially if they end up ill and actually need to use their insurance.

      There in lies the reason why the tea party isn't any better than the others. They're just as biased, they're ignorant and yes a lot of them are racist even if not all of them are and a lot of them religious extremists.

      It's laughable that they're very similar to the people (Muslims) that they hate and their religion is also very close to Islam. They're too thick to even realise this.

    73. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Or maybe because a handful of left wing nuts isn't anything to a whole army of religious extremist retards.

      Smaller government is a good thing but the tea party will not bring that to the US. They just want to have one big circle jerk while holding bibles and being draped in american flags.

    74. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      only a slightly different religion
      Slightly? Either you are being facetious or you don't have much of a clue about the differences :)

      Both religions (as well as Judism) worship the same God and share the same Old Testament. Christians are a whole lot more like Muslims than they're like Hindus, Bhuddists, Wiccans, or FSMers.

    75. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Only to people who disagree with their politics and can't tolerate the existence of opposing viewpoints.

      Being in disagreement with the most intolerant group of people makes me intolerant?

      That's rich. I do thing a very small handful of things they say are good and as a Ron Paul supporter I do like the idea of a smaller government but there is no sign that they'll actually repeal all free healthcare (like medicare) which means they just want to keep a biased system that caters to their elderly base and I've yet to hear anything that says they'll cut the military significantly despite it being the largest government expense by far. So much fo a smaller government. The military is also the most socialist aspect of America by creating jobs that aren't really need by having far too many useless military bases open within the US. So much for their dislike for socialism. Combine that with their ignorance, racism and religous extremism and I see no reason to support them.

    76. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Keeping in mind of course it's right-wing nut jobs that do abortion clinic bombings, Okalhoma, Ruby Ridge or the religious nuts in Waco Texas.

      But hey if you think that one nuts in the discovery channel is worse than that then maybe you be wearing a helmet full-time.

    77. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      My problem is more that they show a complete disregarding for equality and don't want to shrink the government but what they consider left-wing government policy. I'm all for a smaller govenrment as long as it is done in a fair and equal manner. The Tea party is no different than any other party other than the fact they try harder to surround themselves by ignorant people.

      Hell even Glenn Beck is a complete fucking tool and was for increased healthcare up until he moved to Fox news where he had to tow the company line.

    78. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Not really, what you are really saying there is you are ignorant of the basic political composition of the united states. I don't know where you get your information (Daily Show?) but it's doing you a disservice. You should improve your information gathering skills because they are leading you astray.

      --
      Qxe4
    79. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, my first thought about the Tea Party is, if they're really against the defecit and not against Democrats, why didn't they come about during the Bush administration, when Bush took Clinton's balanced budget and turned it into what was, by the middle of his term, the biggest defecit in history? It isn't a grassroots movement, it's astroturf.

      And their contradictory aims make them look really stupid:
      Demand a balanced federal budget
      Reduce Taxes

      To balance the budget you're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending. They're either stupid or disingenuous (and IMO it's probably the latter). If you want laws to be constitutional (as I do), don't vote Republican; they're as bad or worse as the Democrats. Vote the Constitution Party instead.

      Personally, I split my vote between Greens, Libbies, and the CPs. The Libbies may be anti-tax loonies but at least they don't want to put me in prison for smoking hemp.

    80. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      'anchor babies' have nothing to do with immigration. It is irrational right-wing brand FUD. Immigration is only vaguely related.

    81. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Anchor babies have everything to do with immigration. The idea is if you're an illegal immigrant, you have a kid in the US so you can stay. In practice it doesn't work exactly like that, but it is indeed related to immigration. Look it up on wikipedia. The first sentence has to do with immigration.

      --
      Qxe4
    82. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Yet you do nothing to prove me wrong because the tea party is nothing but ignorant twats.

    83. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Most of America is full of ignorant twats, so I won't address that point, but your claim that the tea-party is a religious party comes from ignorance, as I mentioned here.

      --
      Qxe4
    84. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Please give an example of racism connected with the Tea Party. Although that doesn't really matter, in what way is what the Tea Party calling for racist? In what way does it involve religious extremism? Why should it matter if some of the people who are calling for a particular course of action are racist or extremists if the action itself is not? If the action they are calling for does not lend itself to being easily distorted into some kind of racism or extremism?
      I will also question whether or not you really understand what religious extremism is. Everything i have seen indicates that the Tea Party movement is only slightly more religious than America in general

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    85. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Every time the government has reduced taxes, revenue from said taxes has increased.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    86. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Subtlety doesn't work well over the internet. My apologies. I'll start over.

      "Basically your argument amounts to, "I think right-wingers are crazy because I disagree with them." I don't care what you believe or agree with, but you should at least be aware of that."
      That's why you would call anyone crazy. If I saw someone talking to an invisible figure. Clearly I disagree with them that someone is there and would call them crazy. Same with invisible men in the sky that tell them what to do and make people write books. Or people thinking that Glenn beck is a good leader and that his 'god is the answer' speech is right. Or people that think 'anchor babies' are a real threat to the american way of life. They are wrong so utterly that I would say that they are crazy. Or mentally deficient in some way.

      Immigration is a political issue that pertains to everyone. And there are likely people from either side supporting or opposing it. It covers a range of topics and specific issues. I think more left wing support and right wing against but that doesn't matter much.

      'Anchor babies' on the other hand is a fake issue. It is FUD created by the right-wing and spread by people like Fox News. It is a politic issue in the same way the witch problem Salem had in 1690 was a political issue. Or more recently, like the Islamic cultural center a few blocks from ground zero. The Islamic center is tangentially related to terrorist funding, religious freedom and building permits as 'anchor babies' relate to immigration.

      But it isn't a REAL political issue that people might/should vote on depending on which politician agrees with them. It is some meaningless bullshit that affects near-nothing to actually nothing at all.

      Hope that cleared my position up a bit.

    87. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, how dare the peasants get uppity about 12+ trillion dollars in govt debt. Demanding governments to behave like everyone else, that is, only spend what they have - outrageous!

    88. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Yes, right wing nuts did those things. But that doesn't mean it's OK to blame the right wing for them. Just like it's not OK to blame the entire left wing for this guy, or the Animal Liberation Front, or the Black Panthers, or a whole host of other leftist-nutjob groups. (It's certainly not OK to blame the Tea Party movement, which originated in 2009, over a decade after some of the events you mentioned. Idiot.)

    89. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      http://northgapatriots.ning.com/

      Look at their "9 VALUES AND 12 PRINCIPLES" even if it's actually 9 principles and 12 values in the list but at least they tried.

      Search for tea party patriots god on google

      http://www.teaparty-patriots.com/#Judeo-Christian_Nation

      http://www.teapartypatriots.org/BlogPostView.aspx?id=51ff1a75-d8bd-4980-97e9-0bab90018d23

      Atheists challenged by Tea Party Patriots - http://www.examiner.com/humanism-freethought-in-tampa-bay/atheists-challenged-by-tea-party-patriots

      I'll leave it there because quite frankly there is shit loads found on Google that supports my side and it doesn't even cover stuff like Tea party mascot Palin who brings up god all the time. The tea party is very much a religious group trying to rewrite the history of the US and seem to think freedom of religion means freedom to believe in Jesus.

    90. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Really? That is your analysis? A search for "tea-party patriots god" on Google? You are seriously incapable of doing a deeper analysis than that? By the same method I can do a search for "tea party atheist" and find there are atheist tea partiers. The godless heathens.

      It is true in any random group of Americans you will have mainly christians (yay christian democrats!), but what brings tea-partiers together are economic issues. Hope you learn to do better analysis because your current sucky methods (which seems to be googling for evidence that support your current viewpoint) are really blinding you.

      --
      Qxe4
    91. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071903686.html

      This article sums it up well in that it's a group with no official racist views but is filled with an unknown amount of racists: http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/07/tea-party_racism

      The tea party, of course will not have an official racist POV because even they know it would be incredibly stupid to have that out in the open. But when one of their top players is stupid enough write a letter mocking black people, gets caught and has to be sacked.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsPSUxV07x8
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUsBvkfQKUw
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vrXJ5-EuoE
      Anyone could sit here for days posting links to videos and sites showing examples of Tea Party racists. Sure they like to claim there have been plants but there aren't that many plants and the fact one of their highest people was clearly racist to the point where they had to get rid of him goes to show there is a lot of racism in the tea party. If we're going to attack moderate muslims for not tackling their extremists then the same should be done to the tea party.

      The tea party won't do that because the people who aren't textbook racists are still the sort that want to just simply keep the brown people out of their country while forgetting their country was stolen from brown people.

      Searching for tea party god or tea party christianity will bring up tons of official tea party sites talking about god. Some people like to claim it's not a religious group but it is they mention god often and their mascot, Palin, always talks about god. Like with the racism, it's easy to find links where tea party idiots have been intolerant of other religious beliefs.

      http://www.examiner.com/humanism-freethought-in-tampa-bay/atheists-challenged-by-tea-party-patriots
      http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Holy-water-Two-teachers-tossed-for-allegedly-tossing-holy-water-on-atheist-94795819.html
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/mark-williams-tea-party-l_n_582591.html
      http://race.change.org/blog/view/tea_party_plans_kkk-style_attack_on_muslim_place_of_worship
      so much for freedom of religion - http://www.teapartypatriots.org/BlogPostView.aspx?id=3e3c9354-e295-4195-bb8a-0e50fd522cf9

      Again, there is plenty of material out there showing the tea party's hate for anything atheist or Muslim.

      The mere fact the tea party came out just as we had our first black president pretty much shows their mentality. They had no problem with Bush driving up the national debt because it was money spent on killing brown people who didn't believe in Jesus.

    92. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Yeah because there is no proof that there is a huge portion of racist and religious idiots in the tea party even to the point of having to oust one of their leaders (Mark Williams of the tea party express) for racist comments. The tea party itself is new but it's just the same people moving around. Racists used to be democrats, then they moved to republicans and now republicans don't want them so they've made their own party that is exclusively for ignorant people.

      BTW, I blame both liberals and conservatives for not doing anything about ALF. ALF are terrorists and Peta are supporters. The old black panthers are virtually dead and the new black panther party is considered a hate group by people on the left and right.

    93. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      The KKK has had at least one black member so does that mean they aren't racist?

    94. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol you aren't talking about Clayton Bigsby, are you? Of course it doesn't mean the KKK isn't racist, it means you can't look at a single anecdote and figure out the makeup of a group of millions of people. You can't do a Google search for 'tea-party patriots god' and expect to get a realistic view of what motivates millions of people to come out and declare themselves members of a tea-party.

      --
      Qxe4
    95. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      You make a bunch of vague and grammatically crippled claims that aren't specific enough to confirm or rebut. What sort of "equality" do you believe they disregard? What "left-wing" policies do you refer to? What makes you say that they "try harder to surround themselves by [sic] ignorant people"? Glenn Beck *is* a tool. Most talking heads are. When people substitute them as a target instead of actually addressing and discussing ideas, it's usually because they aren't equipped to do the latter. I'm interested, though: what "increased healthcare" did Beck support? And is there anyone who *opposes* "increased healthcare"?

    96. Re:Thanks a lot, Jackass by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Yeah because there is no proof that there is a huge portion of racist and religious idiots in the tea party even to the point of having to oust one of their leaders (Mark Williams of the tea party express) for racist comments. The tea party itself is new but it's just the same people moving around. Racists used to be democrats, then they moved to republicans and now republicans don't want them so they've made their own party that is exclusively for ignorant people.

      You accused the Tea Party of blowing up abortion clinics. Racism is bad, but bombings are a whole different level.
      Also, there's ABSOLUTE PROOF that no Tea Party member was part of three of the four events that you mentioned. None of the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing, or the cult members from Waco or Ruby Ridge were alive in 2009, when the Tea Party movement started. Duh.
      And lumping "racist and religious" together, as if the two are even remotely in the same category? What the hell is wrong with you?

      BTW, I blame both liberals and conservatives for not doing anything about ALF.

      What should conservatives be doing about ALF? Shooting them? That would go over poorly. The fact is, ONLY liberals support ALF. The liberals who don't (i.e. the sane ones) are in the extreme majority, so it's not fair to blame all liberals for ALF, but to blame conservatives for ALF is stupid.

      ALF are terrorists and Peta are supporters. The old black panthers are virtually dead and the new black panther party is considered a hate group by people on the left and right.

      No argument here. That's why I called them Taliban like. Although I'd look into how the Justice Department prosecutes the New Black Panther Party when they conduct voter intimidation if I were you.

  17. 'disgusting human babies' by Gorimek · · Score: 4, Funny

    Invader Zim is back!

  18. Was he a practising M*m? by bogaboga · · Score: 0, Troll

    Was he from that religion? Seriously...I wanna know.

    1. Re:Was he a practising M*m? by HeckRuler · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, they're just cartoons. The green ones are not sexy. They're just food with some advertising mascots.
      But if they did have a religion, I imagine this guy would fit the bill.

  19. Malthus Primer by CommieLib · · Score: 5, Informative
    We're talking 19th century economist Thomas Malthus here. His main point was that the food supply only grew linearly, while the population could grow exponentially. Thus, there were only three restraints on population growth:
    • Misery, i.e., war, plague and starvation.
    • Vice - birth control - Malthus was Catholic,
    • Moral Restraint - keeping it in your pants.

    Millibrain here seems to have got it exactly backwards (http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0901_demands.pdf):

    Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race.

    I was wondering for a while whether this dumbass was going to make an unexpectedly personal contribution to the zero population growth movement with the help of the local police. At any rate, "Malthusianism" is a perjorative in economics, as in "that's nothing more than warmed over Malthusianism". Where Malthus got it wrong was in not forseeing the economics pressures that drove innovation that in turn increased crop yields so that food supplies could indeed grow exponentially. His reasoning, per se, isn't wrong - but he starts from a false premise.

    --
    If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    1. Re:Malthus Primer by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      Yeah, given the context I'm guessing his reference to Darwinism is Social Darwinism which has even less credibility than Malthusianism.

    2. Re:Malthus Primer by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Somebody mod this guy up because he obviouslt knows what the hell he's talking about.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    3. Re:Malthus Primer by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The food supply curve is not exponential. It has exceeded exponential growth for a century, but only by consuming ever increasingly scarce resources to do so. Soil quality and aquifer levels are dramatically declining, soon even oil based fertilizers (that will become prohibitively expensive with peak oil) won't be enough to keep up production.

      Malthus was failed to account for technological advances and declining human fertility. But he also failed to account for destruction of the soil and irrigation systems from over production. His ideas were far from perfect, but they do have merit.

    4. Re:Malthus Primer by yyxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where Malthus got it wrong was in not forseeing the economics pressures that drove innovation that in turn increased crop yields so that food supplies could indeed grow exponentially.

      And where many economists get it wrong is in not realizing that this is not sustainable. You can print exponentially much money and delude yourself into believing that there is perpetual growth, but food production and population growth invariably will hit a wall. We're still growing because we're using up finite resources at an enormous rate; once they are gone, human populations will crash.

    5. Re:Malthus Primer by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There has been no declining human fertility. The world population has been increasing exponentially since the early 1900s. Yes, there's been declining fertility in some local populations (i.e., 1st-world countries), but not overall.

      I think the declining availability of fresh water is going to be the biggest problem with food production in the future.

    6. Re:Malthus Primer by CommieLib · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are correct that it is not (necessarily) exponential. The important point, however, is that it is not constrained to be linear - that's the core fallacy of Malthusianism.

      The key missed insight that we have, that Malthus didn't, is that supplies of things that are highly constrained in the short run are subject to economic pressures that may make them less constrained in the long run.

      So as soil quality and aquifer levels decline, their portion of the price of food will rise (because supplies are more scarce). This will create enormous demand for good soil and better aquifers, i.e., the prize for doing things differently becomes enormous, and only then do people change their behavior.

      But people can and do change their behavior when the incentives are right - if I call you Malthusian, I'm generally implying that you're failing to realize this.

      So, you can absolutely believe that there are problems in the way we produce food, and still realize that Malthus was wrong, wrong, wrong. If you still think Malthus was right, then it's simply because I have failed to communicate what the word "Malthusianism" means in an economics context.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    7. Re:Malthus Primer by lennier · · Score: 1

      Where Malthus got it wrong was in not forseeing the economics pressures that drove innovation that in turn increased crop yields so that food supplies could indeed grow exponentially.

      So if enough people merely want a technical innovation, that innovation will necessarily pop into existence, regardless of physics? Economics truly is magic!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    8. Re:Malthus Primer by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      One proviso: the government can absolutely step in and pervert those incentives, and then you're back to misery, vice and moral restraint.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    9. Re:Malthus Primer by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      It is not necessary to sustain it...eventually the economic pressures feedback and the system reaches equilibrium. Note that "equilibrium" does not necessarily imply zero growth on either side. That's what we're trying to get through to everybody here. Everyone predicts disaster, and fails to appreciate the feedback pressures of economic forces.

      That's Malthusianism for you. There's an inherent appeal to disaster scenarios - I think that it stems from people wanting the world to pay for its perceived sins - so this concept is very hard to get through to people.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    10. Re:Malthus Primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where Malthus got it wrong was in not forseeing the economics pressures that drove innovation that in turn increased crop yields so that food supplies could indeed grow exponentially.

      And where many economists get it wrong is in not realizing that this is not sustainable. You can print exponentially much money and delude yourself into believing that there is perpetual growth, but food production and population growth invariably will hit a wall. We're still growing because we're using up finite resources at an enormous rate; once they are gone, human populations will crash.

      Yes, and 40% of all food in the USA is thrown away. Not much different in other industrialized countries either:

      http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/429617

      The water infrastructure also wastes a lot: ~40% in Mexico City is lost, but even Toronto, Canada loses something like 20% due to the older parts of the system leaching.

      There's a lot of waste going on, and even though we can't be 100% efficient, we can certainly do much better.

    11. Re:Malthus Primer by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heh. It's funny that you can completely accept that Maltheus was overreacting because he failed to allow for the advancement of technology, and in the same breath claim that we're all doomed because we're running out of X. Maltheus would have been proud.

    12. Re:Malthus Primer by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      The key missed insight that we have, that Malthus didn't, is that supplies of things that are highly constrained in the short run are subject to economic pressures that may make them less constrained in the long run.

      That's not insight though, that's just an assumption. Take the world supplies of oil, which are limited and will only get highly constrained over time. No amount of economic pressures is going to unconstrain it. The only thing that economics can achieve is demand destruction, and that is precisely Malthus' insight in the first place. Economists who don't understand Malthus assume that we can just invent new equivalent energy sources when the old ones dry up, forever.

    13. Re:Malthus Primer by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      Except in the most developed and industrialized countries such as Japan and Sweden, the birth rate has fallen so far, they worry they may actually go extinct in a couple of centuries.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    14. Re:Malthus Primer by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to 'kipedia the world fertility rate IS falling, quite quickly in fact. I mean in the last 40 years due to the One Child policy(along with increasing industrialization) the fertility rate of the worlds most populous country has been plumetting. Their population keeps increasing because the Chinese tend to have very long lifespans and because there was such a huge bubble right before the One Child policy was enacted(Mao actually encouraged people to have as many children as possible during the Cultural Revolution).

      Now you could argue that thanks to advances in medicine and food production that the overall survival rate of children is increasing, but the fertility rate is not.

    15. Re:Malthus Primer by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      There is a social pressure in developed nations where your children are not required to work your farm to have fewer children to increase lifestyle on a middle class income.

      Sperm motility and productivity in human males is declining around the globe and we don't really know why. Our best guess at the moment is that estrogen like chemicals leaching from plastics may be involved.

    16. Re:Malthus Primer by yyxx · · Score: 1

      If you want to argue that our civilization and economy can survive hitting global resource limits, the burden of proof is on you. There are numerous examples of civilizations that have self-destructed when faced with resource limits. I know of none beyond hunter-gatherer societies that have lived sustainably. And our economists consider zero growth to be a major economic disaster.

    17. Re:Malthus Primer by yyxx · · Score: 1

      And on the other hand, there are billions of people living in hunger and poverty in the world.

      You cannot infer anything from what's going on in the wealthy, resource intensive economies of the West about humanity as a whole.

    18. Re:Malthus Primer by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      A: Technology can only go so far. B: the cost of our vast technological improvement in food production technology is the depletion of our natural resources from unsustainable use. Its not just soil quality and water levels in aquifers, but other sources as well (IIRC we are on our 6th species of "white fish" on grocery shelves because the previous species have been fished to the point where they can no longer be economically harvested).

      Exponential growth is ultimately unsustainable. Natural resources are not infinite, and not only that, they can be depleted. We will run out of oil, we will run out of coal, we will run out of easily accessible fresh water, we will run out of nutrient rich soil, we will run out of land on earth, our sun will die, seeming eternal protons will decay from unimaginable eons of time.

    19. Re:Malthus Primer by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's strange, because the population growth rate shows no sign of slowing down:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

      (The blue part, which shows reality, is still rising.)

    20. Re:Malthus Primer by khallow · · Score: 1

      Malthus was failed to account for technological advances and declining human fertility. But he also failed to account for destruction of the soil and irrigation systems from over production. His ideas were far from perfect, but they do have merit.

      The point of fertilizer is to compensate, more than adequately I might add, for any declines in soil quality. Last I heard, most fertilizer is "green manure" (as I recall, something like 60% of the total fertilizer load in the US is green manure, the rest taken up by animal manure and chemical fertilizers which are natural gas/phosphorus derived), that is, some sort of nitrogen fixing plant tilled into the soil. That type of fertilizer naturally builds up soil. The farmer also can let his field grow fallow which also builds up soil (especially when coupled with the above use of nitrogen fixing plants).

    21. Re:Malthus Primer by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Another issue with trusting the free market to regulate dwindling resources is that the free market principal is based on the assumption that all actors are both well informed and rational.

      There is vast profit in ensuring that people remain ignorant and irrational so that a few can game the free market system.

      Right now, most people are completely unaware that our food production capacity is unsustainable and will collapse within our lifetime if we do not radically change the way we are doing things.

    22. Re:Malthus Primer by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Thats because more people are surviving childhood and growing up to have their own kids. That doesn't effect the "fertility rate"(babies/adult woman) per se, but it does lead to increased population.

    23. Re:Malthus Primer by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      And all that sustainable agriculture is less productive than the unsustainable methods in the short term.

      If all agriculture was sustainable then we would be producing less food right now.

    24. Re:Malthus Primer by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      RUN FOR YER LIVEZ!!!!!!!!!

    25. Re:Malthus Primer by khallow · · Score: 1

      And all that sustainable agriculture is less productive than the unsustainable methods in the short term.

      Given that the US is more than halfway there to sustainable agriculture, I don't think the criticism has merit.

      If all agriculture was sustainable then we would be producing less food right now.

      Not an issue as long as more food is produced than consumed. There's a huge amount of waste in the system right now. A production decline is not significant in itself.

    26. Re:Malthus Primer by pregister · · Score: 1

      I am one of those unaware people. Got a link?

    27. Re:Malthus Primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're failing to account for human ingenuity in the same way that Malthus did.

    28. Re:Malthus Primer by epine · · Score: 1

      Economists who don't understand Malthus assume that we can just invent new equivalent energy sources when the old ones dry up, forever.

      I've never encountered a serious-minded economist who said any such thing, although a few occasionally talk as if Jesus turned water into wine because the incentive structure made it possible.

      Hardly any serious-minded physicist thinks that human civilization has a long term energy problem. We're about halfway through the life of the sun as we know it, which is about where we're at with oil (but not fossil carbon as a whole). We've got a few billion years to learn how to rub hydrogen together before the energy situation really becomes dire. Many physicists regard heat as a bigger problem than energy.

      Within the short time frame of the last century or two, it's hard to untangle the global population surge from the exploitation of coal and petroleum. Why is it that people talk more about peak oil than peak population. The time offset is maybe only fifty years and we're nowhere close to running out of fossil carbon over (tar sands and coal). If anything, we're running out of environmental capacity to withstand the unflagging supply.

      In the margin, we have the inconvenience (and human suffering) that goes along with a less predictable climate. Against that we have the sum total of human ingenuity, as magnified by Google and social networking and bio-engineering and not-invented-yet.

      It's a funny thing, because many doom-sayers are twice as afraid of human ingenuity as they are of external threats to human civilization (e.g. running out of global productive capacity). "Our tools are insanely powerful, we'll certainly cut ourselves with the sharp knives and make things worse before we make them better."

      What your typical economist believes is that it's hard to overestimate the challenges we can overcome when all the arrows are pointed in the right direction. Across the hall, your typical political scientist worries about the amazing amount of blood we can shed when all the arrows are pointed at each other's throats.

      We're nowhere close to a future determined solely by external calamity. The key variable is human politics. It seems to me that the common worry is that resource constraints are historically more likely to elicit the worst of human politics, rather than the best. Does this necessarily have to happen in the modern world with so much more shared knowledge than ever before? Who knows? It's unexplored territory. Unexplored territory is a corollary of the theory of evolution. Life is a grand experiment. Why didn't mother nature screw up long ago? Because no species had yet evolved self-blame? We aggrandize our importance as a species by painting ourselves culpable.

      I think the cognitive dissonance in the public debate derives from the uncomfortable realization in many people that if we run our world as shallowly as many of us live our lives, we're in for a rough ride.

      Rather than confront our shallow behaviour, it's easier to run around proclaiming "we're all doomed". Plausible to anyone with a grasp of history, but far from certain in the light of day, if the light of day enters into it.

    29. Re:Malthus Primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's strange, because the population growth rate shows no sign of slowing down:

      Based on UN projections from 2004.

      You'll have to take my word for it, but one of the few memories I have from grade school is that in 1980, my textbooks (which, I speculate, were based on data from the mid-70s) we were supposed to hit 7 billion by 2000.

    30. Re:Malthus Primer by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Yet many serious economists deliberately ignore externalities, and go on to make policy recommendations.

      Now, you clearly believe in human ingenuity, and I do too. But that is merely a qualitative assumption, it doesn't imply that what humans will invent can replace quantitatively what was previously needed. That's just a leap of faith, which isn't borne out by reality (eg housing shortages: We can build more high rise buildings to accommodate growing populations in a city. That's ingenious. But the quality of life for apartment dwellers is reduced compared with those who can afford their own houses)

      So the point of peak oil (for example) isn't that we won't come up with some way to cope without oil. That's trivial: at worst we can go back to the pre-industrial model based on human and animal labour, and probably we can do better. But oil is one of the most efficient energy resources we know today, and there is no guarantee that we can invent and implement on a sufficiently large scale a quantitatively more efficient source of energy, to support our present populations and civilization, either in time for when oil runs out, or even after a period of radical reorganization of our societies (and consequent reduced expectations).

      The technological improvements in agriculture which contradicted Malthus' vision should not be viewed as proof that humans can always beat any quantitative targets they set themselves. That's unreasonable to assume when environmental issues or physical laws are involved, and unfortunately the bottleneck is not always clear, especially if identifying it might turn out to be outside of one's expertise.

    31. Re:Malthus Primer by u38cg · · Score: 1

      A population crash is a totally unwarranted prediction. It's far more likely that economic growth in the third world will cause population growth to level off long before the planet's agricultural capacity comes close to being exhausted. We already know we can feed the planet several times over on today's technology if we could just sort out the politics.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    32. Re:Malthus Primer by Spad · · Score: 1

      Solar powered replicators would solve that problem (for a few million years at least).

    33. Re:Malthus Primer by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The key missed insight that we have, that Malthus didn't, is that supplies of things that are highly constrained in the short run are subject to economic pressures that may make them less constrained in the long run.

      Please define "long run". The end result of our current primary method of farming is the destruction of farmland. Continous (non-rotational) growing of corn is basically hydroponics in a soil medium, that is no longer farmland, it is a mostly-inert anaerobic substrate (drainage is destroyed by heavy farm machinery which creates hardpan; so does tilling) where only harmful bacteria nematodes live. So far it looks like Malthus will turn out to be correct and this period will simply be a blip.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:Malthus Primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An economics professor of mine used to tell a good story:
      A physicist, and engineer, and an economist were stranded on an island, with only a crate of canned beans for food. The discussed how best to get into the cans so they could eat.
      "Let's beat the can with a rock until it opens" said the engineer. That was turned down because it would contaminate the beans with dirt from the rock.
      "I know, let's build a fire, and heat the can. As the beans expand, they'll open the can themselves" said the physicist. Well, that's called an explosion, and the beans would be scattered hither and yon, so that idea was also refused.
      Then the economist brightened and said "Of course! The answer is obvious! Postulate a can opener!"
      And that's how economists solve all of the world's problems!

    35. Re:Malthus Primer by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      We already know we can feed the planet several times over on today's technology if we could just sort out the politics.

      No we don't. All figures saying that are based on unsustainable ways of producing and transporting said food.

    36. Re:Malthus Primer by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Cite please. Yes, agriculture uses a lot of fossil fuel, but that's simply because fossil fuel is a major energy source in the modern world. I've yet to see any evidence it's irreplaceable.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    37. Re:Malthus Primer by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      I've yet to see any evidence it's irreplaceable.

      No need to cite. My statement stands at it is. Where are the figures that show that we can feed the planet multiple times over without using fossil fuel.

    38. Re:Malthus Primer by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      And without using the ever depleting natural aquifers for irrigation? the Ogallala aquifer has a replenishment cycle of hundreds of thousands of years, we have emptied half of it in the last ~80.

      When it is empty, the vast majority of current US farm land is going to turn to desert and blow away. There is no alternative source of water for irrigating that amount of land.

  20. His website's text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:
    1. The Discovery Channel and it's affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael" pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other's inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

    2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

    3. All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore. Instead, talk about ways to disassemble civilization and concentrate the message in finding SOLUTIONS to solving global military mechanized conflict. Again, solutions solutions instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons. Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase. World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!

    4. Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn't, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??

    5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

    6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!

    7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people's brains until they get it!!

    8. Saving the Planet means saving what's left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the hum

    1. Re:His website's text by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

      Jeez, that guy's almost as bad as Gene Ray's Time Cube. :\

    2. Re:His website's text by marcmerlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well, obviously the guy was deranged, but some of his points are valid.
      The problem is that most countries rely on ever increasing population for their economy to strive and the politicians to do well (starting with social security that is not funded by people other than the ones who get the money).

      The world clearly could do better with a decreasing population, but most governments encourage exactly the opposite, so indeed right now humans are going to spread until they've taken over all the resources available and at the expense of pretty much all other lifeforms on the planet.

      I'll be dead before then, but thinking about it makes me sad.

    3. Re:His website's text by smartr · · Score: 1

      Wayback machine can lead to some other interesting links: http://savetheplanetprotest.yuku.com/topic/353/t/Save-The-Planet-Protest.html This nut has been at it for over two years. Perhaps someone should have told him they were in total agreement, and there was a resistance front hiding in some giant forest.

    4. Re:His website's text by Grumpinuts · · Score: 1

      (in Tweety Pie voice) I like him! He's silly! All right, was.

    5. Re:His website's text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even optimistic predictions have the cheap oil more or less gone by 2040-2050.

      Unless you're a geezer, you'll get the to watch the party.

      Enjoy whilst you can! :D

    6. Re:His website's text by yoshscout · · Score: 1

      The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels... humans and bunnies not included

    7. Re:His website's text by airfoobar · · Score: 1

      Some of his points make sense. Let's hope the Stockholm syndrome works, because his hostages probably got a bit of inverse Pavlov's dog reinforcement on the things he was trying to tell them. Now, Discovery channel will probably turn into Vatican TV or something.

    8. Re:His website's text by moonbender · · Score: 1

      I'd watch a Discovery Channel game show based on Time Cube!

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    9. Re:His website's text by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The problem is that most countries rely on ever increasing population for their economy to strive and the politicians to do well (starting with social security that is not funded by people other than the ones who get the money).

      That's an interesting assertion, given that most countries with decent social security systems have birth rates below what is necessary to even keep the population at an existing level (which is widely pointed out as an impending issue for any tax-based welfare scheme).

    10. Re:His website's text by dangitman · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd watch a Discovery Channel game show based on Time Cube!

      I'm sorry, moonbender, the answer is "Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood." You are educated stupid. Goodnight.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    11. Re:His website's text by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'll be dead before then, but thinking about it makes me sad.

      You mean feeling sad. Not much thinking going on there. The problem with the assertions you made is that many societies, namely those of the developed world, have solved the population problem. Those societies will also be the ones best prepared to survive any coming human die-off, assuming one happens which I think isn't likely this century.

    12. Re:His website's text by corbettw · · Score: 1

      well, obviously the guy was deranged, but some of his points are valid.

      If a crazy person screams out random thoughts on a street corner, surely some of them may be valid by themselves. But you have to remind yourself, it's a crazy person who's doing the yelling. I wouldn't spend too much time either searching for meaning in those screams, or trying to defend them.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    13. Re:His website's text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and, of course, the Squirrels.

    14. Re:His website's text by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The problem is that most countries rely on ever increasing population for their economy to strive

      First-world countries are overwhelmingly facing aging populations. The US is one of the only with a substantially growing population, and that is largely because of massive immigration, rather than high birth rates by Americans.

      And let's not forget China's one-child policy.

      In short, you have no idea what you are talking about.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  21. But... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

    If we don't have any more disgusting babies, how will we get people to work the boats on Deadliest Catch, or drive the rigs on Ice Road Truckers?

    Why didn't he just jump off the building, and then make an immediate appearance on Ghost Lab? He would have had all the air time in the world to rant about "parasitic human infants" if he could make the first ever actually non-BS appearance on an idiotic cable ghost hunting show.

    Anyway, let's hear it for the Montgomery County PD for taking care of this clown. Alas, we'll now get to listen to him rant in court, too.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, if we don't have more disgusting babies, just how will we get people enough to endure the day to day tedium of a meaningless, insignificant existence?

      Why, we simply must continue needlessly forcing sentient beings to exist! To the fuckening fields, comrades! We have poppin' wild yeasties to thrust!

    2. Re:But... by machxor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Alas, we'll now get to listen to him rant in court, too.

      Only if your Ghost Lab option comes true... Oh and the court decides to start trying ghosts...

      The gunman, identified as James Lee, was killed by police following four hours of negotiations but the hostages are all safe, said Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger.

    3. Re:But... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The gunman, identified as James Lee, was killed by police

      Excellent. As a resident of the county in question, I'm thrilled to not have to pay for trying and jailing that jackass.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, let's hear it for the Montgomery County PD for taking care of this clown. Alas, we'll now get to listen to him rant in court, too.

      Exactly. They need to work on their aim. :P

    5. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we won't. He's kinda dead.

    6. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, let's hear it for the Montgomery County PD for taking care of this clown. Alas, we'll now get to listen to him rant in court, too.

      Umm... they killed him, so I don't think you need to worry about the "rant in court" bit, unless there is something to that ghost hunting stuff.

  22. THAT's the Deadliest catch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget about the Cornelia Marie captain, this is better than the Alaskan crab seasons! Let's see who can catch the most bullets!

  23. eco-terrorism by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    I'm sure he would love to set off a few nukes to "save" the planet from humanity. Irony knows no bounds with zealots.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  24. Of only it was for a good cause by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Like making Discovery Channel an interesting channel to watch again. I am not interested in (*City) Ink or in a cake-baking italian. No more seasons of crab/lobster/nessie fishing. I want the interesting stuff back again, learning things I wouldn't have learned otherwise. I will tolerate endless Rex Hunt reruns if this would be the case.

    But no, mister hostage taker has some sort of higher goal here. Typical.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:Of only it was for a good cause by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Hey, just a couple days ago I saw The Last Day of the Dinosaurs followed immediately by Bad Universe talking about actually realistic methods of averting catastrophic meteor impacts. Both were awesome.

      There's a lot of crap on Discover these days, but they still have interesting shows.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Of only it was for a good cause by houghi · · Score: 1

      Like making Discovery Channel an interesting channel to watch again.

      I am doing that at this moment and on Discovery Flanders they are currently showing "Surviving Disaster: Mall Shooting". I kid you not.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Of only it was for a good cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But no, mister hostage taker has some sort of higher goal here. Typical.

      Shit, I'd have settled for an hour a week of Kari Byron naked. Or at least taking all that "ghost hunters" or "s00per s33kr1ts of teh bible" shit off the air. 57 channels and nothing on - it's funny how, some 20+ years after the introduction of cable/pay TV, the only science shows worth watching are still on PBS. (Hell, even when Nova goes "Superweapons", it's a lot more interesting than when Discovery does it :)

  25. Busted... by bugs2squash · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jamie Heinemann shot the perp with a potato cannon and knocked him into a tank full of sharks.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:Busted... by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... and Mike Rowe cleaned up the mess left behind.

    2. Re:Busted... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Jamie Heinemann shot the perp with a potato cannon and knocked him into a tank full of sharks.

      Nah, that's a myth.

    3. Re:Busted... by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jamie Heinemann shot the perp with a potato cannon and knocked him into a tank full of sharks.

      ... and Mike Rowe cleaned up the mess left behind.

      I love potatoes,
      I love to kick some ass,
      I love the SWAT teams,
      Who aim for center mass!

      ~Boom-de-headshot, boom-de-headshot, boom-de-headshot, boom-de-headshot~

    4. Re:Busted... by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

      But that wasn't explosive enough. Let's use Buster to see what would have happened if the perp was wearing 50 pounds of unstable TNT!

    5. Re:Busted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's so sad. The mentally ill deserve our pity and our help with treatment, not to be mocked. Congratulations, you've made light of a horrifying situation and the death of someone who probably didn't understand the consequences of his actions

    6. Re:Busted... by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Hey, you contradicted yourself! Center mass -- headshot? Man, I expect more from you Lil' Wayne.

      http://www.cracked.com/article_18662_im-starting-to-doubt-lil-waynes-research-skills-....html

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    7. Re:Busted... by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      I would have bought the whole Mythbusters Bluray box set just to see that! (Not that I wouldn't enjoy the box set anyway.)

  26. A true bipartisan by homer_s · · Score: 1

    Well, at least you can't accuse him of being left or right wing:

    people to accept 'Malthus-Darwin science,'
    don't know what he meant by the 'Darwin' part, but the Malthus part will get him a job in any university

    'ALL immigration pollution.'
    and this qualifies him to run for governor in any southern state

    1. Re:A true bipartisan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But think about it -- that sort of utterly lame arguments, which are nevertheless salient enough to draw inflamed replies rather than be ignored, drawn from multiple positions to inflame as wide an audience as possible, and all expressed with an assumed idiocy that belies the craft required to select them...

      Gentlemen, I believe we're finally seeing something nerdier than LARP -- this man's clearly a LAUT (that's live action usenet troll, for you noobs). Only the insanely hardcore durst take their trolls where mod-baiting gets you shot.

      tl;dr version: Troll invades Discovery Channel; goatse at 11.

  27. Did they by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

    Did they shoot him with a shark-mounted laser?

    We need to keep up the meme...

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  28. The Squirrels by mike260 · · Score: 1

    From his manifesto:

    Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.

    We must never forget the Squirrels.

    1. Re:The Squirrels by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "We must never forget the Squirrels."

      Ultimately, humans are no more important than anything else on the planet. If nothing existed, nothing would care. Nothing can't care about anything, and the universe does not rely on our existence or the existence of anything else. It's this kind of false sense of superiority that create the problems we have today.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:The Squirrels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Squirrels have too good a Public Relations department.

    3. Re:The Squirrels by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      "Froggies"?!? You mean, like Kermit?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:The Squirrels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, he means the French. They're always surrendering. We gotta go save them.

    5. Re:The Squirrels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A squirrel is just a rat in a tux.

  29. That's right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have officially evolved to a time when manifestos regarding hostage situations not only advocate for furry forest creatures, but also contain the acronym "wtf" and employ copious use of the caps lock key. What has our civilization come to?
    Also, I thought that Ishmael was *against* forcing people to follow your beliefs because you think they're right, but maybe that's just me...
    And finally, I'm pretty sure that the word "oil" isn't a proper noun.

  30. Re: by melikamp · · Score: 1

    But the work is underway to produce babes, right?

  31. Good by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    The man has now been shot by police, and the hostages have been freed.

    Good just in time for Lock N Load with R. Lee Ermey

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    1. Re:Good by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      And perhaps R. Lee could repeat his therapist role from the Geico commercials with him. I'd pay to see that!

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  32. ROI by strikeleader · · Score: 0

    I wonder how much money that bullet saved the taxpayers.

  33. His concerns are valid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    Overpopulation, indoctrination, complete lack of concern for other species or the environment, etc. These problems are very apparent and I can't see how some people don't realize this. They just keep having more babies, not questioning the government or authority, and trashing the environment without a care in the world. It makes me sick. I applaud this man for expressing his concerns in the very least.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    1. Re:His concerns are valid by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Overpopulation is a silly concern. The only reason why people starve is because of corrupt governments, otherwise the industrialized countries could easily, easily feed the poorer nations. When Africa and parts of Asia turn industrialized, it becomes apparent that children are more of a hindrance than a help, think about it, while its pretty nice to have 5 extra hands helping out on your tiny farm, it becomes 5 hungry mouths to feed when you become industrialized, 5 large college tuition bills, more clothing, etc.

      Not to mention that if space ever becomes an issue people will simply have fewer kids to save themselves space in their house/apartment.

      There are legitimate things to be worried about, but overpopulation isn't one of them.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:His concerns are valid by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but for slightly different reasons. People are a resource, not a burden. It's only when you mis-manage that resource that they appear to be a burden.

      But we have plenty of food for the world. We have so much, we grow food to feed our food just so it tastes slightly better.

    3. Re:His concerns are valid by xtal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Talking about limiting population growth is politically untouchable because of religion.

      Everyone knows what the problem is. Nobody will deal with it.

      Nature fixes overpopulation through starvation. We are in equilibrium with the cheap energy.

      If the cheap energy ends, ultimately nature will fix things - no problem.

      Mother nature is a real bitch when she's angry..

      --
      ..don't panic
    4. Re:His concerns are valid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "Overpopulation is a silly concern. The only reason why people starve is because of corrupt governments, otherwise the industrialized countries could easily, easily feed the poorer nations. When Africa and parts of Asia turn industrialized, it becomes apparent that children are more of a hindrance than a help, think about it, while its pretty nice to have 5 extra hands helping out on your tiny farm, it becomes 5 hungry mouths to feed when you become industrialized, 5 large college tuition bills, more clothing, etc."

      What? You're saying that if humanity continues to grow at an unbelievable rate that it won't cause problems down the road? While people do starve because of greed and corruption, overpopulation is a legitimate issue.

      "Not to mention that if space ever becomes an issue people will simply have fewer kids to save themselves space in their house/apartment."

      By then it will be far too late. It will exhaust the planet of its resources much faster than it would have otherwise. Conceiving children every five minutes *will* lead to even more problems down the road and should be *highly* discouraged.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    5. Re:His concerns are valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Space isn't the problem per se. The photosynthetic limit is more the issue. It takes many hectares of land to feed each human. It is not a question of having enough room for people themselves, but rather having enough of all the inputs it takes to keep a human being alive. We cannot eat stones or air, and yet plants are able to convert minerals and gasses into carbohydrates, proteins, and fats that we can. There is vast debate on just what the sustainable human population is. I have seen serious attempts by scientists to estimate and the uncertainty is huge. I have seen estimates from scientists with decent reputations ranging from 500 million to 20 billion. But no one disagrees that a maximum exists.

      There is also no doubt that many problems would be greatly simplified if the human population were, say, cut in half.

      My problem is not with that core idea. It is with the people who would impose it. But I think voluntary population reduction (I've had a vasectomy and have no kids) is a very good thing.

      One way or another, the human population will arrive at a stable, supportable level. But will it do it with or without terrible suffering?

      And all of that said, it is pretty clear this person was not sane. The list of "important animals" in particular almost seems like a joke. I know of no test to empirically asses the relative "need" the Earth has for humans, "froggies," or squirrels.

    6. Re:His concerns are valid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "People are a resource, not a burden."

      That's odd, because most of what they do is consume.

      "It's only when you mis-manage that resource that they appear to be a burden."

      Resources are *not* infinite, and continuing to allow humanity to grow at such a frightful rate is simply irresponsible to the highest degree possible.

      "But we have plenty of food for the world. We have so much, we grow food to feed our food just so it tastes slightly better."

      Right now, perhaps. However, allowing humanity to grow at such a dangerous rate will eventually exhaust the planets resources far faster than we would have managed to do otherwise.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    7. Re:His concerns are valid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "I know of no test to empirically asses the relative "need" the Earth has for humans, "froggies," or squirrels."

      At least you mentioned humans in that list, too. Ultimately, nothing has a purpose, but that doesn't mean that we should allow such animals to go into extinction or mistreat them. For such a 'civil' and 'moral' society, we sure seem pretty evil, even the ones that claim to be innocent.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    8. Re:His concerns are valid by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, people -won't- keep having kids to infinity. Things change, environments change. Think about it for a second, chances are your grandparents had a lot more siblings than your parents who had a lot more siblings than you. When societies become technically advanced there is no need, no desire to keep having kids left and right, there simply isn't. And societies will become technically advanced. How many laborers do you need in a field when you have a combine, planter and tractor? Very, very little. Yes, its still time consuming for a farmer, but a single person or two can now do the work it took 20 people to do a hundred and fifty years ago.

      In an agrarian society with little industry and little human development, kids are great to have. They can help around the house, go milk cows, help plow, help sow seeds, etc. When we get to 21st century human development kids are a luxury, no longer do you need 5 kids to go out and milk cows, if you have a farm a single person can be more productive than 5 kids were 150 years ago and for everyone else you can just run to the store. Etc.

      Saying that populations will keep growing to infinity is as silly as saying typewriters sales will hold constant despite many businesses switching to PCs already, yeah, there are some countries that will remain with little human development but they will keep getting better as time goes on...

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    9. Re:His concerns are valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SHHH! Don't say this here! You're giving all the lunkheads a big spoiler for what's ahead in 20 years!!! For gawdsake keep your yap shut, let THEM starve to death when the energy markets collapse!!

    10. Re:His concerns are valid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "The thing is, people -won't- keep having kids to infinity. Things change, environments change."

      I'm saying that we should worry about the future before it's too late to change it and more people suffer than would have otherwise.

      "When societies become technically advanced there is no need, no desire to keep having kids left and right, there simply isn't"

      It doesn't mean the problem should be ignored, as ignoring it would actually cause problems. Warning people about potential future problems is a good thing.

      "In an agrarian society with little industry and little human development, kids are great to have. They can help around the house, go milk cows, help plow, help sow seeds, etc. When we get to 21st century human development kids are a luxury, no longer do you need 5 kids to go out and milk cows, if you have a farm a single person can be more productive than 5 kids were 150 years ago and for everyone else you can just run to the store. Etc."

      Good point. However, again, the warnings shouldn't simply fade into non-existence. It's highly irresponsible and dangerous to think of the environment and the planet as something big with a bunch of resources made specifically for us that we'll never run out of.

      "Saying that populations will keep growing to infinity is as silly as saying typewriters sales will hold constant despite many businesses switching to PCs already, yeah, there are some countries that will remain with little human development but they will keep getting better as time goes on..."

      I didn't say they would. I just said that it should be a concern. Infinity? That's likely not even possible. A very large population will have horrible results. Hopefully the entire world will become more technologically advanced and this won't ever be a problem. Hopefully the people don't completely lose their rights by then, though.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    11. Re:His concerns are valid by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, most of them are just a burden. People need education and upbringing to turn them into resources, otherwise they're only good for dumb manual labor which can be replaced by automation (and a lot of them are actually a big negative, as they consume resources and cause problems, called "crime"). Turning people into productive resources requires a very large investment of time and energy.

      And no, we don't have plenty of food. Fresh water is dwindling, oil is dwindling (needed as fertilizer), desertification is increasing, arable land is decreasing (for some strange reason, most people want to live in places where food grows well, so farms are constantly being turned into subdivisions). Wild spaces like the Amazon are disappearing.

      We need to stop the population explosion until we have the technology to build giant space habitats and terraform other worlds. When we can do that, then we can have lots of kids to fill up all that space.

    12. Re:His concerns are valid by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I applaud this man for doing his part to eliminate the surplus population by dying.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    13. Re:His concerns are valid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 0, Troll

      Now, if only the people who think it's fine to abuse the environment and its inhabitants for profit would die as well...

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    14. Re:His concerns are valid by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Right... then where would you get the gas to drive to work, or the electricity to power your computer?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    15. Re:His concerns are valid by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      When Africa and parts of Asia turn industrialized, it becomes apparent that children are more of a hindrance than a help. Look at all that industrialization has done to limit the size of Mormon and Catholic families here in the industrialized world!

      Also, people starve not because of any inherent limits on the Earth's ability to produce food, but because food production, preservation, and distribution is very expensive in terms of energy requirements.

      Lastly, fly across the US sometime. 90% of the population lives within 70 miles of one of the 2 coasts. In between there is a whole lot of empty. Space itself will never become a limiting factor to population. Clean water and food supplies become scarce long before space does. The Earth is 3 dimensional; all large cities already achieve a much greater density simply be going vertical, and we haven't even begun to explore the possibility of building down into the Earth as well as up into the sky.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    16. Re:His concerns are valid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      We could always replace them it something more efficient, and someone who actually cares.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    17. Re:His concerns are valid by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Somebody who cares more about protecting the environment than about making profits for shareholders would be in violation of their fiduciary responsibility to the company's shareholders, and would quickly be removed from their job by the Board of Directors. Of course, this only applies to publicly held companies, so if you can find a privately held company or government operation to supply you with all of your energy needs, you're home free. Good luck with that.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    18. Re:His concerns are valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already do "feed the poorer nations". Unfortunately, when you have two convoys of trucks, one to deliver food and one just after to pick the food up again so it can be sold on the black market, people still go hungry. When going hungry is a political weapon to be used against people belonging to the wrong tribe people starve.

      Mugabe turned Zimbabwe from the breadbasket of Africa into the basketcase of Africa.

    19. Re:His concerns are valid by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Mother nature is a real bitch when she's angry..

      Nature really hates it when people anthropomorphize it.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    20. Re:His concerns are valid by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      The cheap energy, aka coal, will upset Mother Nature well before it ends.

  34. When I don't like a show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I don't like a show, I generally just change the channel. I guess I'm funny that way.

    In fact, I believe I speak for the majority when I say that... unless of course the majority of you are stroking your remotes, plotting revenge.

  35. About the Ugly by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    A funny thing about the Ugly. Many women I've talked too don't view another man as "ugly" in the same way men look at each other. It sounds strange, but it's not so much. What matters to women is that men (any man really) are confident, kind, and authoritative at the same time (charisma). It's a sign of being able to raise and care for children properly. Looks OTOH are nice to have, but low on the priority list of what women want in a man. Perhaps that's why the human race continues to have "ugly" people.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:About the Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen plenty of confident douchebags get shot down repeatedly

    2. Re:About the Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Descent

      Genghis Khan is a reason there is "ugly" people. You should realize that sometimes women don't have a choice?

    3. Re:About the Ugly by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      you are only half right. the part you left out is what age the woman is at.

      a colleage told this to me many years ago. I never forgot it:

      "in their 20's, women want a handsome man. but in their 30's and onward, they want a 'provider' who can give them a good standard of living. restated, younger women want men as sex symbols but as they get older, they tend to want success symbols instead."

      hth

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:About the Ugly by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      I've seen plenty of confident douchebags get shot down repeatedly

      I think you've got a fine premise for a TV show here. Perhaps on Discovery or TLC?

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    5. Re:About the Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either way, when a hot woman is with an ugly guy, while he's providing for her and the kids, she'll likely be humping a hot guy on the side.

      It works the other way around, too. That's why some hot guys marry ugly women - they can play the field and the wives won't fuss too much because they know they have limited options.

      We all suck. Or maybe I'm just having a bad day...

      - T

  36. Ambitious guy by cronius · · Score: 1

    When Norway gained parliamentary system in 1884, the Norwegian prime minister uttered some (now very famous) words: "All makt i denne sal," literally: "All power [lies] within this hall." The US equivalent seems to be ... at the discovery channel?

    --
    Life is Reality
  37. Look out Kate & The Duggars by drumcat · · Score: 1

    I am guessing the guy would have had his head asplode had he been to China or India... it would have saved us the trouble. And yes, valid concerns, but a TERRIBLE way going about showing it.

  38. dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should have complained about their decline into the depths of reality TV. grr

    1. Re:dammit by equex · · Score: 1

      Now they need to ban reality TV. Please.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
  39. food supplies could indeed grow exponentially by flaming+error · · Score: 1

    ...for a while. There are a finite number of atoms on earth, and exponential functions have a nasty habit of approaching infinity.

  40. Oh boy. by jpapon · · Score: 1
    Not only was he anti-civilization, but he was also pro-immigration reform, and anti-anchor babies.

    Not only that, but he DEMANDED that the Discovery Channel

    Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy.

    Not to be nitpicky, but I think if the Discovery channel could solve those problems, they would.

    --
    -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    1. Re:Oh boy. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not to be nitpicky, but I think if the Discovery channel could solve those problems, they would.

      I'm not so sure. Seems to me like they'd rather watch meatheads argue about how to build a crappy motorcycle.

    2. Re:Oh boy. by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Seems to me like they'd rather watch meatheads argue about how to build a crappy motorcycle.

      I'd say that probably constitutes proof that they don't have the ability to solve complex global problems.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    3. Re:Oh boy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be nitpicky, but I think if the Discovery channel could solve those problems, they would.

      Shit, I'd have settled for an episode of Mythbusters consisting of nothing more than Kari Byron doing jumping jacks in the nude.

  41. You first... by Anomalyx · · Score: 0

    Personally, I think that the people who believe the population needs to be controlled should be the first to go. At the moment, there is no population problem. If it's crowded where you live, then move! There's plenty of space. Ever driven across Texas? Plenty of space there... nothing but space there....

    --
    No, there is no "-1 I'LL NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG!!!" mod.
    1. Re:You first... by Darkness404 · · Score: 0

      Exactly, I mean, have half these people ever been off of the coasts in their life? Ever driven through Kansas? The Dakotas? Wyoming?

      The idea that we are suddenly running out of space is laughable at best.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:You first... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Ah, so we should wait until it becomes a huge problem before we do anything about it? That sounds about right for humans. I'm sure we'll also wait until most of the forests have been cut down and we've crippled the environment with our pollution and trash before anything is done about that, too. People that express their concerns about the future are some of the least selfish people in existence, as they're thinking about beings other than themselves.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:You first... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The population WILL be controlled by Evolutionary mechanisms such as Famine, War, Pestilence, and Death happening as dictated by circumstance.

      We don't all need to survive, and we are groomed by Evolution to be violently competitive for survival. I'd rather gorge on resources and kill the competition if required. I don't really care about the survival of those outside my preferred sort of societies, nor do I expect them to care about me.
      That, if nature be the reference, would be profoundly un-natural.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:You first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that we are suddenly running out of space is laughable at best.

      So is your strawman about overpopulation concerns having anything to do with "running out of space".

    5. Re:You first... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      The idea that we are suddenly running out of space is laughable at best.

      What will it matter if we have a bunch of free space if we've used up all our resources? Or are all these non-renewable resources infinite in the strawman universe?

    6. Re:You first... by tomz16 · · Score: 1

      The idea that we are suddenly running out of space is laughable at best.

      Your problem seems to be that you don't understand exponential growth. . .

    7. Re:You first... by Anomalyx · · Score: 1

      Concerned about future overpopulation then? According to this popular belief, humanity is just harming the environment. The less humans, the better. All you do is pollute and consume. You can't ethically get rid of anybody else, so there's really only one person you can get rid of.... so save the future! Think of the children!

      And I think somebody mistook "-1 Overrated" for "-1 You're right but it's up to everybody else but me to fix it"

      --
      No, there is no "-1 I'LL NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG!!!" mod.
    8. Re:You first... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 0

      "You can't ethically get rid of anybody else"

      Not by your ethics, anyway. But, you can warn people about the dangers of overpopulation.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  42. Solution is simple by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    You too have to right to speak with tinfoil hat mode so you can say _THEY_ brainwashed the guy/programmed the guy to change public opinion. I mean, who knows?

  43. James Lee killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NBC4 is reporting the armed man James Lee has been killed and all hostages freed unharmed. I (barely) drove by there at 2pm and nearly all of downtown Silver Spring was closed to vehicular traffic. Things are still a mess down there.

  44. He blocks what he seeks by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    From his rant "There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore."

    It seems like if you are all about wiping out humans weapons of mass destruction is certainly what you seek.

    It would sure be a lot faster than broadcasting Discovery channels shows on home sterilization (which he also wanted) which seem unlikely to find a huge uptake.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:He blocks what he seeks by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "It seems like if you are all about wiping out humans weapons of mass destruction is certainly what you seek."

      Is that what he said? I'm pretty sure he was just advocating the improvement of society. Overpopulation, mass conformity, governmental corruption, and the mistreatment of the environment and its inhabitants (humans included) are actually problems. This won't change anything, but neither will doing nothing. Far too many people ignore obvious problems such as these, and call everyone who cares about the environment and its inhabitants "extremists" and other such things.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:He blocks what he seeks by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      No, his words were pretty clear: No farming, no reproduction, no society. He demanded that the Discovery Channel somehow talk all of humanity into dying off.

      The weird thing is that unlike most nutjobs he had some valid points. However, he then took them and ran straight off towards the most extreme conclusion he could find.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  45. Gee, I dunno guys... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Gee, I dunno guys... I'm a big fan of the discovery channel. Maybe we should give it a shot.

  46. MALTHUS. WAS. WRONG. by Shihar · · Score: 0

    I really hope that if one of my dooms day predictions is shown to be absolutely and completely wrong by a few hundred years worth of data, people still cite me like I contributed something to human knowledge. Whenever people cite Malthus, I have to really wonder if they realize that we talk about Malthus because the dude was wrong, NOT because he developed a new and working theory to predict the future. Food production kept up with population growth and has continued to consistently for hundreds of years. The only time people start to starve is when the politics of the area buggers it up. Humans kick ass at making food... seriously, we are not going to starve. We could turn around and feed a population five times the current one by simply using land for crops that we don't already use and going vegan... toss in a little technology to that magic and we could feed more.

    Humans hate starving and we really put our minds to it to prevent it from happening. There are lots of things to worry about in the future. Food isn't one of them.

    Repeat after me.

    MALTHUS. WAS. WRONG. He was wrong when he made his prediction. He was wrong a few hundred years after his prediction failed to come true. He will continue to be wrong into the future. If humans start starving world wide, it will because an asteroid blocked out the sun, we had a nuclear war, or we unleashed a genetically engineered crop blight. It wont be because the population simply out stripped supply in food. Stop citing that dumb asshole like he made a worthy prediction.

  47. The crackpot's web site by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.savetheplanetprotest.com/
    Domain name: SAVETHEPLANETPROTEST.COM

    Administrative Contact:
    Lee, James savetheplanetprotest.com@freeprivateregistration.com
    P.O. Box 81024
    Burnaby, BC V5H 4K2
    CA
    852-3594-1708
    Technical Contact:
    Hostmaster, Domain hostmaster@doteasy.com
    Suite 210 - 3602 Gilmore Way
    Burnaby, BC V5G 4W9
    CA
    (604) 434-4307 Fax: (604) 608-6832

    Registrar of Record: In2net Network Inc.
    Record last updated on 03-Jan-2010.
    Record expires on 07-Jan-2011.
    Record created on 07-Jan-2008.

    Domain servers in listed order:
    DNS4.DOTEASY.COM 65.61.199.12
    DNS3.DOTEASY.COM 65.61.198.12

    Domain status: clientTransferProhibited
    clientUpdateProhibited

    The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:
    1. The Discovery Channel and it's affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael" pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other's inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

    2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

    3. All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore. Instead, talk about ways to disassemble civilization and concentrate the message in finding SOLUTIONS to solving global military mechanized conflict. Again, solutions solutions instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons. Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase. World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!

    4. Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn't, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??

    5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and p

    1. Re:The crackpot's web site by audubon · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's no Kaczynski.

    2. Re:The crackpot's web site by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      At least he was truly nuts. He didn't act on anyone's behalf, and only a very few would agree with him. He was a martyr only to his own broken mind.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    3. Re:The crackpot's web site by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Administrative Contact:
                      Lee, James savetheplanetprotest.com@freeprivateregistration.com
                      P.O. Box 81024
                      Burnaby, BC V5H 4K2
                      CA

      Ha! He's Canadian! Fucking immigrants, doing the insane acts of terror that Americans should be doing. Stop stealing our jobs!

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:The crackpot's web site by Pojut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See, that's the thing though...his base intentions are actually quite noble; it's the completely bassackwards way he went about trying to accomplish his goals (as well as how he attempted to present his arguments) that are crazy.

    5. Re:The crackpot's web site by ZigiSamblak · · Score: 1

      What does that remind me of?

      Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements...
      ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase.


      Q: Why is everyone so obsessed about ninjas?
      A: Ninjas are the ultimate paradox. On the one hand they don't give a crap, but on the other hand, ninjas are very careful and precise.

      The whole thing sounds like somebody took the whole ultimate power thing a little too seriously.

    6. Re:The crackpot's web site by KarmaticStylee · · Score: 1

      "and, of course, the Squirrels."

    7. Re:The crackpot's web site by thecatt · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. The things that Mr. Lee was upset about are very real, serious problems. And he had some very good ideas about how to solve them. The problem was he chose a very poor way to express himself.

    8. Re:The crackpot's web site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and, of course, the Squirrels.

      Are you sure this isn't Milton Waddams manifesto, from Office Space?

  48. Discovery Geeks! by jIyajbe · · Score: 1
    "Friends, I am in work closet with workers here. There is a shooter here at Discovery. I am ok," read a text from one Discovery employee.

    "The police are trying to get the situation under control!INSANE!" read an email to ABCNews.

    So, the employees are trapped inside the building with a lunatic with a gun, and with a bomb strapped to his chest; he has taken hostages, and the building is surrounded by SWAT teams. In the midst of this, these employees are sending email, and texting!

    For some reason, this makes me very happy.

    --
    "Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
    1. Re:Discovery Geeks! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      In the midst of this, these employees are sending email, and texting!

      well, at least they weren't *sexting* !

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Discovery Geeks! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      "Friends, I am in work closet with workers here

      In the midst of this, these employees are sending email, and texting!

      well, at least they weren't *sexting* !

      Especially not if they are in the closet, with co-workers no less.

  49. Voluntary Human Extinction Movement by men0s · · Score: 1

    I wonder if he had ever heard - or was a follower - of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

    1. Re:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well given that the police made him extinct, I think we should make him an honorary posthumour card-carrying member. You know, along with his Darwin award. I think he'd be proud. At least until next week when, looking up from hell, he notices that everybody's forgotten about him. Although it does seem poetic. I mean you don't need fire or pain or anything. I bet he'll be in eternal torment for getting himself killed and being forgotten so quickly.

    2. Re:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement by mykos · · Score: 1

      That group's numbers dwindle every year

  50. A kernal of sense in an insane mind by hellfire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What sucks about this is this guy has got a point, but that's lost because his actions are plain nuts and will drown out most mainstream discussion. But the point is that we are at a point where we are deeply concerned with climate change and resources on this planet, and people think that it's not at all irresponsible to have 19 children, and then the media encourages it!

    China may be run by dictatorial fuckwads, but they have a point with their laws on having children. The entire society can't sustain it's population now, so adding another billion hungry mouths over 20 years is just going to fuck things up even more. With the scientific information I've been seeing as of late with global warming, potable water, oil, etc, I can actually envision near future where first world countries start considering birth limits. I understand the personal liberties some people feel they have a right to, but there comes a time when your insistence on having more children affects me and my family. If just you, me, and your spouse left on the planet, and there is only enough food to feed 3 people, and you and your spouse go and have a child without asking me, someone is going to have to give up food. You just impinged on me and my ability to stay alive by having a child. This is not a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, this is good old fashioned primitive instinct of I want to live.

    This guy might be an insane fuckwad, but he has a point. We should not be glorifying having 19 children when every new child strains our resources. Sure, we need to have babies to keep the species alive, but without resources to sustain them, there will be a huge population crash.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by huckamania · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Europe doesn't need growth limits. At their current rate of replacement, there won't be many Europeans left in this world in a few generations.

      The US is not over-populated. The world is a different question and one that many 'experts' have been very, very wrong about many, many times.

    2. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      With the scientific information I've been seeing as of late with global warming, potable water, oil, etc, I can actually envision near future where first world countries start considering birth limits. I understand the personal liberties some people feel they have a right to, but there comes a time when your insistence on having more children affects me and my family.

      This isn't necessarily true. The only reason it's true now is because the government subsidizes having children, and with social programs helps keep them alive.

      We could always go back to the way things were done in the Middle Ages, because back then, a person's insistence on having lots of children only affected that family. If the family didn't have enough food to go around, some (or all) of them would starve. There were no food stamps back then, and only a little bit of charity.

      But today, the government basically forces people with more resources to give some of those resources to families that have less, even if those families have tons of children they can't take care of themselves because they refused to use birth control and refused to abstain from sex. What we're now seeing in the USA is that a large portion of the children here are impoverished and hungry, even though there's plenty of food. This is because the middle (and upper) classes, who have plenty of money for food (even if they lose a job, they have savings), choose not to have many children, and are able to sustain themselves just fine, but the lower classes, including many illegal immigrants, choose to have tons of children even when they're broke and unemployed, thinking the government will help them (which it does--food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing, free medical care at ERs, etc.). These kids grow up with no education because of bad parenting, and at best become just like their parents (living off social programs and having tons more kids), or at worst become gang members and criminals and cause even more problems for society. At some point, something's going to break. A large part of the population is already hopping mad about all the social programs which do nothing but breed more social problems. Obviously, one guy went over the edge....

      Another interesting fact is that, even with all the starving children in America, there's tons of couples who want to adopt children because they're infertile, and end up either going without, or traveling to 3rd-world countries to bring babies back home. So there's no reason for poor people in America to struggle with their extra children; they could easily put them up for adoption (esp. if they're still infants, not if they're 15 and in a gang!), but the poor people again refuse to ever do that. Usually, the people who give up their children for adoption are middle class or higher, and accidentally got pregnant and realize they weren't in a position to be a good parent, and decided to have the child and give it to a good couple to raise rather than abort it. The poor people almost never think about whether they're capable of being "good parents".

    3. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by PitaBred · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Only because of US inventions and development of new higher-yield crops. And now we're encouraging ignorance and religion over education and curiosity, so that's not gonna be a viable option this next time.

    4. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can actually envision near future where first world countries start considering birth limits.

      Birth limits seem a bit extreme, but I can see us rolling back some of the things we do to encourage people to have children.

      We don't have to give tax deductions for dependents. We don't have to ensure that mothers can take paid maternity leave without any consequences at work. We don't have to give welfare recipients more if they've got children.

      There's a ton of programs/laws that we've setup over the years to make it easier for people to breed. Ending those kinds of programs would probably be enough to decrease birth rates in developed countries. It would disproportionately affect the poor, but poverty correlates highly with high birth rates, so maybe that should be the target demographic.

    5. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "What sucks about this is this guy has got a point..."

      What, that the earth's human population is supposedly unsustainable, or humans are mucking up the planet, that rubbish? Here's the thing, weather or not you subscribe to such views, its definitely NOT up to such wackos to make such decisions. This guy is a perfect illustration of why western civilization doesn't allow theocracies; its a little difficult to swallow what God has to say about things when he's only talking to "His" (supposed) mouthpiece, or a small group, of "holy" men. Or if your perfectly ok with letting some crazy assh*les tell you that God has another plan for you and your children, hey, lets all party like its 1999, because it will be if these assh*les have their way.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    6. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by anomaly256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eat the father, then the child, then take the mother as your own spouse (or if you're female, eat the mother and take the father).. Problem solved. Nature is satisfied.

    7. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by bonch · · Score: 1

      You're saying a guy who refers to children as "garbage" and places squirrels above humans (read his manifesto) has a point.

      Who thinks it's responsible to have 19 children? Everybody mocked that couple. And who cares if they do have 19 children? It's called free will. If the government can restrict how many children you can have, then it can also do things like restrict who you marry--bye bye, gay marriage. See how easy it is to have unintended consequences that negatively affect your side's beliefs? You may think think climate change is something to be "deeply worried" about, but it's actually a controversial and debatable topic with contradictory evidence.

      Your entire post was like a justification of shitty, fascist mindsets. "He's an insane fuckwad, BUT...China may be run by dictatorial fuckwads, BUT..." No, he had no good points. Ranting about how you hate humans and consider them garbage is not a good point.

    8. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Peach+Rings · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing is, you can't just refuse to give a hungry child food and rant for 5 paragraphs about politics and the middle ages. These children can't help their parents' stupidity and need to be helped. I'm not sure what the solution is though because you're right, they keep pumping out babies and we keep feeding them. There has to be a penalty for the mother to stop the cycle. Forced abortions are a touchy issue what with China but if you're not willfully breaking the law by having more kids then you have nothing to worry about.

      A lot of the problem is due to pervasive Catholicism in latin america. Otherwise good people who work hard think that it's a sin to use birth control, and their children suffer.

    9. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      I agree with what you say, but I doubt first world countries would start putting birth limits. If anything, right now they're ENCOURAGING couples to have kids because their population is becoming too old and they have no new people to support it. Just look at Japan and some countries in Europe. They all have this problem. The only ones overpopulating are the less "educated" countries. Seems like education = birth control.

    10. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But today, the government basically forces people with more resources to give some of those resources to families that have less"

      What does it mean? Why do some people 'have' more resources? Are they stronger? Do they plow larger fields? Or maybe they have better-bred cows?

      Some people have more resources because they live in a fucking society, which is supported by people with less resources. So stop whining and go to live on an uninhabited island. Where no-one will take away your precious resources.

    11. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      This is not a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, this is good old fashioned primitive instinct of I want to live.

      Whoa, back up. We're a long way from a survival situation where you eat your friends' baby to stay alive. We're still living in (comparatively) good times. They're not impinging on your ability to stay alive, they're maybe impinging on your ability to have expensive wine or run your AC super cold all the time. Those effects are of course unacceptable if they run indefinitely but you should be careful not to insinuate culling the herd to stay alive. We're still in a society, we're not savages.

    12. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe doesn't need growth limits. At their current rate of replacement, there won't be many Europeans left in this world in a few generations.

      Ditto for China as well (surprisingly). While they certainly have a lot of people, they'll be huge social issues with a small(-ish) number of workers trying to keep up the social network for the retirees (just like in the West with the baby boomers).

      India on the other hand has a lot of young, so if you think they're growing quickly now, wait another 10-15 years when a whole bunch more people enter the work force there.

    13. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by M.+Kristopeit · · Score: 2, Insightful
      including the original poster... is 19 kids in 1 generation really that much worse than 4 kids each over 5 generations at earlier and earlier ages of reproduction?

      if i grew up with 18 brothers and sisters, the last thing i would want for my children would probably be a similar environment... those 19 kids and counting all might choose to not have ANY children.

    14. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I was just pointing out one way that you can deal with the problem without having an overbearing government forcing people to be sterilized. Yeah, it sucks for the kids, but many people would probably figure out pretty quickly that if no one's going to help them with their starving children, they better not have any more.

      As for Catholicism, it's interesting that the Catholic Church never does much to feed all these extra people that they encouraged Latin Americans to have.

    15. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not saying another billion mouths to feed would be easy... but much (if not all) of it is Communism keeping those mouths hungry, not the number of people.

    16. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      It's not pure classism, society does make a substantial (and staggeringly expensive) effort to get poor people the training and resources they need to get out of that rut if they want it. Every citizen gets 13 years of concentrated attention from educators for free. Higher education is often a few thousand dollars away at public universities, and that can be covered with government loans. The point is that intelligence and skill does rise to the top, and the ones with less resources tend to be more useless workers.

    17. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it mean? Why do some people 'have' more resources? Are they stronger? Do they plow larger fields? Or maybe they have better-bred cows?

      Let's say all of the above. And then the skinny guy with small field and no cows breeds like there's no tomorrow beyond his ability to feed, and the government comes and gives him some of the bigger guy's field and cows.

      Is it more accessible to you if it's put this way way, or are you just pretending you don't understand ?

    18. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by zoom-ping · · Score: 2, Informative

      FYI: Europe is not a country. Neither are the Europeans a nation.

    19. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Troll

      You sound like a Marxist.

      What does it mean? Why do some people 'have' more resources? Are they stronger? Do they plow larger fields? Or maybe they have better-bred cows?

      No, they've benefited by having parents that taught them how to better manage their own resources, provided them with an education, used their own resources to provide them a better upbringing, etc. They learned from their parents and upbringing that they should get an education, do valuable productive work, and manage themselves well.

      Poor people didn't get that, and they raise children to be just like them: uneducated, frequently criminal, wasting their money on booze and satellite TV instead of education for their children, etc. Ever notice how many satellite dishes there are in trailer parks?

      Some people have more resources because they live in a fucking society,

      You seem to think that the poor people somehow contributed to the middle classes, and helped raise their children. They didn't, except perhaps by cleaning their toilets sometimes. The poor people aren't the ones who built society, it was the people with education who managed resources better who did.

    20. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      In case you haven't seen it already, the Idiocracy intro makes that point perfectly.

    21. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by fatphil · · Score: 1

      After seeing this:
      """
      What we're now seeing in the USA is that a large portion of the children here are impoverished and hungry, even though there's plenty of food. This is because the middle (and upper) classes, who have plenty of money for food (even if they lose a job, they have savings), choose not to have many children, and are able to sustain themselves just fine, but the lower classes, including many illegal immigrants, choose to have tons of children even when they're broke and unemployed, thinking the government will help them (which it does--food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing, free medical care at ERs, etc.). These kids grow up with no education because of bad parenting, and at best become just like their parents (living off social programs and having tons more kids), or at worst become gang members and criminals and cause even more problems for society.
      """

      Only one word springs to mind - "Idiocracy". If you've not seen it - grab a torrent of it now!

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    22. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by dangitman · · Score: 0, Troll

      Europe doesn't need growth limits. At their current rate of replacement, there won't be many Europeans left in this world in a few generations.

      So, because of immigration to Europe, Europe is going to cease to exist? That doesn't make any sense. People living in Europe are Europeans.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    23. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      The part where this happen in our modern society.

      I quite often see that the poorest people work the hardest jobs.

    24. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by jensend · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Claims that overpopulation is why we have poverty, environmental problems, etc and predictions that continued growth will lead to disaster have time and again been shown to be dead wrong, from Malthus to Ehrlich to the present day.

      Ultimately the core of the message is selfish- claiming that for some reason your present consumption patterns should be protected by preventing other people from living and that the responsibility for society's problems lies not on our unwise actions but in the fact that other people exist.

      Technology allows us to have greater freedom in our consumption patterns and our impact on the environment. Hunter-gatherers largely had little choice how much environmental impact per person they had; with modern technology (genetics, materials science, etc) we can grow enough food to feed a person within a rather small area and with a rather small ecological footprint and house a person much more efficiently than could be done three hundred years ago (think of the resources and pollution involved in heating a modern well-insulated home versus burning wood continually at multiple inefficient fireplaces in each drafty house for the majority of the year)- or we can waste more land and materials, pollute more air and water, and manufacture larger piles of trash per capita than people three hundred years ago could possibly have conceived of mankind being able to do.

      If people chose to live in a way which involved wise stewardship of resources- re-engineering cities to be walkable, using clean public transport on those occasions when it is necessary to go further, reducing demand for consumer junk which rapidly gets chucked in landfills, separating different kinds of waste materials and waste water at a household level so recycling, composting, and water treatment could be done more effectively, eating less meat, eating foods in season, etc.- and concentrated more on using and developing new technologies to achieve a more sustainable lifestyle, then the planet could very comfortably sustain at least twenty times the current world population. Urban living could, if done with this goal in mind, have only a tiny ecological impact per person. But if people choose to use technology to allow them to waste more, it could with more technology and automation reach the point where just two people on earth could be battling each other for resources and be beyond the planet's carrying capacity.

      Greed, violence, and disrespect for the planet and for others are the problems- not overpopulation. Yes, the planet couldn't sustain tens of billions of people with our present average consumption levels and average environmental impact per person- but that means we need to change our lifestyles and the way we treat the environment, not that we need to prevent others from living.

    25. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're in luck! For every nitwit with 19 children there are 20 couples (in the US/Canada/Most of Europe) with zero children! It all works out!

    26. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The world doesn't have an overpopulation problem. Some parts of the world do - Africa most of all, but also China, India, and some other parts of Asia. Europe doesn't have it (it has the opposite problem), and US and Canada - especially the latter - have plenty more room to expand, and, given the existing rates, plenty of time before it will become even a minor problem (and I suspect the birth rates will fall below sustainability point long before that, anyway).

    27. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Who thinks it's responsible to have 19 children? Everybody mocked that couple.

      No, not everyone. Look at the positive coverage in the Delta Mirror, er, I mean People. And see the comments here. A significant fraction of the population thinks it's fine to spawn as many rugrats as you can before your uterus falls out.

      If the government can restrict how many children you can have, then it can also do things like restrict who you marry--bye bye, gay marriage.

      It's possible for public policy to encourage you to have more or fewer children without an actual restriction. Right now each child you have is a tax deduction; if you got no deduction for a third child (maybe with an exception for multiple births, not fair to treat twins differently), people would have incentive to keep the baby production at a sensible level.

      The best way to bring the birthrate down, though, is to improve the economic and legal status of women throughout the world.

      You may think think climate change is something to be "deeply worried" about, but it's actually a controversial and debatable topic with contradictory evidence.

      No more so than the link between tobacco smoking and cancer. Look, the planet is warming up; human activity is at least partially responsible; and no, to answer the next argument already being advanced by the oil industry and its shills, this is not going to be beneficial to civilization. You can accept these facts, or you can disqualify yourself from serious discussions.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    28. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 2, Funny

      THAT must be why there are farmers paid to not plant crops.

    29. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Cyberax · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "You sound like a Marxist."

      No, I'm not a Marxist. I considered myself a mild socialist.

      "No, they've benefited by having parents that taught them how to better manage their own resources"

      Again, what are the 'resources' you speak of? Is it muscle power or knowledge of argiculture?

      What are you going to do if all the illegal immigrants in the fields, garbage collectors on the street and all other low-earning professions suddenly quit and move to another planet?

      Answer: a famine when you suddenly find out that your C++ skills are not useful for bread baking.

      More realistic answer: a redistribution of income, so some of the 'better' folks lose their income and are forced to fill the low-paying jobs.

      "You seem to think that the poor people somehow contributed to the middle classes, and helped raise their children. They didn't, except perhaps by cleaning their toilets sometimes. The poor people aren't the ones who built society, it was the people with education who managed resources better who did."

      Then you are an idiot.

      Significant parts of US society were formed by poor immigrants. Who later formed your precious magical middle class.

    30. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      > We should not be glorifying having 19 children when every new child strains our resources.

      That's where the wars come in... Population control!

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    31. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Peach+Rings · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you put kids in a dangerous environment without any food/money, and reject and scorn them as a society so they have to fend for themselves, they don't just die off cleanly. They form gangs.

      They would murder people, destroy neighborhoods, have no education and speak an unintelligible street slang, and be generally useless to society. Except instead of being fed with tax money, they're fed by robbing you at knifepoint and taking everything you have.

    32. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      And the most hours. That's because they have to overcome a lot of systemic barriers. If you are poor or non-white, you have to work much, much harder to climb social status in the U.S.

      --

    33. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      Your answer is far too simplistic. There are many systemic barriers in the way of climbing social status in the U.S. If one is well-off, it's likely the children will be too, not because of how hard they or their children worked but because the system is set up to make that the default outcome. That's not to trivialize the work they or their children do but the poor and non-whites need to work much, much harder to achieve the same result as a white or well-off person. That's just simple fact, demonstrated repeatedly by various societal studies.

      --

    34. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you put kids in a dangerous environment without any food/money, and reject and scorn them as a society so they have to fend for themselves, they don't just die off cleanly. They form gangs.

      So what's your solution? Give them money, so they raise more kids to be gang members?

      they're fed by robbing you at knifepoint and taking everything you have.

      Where I live, anyone trying that would simply be shot. Robberies (esp. with knives) aren't so common here in states where you don't know who's carrying a gun. But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

    35. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by morari · · Score: 1

      It's what plants crave!

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    36. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by morari · · Score: 1

      Society indeed. That's exactly the problem.

      "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." --Robert E. Howard

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    37. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not a Marxist. I considered myself a mild socialist.

      Same thing. You're just playing on words.

      Again, what are the 'resources' you speak of? Is it muscle power or knowledge of argiculture?

      All of the above. I'm a firm believer that almost everyone is capable (having the capacity) of archiving great things. It's all a matter of motivation and perseverance. Eventually, you stand out from the crowd and become more marketable than others as a human resource to society. It's society that determines what is valuable based on demand and scarcity.

      What are you going to do if all the illegal immigrants in the fields, garbage collectors on the street and all other low-earning professions suddenly quit and move to another planet?

      The outcome of that scenario is obvious. First, it would get unsanitary very quickly. Second, the demand for said services would far outstrip the supply (which would be none in this case). Ergo, salary to pay for these services would skyrocket at which point this void would be quickly filled until the salary drops again.

      You should also understand that these types of labor you mentioned can be rendered by far.. far more people than say an engineer or doctor. Because of this, it's low hanging fruit in the job market which naturally trends a lower payout. Or put it this way. If everyone was a doctor and engineer, they would all get paid minimum wage because the supply outstrips the demand.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    38. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not a Marxist. I considered myself a mild socialist.

      You sound like the more extreme type to me.

      Again, what are the 'resources' you speak of? Is it muscle power or knowledge of argiculture?

      In today's society, money and assets. Muscle power is a cheap commodity, as there's no shortage of unskilled people.

      Smart people manage their resources well: they have savings accounts, retirement accounts, they spend within their means, etc. Not-so-smart people manage their resources poorly: they have no savings, no bank accounts, they cash their paycheck at a check-cashing store for a 10% fee instead of putting it in the bank for free, they spend what little money they have on cigarettes and booze, they talk about having more children (beyond their current 6) even though they're flat broke, etc.

      What are you going to do if all the illegal immigrants in the fields, garbage collectors on the street and all other low-earning professions suddenly quit and move to another planet?

      Red herring.

      The fact is, there's more unskilled workers than there are jobs for them to do. We only need so many crop-pickers, garbage collectors, and toilet cleaners. The number of these jobs is shrinking, as technology improves and more automation is developed. I think I saw something recently about a self-cleaning toilet, for instance.

      However, unskilled workers generally have children who grow up to also be unskilled workers (if they're not criminals), so the number of unskilled workers is increasing, while the number of jobs for them decreases.

      Answer: a famine when you suddenly find out that your C++ skills are not useful for bread baking.

      Educated people generally don't have much trouble learning new skills; this is what a well-rounded education is all about. I already know how to bake bread, plus fix cars, and many other skills.

      Significant parts of US society were formed by poor immigrants. Who later formed your precious magical middle class.

      Only some of them did. The rest of them died out, because there were no social programs to keep them alive and enable them to breed. This prevented an "idiocracy" from developing; there was a mechanism in place to limit the spread of uneducated poor people. The smart ones were able to escape the poverty trap and rise into the middle class or higher, the rest died out. Now, that mechanism is gone, and poor people are able to breed uncontrollably, while the higher classes don't breed as much.

    39. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by jackbird · · Score: 1
      We don't have to ensure that mothers can take paid maternity leave without any consequences at work.

      We don't do that. Read the FMLA sometime.

    40. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by JxcelDolghmQ · · Score: 0

      Nobody said that we should swallow everything this guy said hook, line, and sinker. You sound just like the stereotypically stubborn American, or even hilljack, who will go and do something just because somebody told you that you couldn't or shouldn't do it.

      It's people like YOU who are a good part of the problem with this planet... probably even moreso than Mr. Lee.

    41. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Obviously, inertia is a big factor in anything. You see the same thing in companies: big companies can survive management blunders much better than start-ups.

      However, it's really not that hard to rise from being poor to being lower middle-class in this country. Since education is free for anyone who bothers to attend and pay attention (even if it's not the greatest education), it's not that hard to get a crappy job, and work your way up (by being reliable, something many people can't do) to a steady income. There's lots of people who have risen from poverty that way, managed their money decently, then sent their children to college; those children then become upper middle-class. It's very hard to go from poor to upper middle-class by yourself, but in a couple of generations it's not that hard. But it does require intelligence and good decisions and money management, something that most poor people are horrible at. Latin America is a great example of this: tons of dirt-poor people, with no jobs, who keep having children because their Church tells them that birth control is a sin. The smart ones realize the Church is a fraud and break out of the trap, the rest are stuck.

      It's easier if you're already well-off, though, because you have more resources to devote to your children (like to pay for college). But it's no guarantee. Just look at Paris Hilton; if her parents were middle-class, she'd be broke or dead by now. There's lots of middle-class kids who go that route, you just never hear about them. They flunk out of school, become drug addicts, and either become methheads living in trailers or die.

    42. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      It's possible for public policy to encourage you to have more or fewer children without an actual restriction. Right now each child you have is a tax deduction; if you got no deduction for a third child (maybe with an exception for multiple births, not fair to treat twins differently), people would have incentive to keep the baby production at a sensible level.

      I've never met any parent that needed an incentive to have children. Get rid of the tax deduction entirely. Then we can do away with tax levies that support public schools. Public schools are failing anyway. Let parents pay the costs of private schools. That would provide disincentives to having large families and make private schools more competitive and lower the costs. Free Market economics work....

      BTW, the Earth doesn't need us to SAVE it. Short of the human race developing a weapon that can explode planets, it will be here long after it is no longer suitable for human life. And then something else will develop and call it home. Environmentalism and population control is about saving the Humans.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    43. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A Turk living in Germany is a German in the same way that a Dane living in Greenland is an Eskimo.

    44. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It would've been more sound to make the mandate a more reasonably limit of 2. With their limits structured the way they are there's going to be serious problems down the line. It wasn't ever really a limit of one. It was a limit of one unless you were an only child in which case the limit was somewhat higher. The big issue with it is how they went about enforcing it and the tendency of the policy to result in female fetuses being aborted with greater frequency and the subsequent discrepancy in number of girls and boys.

    45. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe doesn't need growth limits. At their current rate of replacement, there won't be many Europeans left in this world in a few generations.

      The US is not over-populated. The world is a different question and one that many 'experts' have been very, very wrong about many, many times.

      How was this modded 'Insightful' again?

    46. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by dangitman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A Turk living in Germany is a German in the same way that a Dane living in Greenland is an Eskimo.

      You're conflating several different things here, making your point meaningless. Europe is a region. Germany is a nation. Eskimo is a culture/race. It's quite possible for somebody to belong to all of those three at the same time.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    47. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The entire society can't sustain it's population now, so adding another billion hungry mouths over 20 years is just going to fuck things up even more.
      That probably depends a lot on whether they go out and become producers or sit in their parents basements sending 3,000 texts a day and spending the 12 hours a day that they are not sleeping playing World of Warfare.
      Besides, I hardly think anyone actually thinks that the media portrayal of these idiots is actually such that they would want to go out and have 20 kids themselves. Well, maybe a few would, but unfortunately for us, those are the people we would prefer not to reproduce at all.
      Unfortunately, in the world we live in, the ones least able to support a family are the ones having the most children.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    48. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are just as insane as this guy. Please don't fly off the handle and kill me. Have you looked into the National German socialist party?

    49. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China may be run by dictatorial fuckwads, but they have a point with their laws on having children.

      Really? They are going to have a major societal upheaval in a few decades. Already the one-child policy coupled with the cultural preference of placing an importance of having a boy over having a girl caused men to have troubles getting married and having a family. It creates a situation where human trafficking and trading of women becomes acceptable or at least unchecked. Also, a testosterone heavy population tends to be more violent. Wars were started in the past to get the enemy's women. Always remember the law of unintended consequences. Here is a cliche for you: the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

      If just you, me, and your spouse left on the planet, and there is only enough food to feed 3 people, and you and your spouse go and have a child without asking me, someone is going to have to give up food. You just impinged on me and my ability to stay alive by having a child.

      If you can't find food in a planet the size of Earth populated with 3 people because the couple have a baby, then you shouldn't be complaining about having the right to live. You've got a much bigger problem than that. Also, Having a right to live does not mean that you have the right to get others to feed you. It means that you should have the right to earn your own living. Just like having the right to live does not mean that you have the right to food stamp at the others' expenses.

    50. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent post did not claim Europe is a country, and parent post's claims are accurate for the set of countries which are collectively Europe.

    51. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      I think his point is that humans are a problem because they are not extinct. He's anti-war, he says, not because there's anything with people killing each other off, but because it might hurt a gazelle. At this point, you can pretty much conclude that even if you agree with something in his manifesto, he still doesn't have a point. Anything that he says that you might agree with, or makes you think, "Well, that's not completely insane," actually is, and it's only incidental that you have said the same thing.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    52. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > a person's insistence on having lots of children only affected that family. If the family didn't have enough food to go around, some (or all) of them would starve.

      In no period of time has starvation only affected the starving. What, were you thinking they just obediently go somewhere out of sight to sit down and quietly die? That they won't grab every edible plant or animal that isn't bolted down? That although people today will steal for drugs, starving people won't steal for food?

      > there's tons of couples who want to adopt children because they're infertile, and end up either going without, or traveling to 3rd-world countries to bring babies back home. So there's no reason for poor people in America to struggle with their extra children

      Wrong. Large numbers of children aren't adopted today; partly because many parents specifically want only children who are only babies and only in perfect health (and possibly only of a specific skin color); partly because there are already more orphans under 10 than there are willing couples. But there are plenty of healthy children who enter the system young and never get adopted; they get kicked out of the system at 18.

    53. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's interesting to note which people oppose the simple solutions to this problem: sex education, contraceptives, and abortion.

      Generally it's the same people complaining about the situation.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    54. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      "Same thing. You're just playing on words."

      Nope, it is not.

      By the same token - you're a Nazi (Godwined myself! Yay!). After all, distinctions between libertarianism and Nazism are just a play on words.

      "All of the above. I'm a firm believer that almost everyone is capable (having the capacity) of archiving great things. It's all a matter of motivation and perseverance."

      Yeah, sure.

      "Eventually, you stand out from the crowd and become more marketable than others as a human resource to society. It's society that determines what is valuable based on demand and scarcity."

      Yeah, sure.

      "The outcome of that scenario is obvious. First, it would get unsanitary very quickly. Second, the demand for said services would far outstrip the supply (which would be none in this case). Ergo, salary to pay for these services would skyrocket at which point this void would be quickly filled until the salary drops again."

      Nope, it wouldn't. You would live in excreta blaming the lazy asshole rednecks who can't do their work properly on their generous minimal wage. Happens all the time.

      Until enough of 'high-class' folks become desperate enough to pick up ANY job.

      "You should also understand that these types of labor you mentioned can be rendered by far.. far more people than say an engineer or doctor. Because of this, it's low hanging fruit in the job market which naturally trends a lower payout. Or put it this way. If everyone was a doctor and engineer, they would all get paid minimum wage because the supply outstrips the demand."

      Which is why supply and demand is mostly quite a meaningless characteristic for the 'worth' of a job.

      For example, I know several scientists who live on a wage barely more than minimal wage. They produce interesting papers in their own field. Are they more valuable than a bunch of Wall Street leeches? Or maybe patent lawyers? Clearly, scientists are inferior - they earn much less money.

      Let me re-iterate my point: you live in society and thus have an obligation to support the whole structure of society. Which does include poor people who need help. And most often poor people are poor not because of their own actions.

      Besides, there is a certain point in income distribution when the 'middle class' (actually, 'high-class') stops being 'the engine of progress' and becomes 'bourgeois oppressors'. Sorry, but there's no way 0.1% of people can be generating most of the wealth and growth.

      Or invoking your 'free market' argument, such distributions are a sign that market is not healthy. What would you say about a company with 5000% profit margin? Given such a great incentive there should be tons of new investment bankers and oil field owners, right?

      Of course, I'm not advocating expropriation of wealth from the rich and giving money to the poor, because that _would_ be Marxist. Instead, poor people should be helped by providing free education (including higher education), free medical services and better access to basic infrastructure (public transportation, etc.)

      Invoking the already overstrained 'job market' analogy again, these measures are akin anti-trust laws. Monopolies can be legally required to work with fair margins.

    55. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posts like this identify people who are ignorant of history.

    56. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Large numbers of children aren't adopted today; partly because many parents specifically want only children who are only babies and only in perfect health (and possibly only of a specific skin color); partly because there are already more orphans under 10 than there are willing couples. But there are plenty of healthy children who enter the system young and never get adopted; they get kicked out of the system at 18.

      That's not what I've seen.

      Yes, many (most?) parents only want babies. So if you don't think you can raise your kid, then you need to put it up for adoption ASAP (before it's born even); don't wait until it's already walking and talking. The chances of successfully finding an adoptive family start out pretty high at birth, and fall rapidly after that.

      Who would want to deal with a kid that's already grown and developed all kinds of problems as a result of its prior upbringing? With an infant, you only have to worry about the parents' genetics and the mother's prenatal care.

      As for skin color, I don't think that's a big factor. There might be some people like that, but those are the people who never successfully adopt anyone because there aren't exactly a lot of white Americans giving up their children. People are going to Latin America, China, India, and elsewhere to get adoptable children. In the past, they went to Korea, but that's probably mostly gone now. They also go to Russia and Eastern Europe. Of course, there's possible problems with some of those places: one of my sisters-in-law went to Romania (I think, or maybe Russia or Ukraine) and adopted two children. They turned out to have fetal alcohol syndrome (the adoption agency covered it up and they didn't find out until they were back in the States), and were completely uncontrollable. They ended up giving the children up to child services.

      But there are plenty of healthy children who enter the system young and never get adopted; they get kicked out of the system at 18.

      How "young" were they when they entered the system? As I said before, the number of interested parents falls sharply as the child ages. I have no doubt there's plenty of crack babies or kids with fetal alcohol syndrome who never get adopted, but healthy infants shouldn't have much trouble. This is perfectly understandable: parents want a child to raise themselves, not a child that they have to "fix", whether it's screwed up because the mother was on drugs, or because it was raised poorly. Parents want to see their child's first walk, first speech, etc. They want to teach it their own values. You can't do all that with a teenager. The fact that couples are so willing to take in someone else's child (and in many cases, pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege) is really quite remarkable, and from what I'm told, is actually fairly unique to Americans, though I've heard it's also becoming popular in China because of the single-child policy, since some couples naturally can't conceive their own and others have "accidents".

    57. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      "You sound like the more extreme type to me."

      Nope. I checked that, actually.

      I'm not impervious to facts - that our society is inherently unfair. And any attempts at playing completely 'fair' result in a total economic mess (also known as the USSR). However, that doesn't mean we should embrace the unfairness completely and foment its growth beyond any reasonable limit.

      "In today's society, money and assets. Muscle power is a cheap commodity, as there's no shortage of unskilled people."

      So, your money is valuable because few people earn a lot of them? What makes you think people one day won't get tired of this situation?

      It has happened, more than once in the history. Unfortunately, results are invariably are a total fail. But it doesn't stop people from trying.

      "Smart people manage their resources well: they have savings accounts, retirement accounts, they
      spend within their means, etc."

      Nah. Most of rich people in the USA are reach because they work in high-paying jobs and/or inherited the wealth.

      For example in the current recession, foreclosure rates are actually somewhat higher for high-priced houses.

      "Not-so-smart people manage their resources poorly: they have no savings, no bank accounts, they cash their paycheck at a check-cashing store for a 10% fee instead of putting it in the bank for free, they spend what little money they have on cigarettes and booze, they talk about having more children (beyond their current 6) even though they're flat broke, etc."

      Nonsense and stupidity. You've probably never lived as a poor person. Your picture is about as statistically sound as a notion that all of the US population are reach and play golf on weekends.

      There are certainly 'welfare queens' and other leeches in the USA. But they are statistically insignificant.

    58. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point of view makes sense. I will add it to my list of plans for when I take over the world:

      1. Kill all orphans, mince them into food to support everyone else.
      2. Kill all elderly people at or above retirement age, and mince them into food to support everyone else.
      3 (your point). Kill all poor people, mince them into food to feed to rich people's pets.

    59. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Americium · · Score: 1

      And in America we are all Americans :)

    60. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by anagama · · Score: 1

      The thing is, you can't just refuse to give a hungry child food ...

      Why not?

      If you decide you must give a hungry child food, then shouldn't you give food to all hungry children worldwide or are children in some countries more deserving or less? And if you decide that you should feed every hungry mouth, does that mean I should have my resources forcibly taken from me even if I have no such interest or belief? This guy basically wanted to forcibly take or control resources from the Discovery Channel to make the world better in his view. But this is really nothing new, our government does it all the time with the threat of jail for evading taxes, and bullets if you try to escape jail. So the few who force me to feed hungry children (and adults), are just as crazy as Lee.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    61. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 0

      FYI: Europe is not a country. Neither are the Europeans a nation.

      Yes it is, it's just that the European states still pretend that they are independent (of course this is complicated by the fact that not all of the countries on the European continent are part of Europe the country).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    62. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      "Latin America is a great example of this: tons of dirt-poor people, with no jobs, who keep having children because their Church tells them that birth control is a sin."

      Not really. Overpopulation is not a problem on LA, you're confusing cause and effect.

      Take China for example, they don't have problems with 6-12 children per family (and never had, in fact). But somehow that haven't made them the richest people.

      Or Russia - it's depopulating fast, but somehow is not becoming the richest nation on the planet.

    63. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by microbox · · Score: 1

      The world is a different question and one that many 'experts' have been very, very wrong about many, many times.

      There have been malthusian predictions by many experts, however, some long-running time-tested predictions have been panning out pretty closely to what's been actually happening. (Think Hubert and peak oil - he was out by 10 years but failed to account for the oil crisis of the 70s.)

      The population will likely peak at about 9 billion, and then start to decrease. That may cause people to do bad things - or maybe the staving and thirsty will go peacefully.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    64. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Knitebane · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not a Marxist. I considered myself a mild socialist.

      Socialism is just Marxism sold by the drink.

      --
      "...history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --Ghandi
    65. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Nope, it wouldn't. You would live in excreta blaming the lazy asshole rednecks who can't do their work properly on their generous minimal wage. Happens all the time.

      Until enough of 'high-class' folks become desperate enough to pick up ANY job

      Huh? What does the former have to do with the later?

      If the people don't want their trash picked up, it wont happen. But in fact they do, because sanitation workers are employed to this day. It's a simple matter of supply and demand of said services that stipulate the market value. Not the other way around.

      You're still caught up in social classifications which is BLINDING you of logic. Classifications do not define the job market, rather it's the market that reflects our society. It's people like you that find it convenient to group people together as though it was a social construct of "us" vs. "them". The first thing you need to do is purge your mind of that kind of thinking.

      For example, I know several scientists who live on a wage barely more than minimal wage. They produce interesting papers in their own field. Are they more valuable than a bunch of Wall Street leeches? Or maybe patent lawyers? Clearly, scientists are inferior - they earn much less money

      From an ideological perspective, I would agree with you. But you and I are individuals. We live in a society that on the whole, views things differently. The market is a reflection of those moral, ethics, and viewpoints of our civilization. Many of which are bended and shaped through law.

      However, we can not, nor should usurp the freedom of others for "the greater good". To do so would be and act of statism (communism/fascism two sides of same coin) and tyranny. The end result is much worse. The history of forced Marxism should be a lesson for us all, not a user guide.

      Let me re-iterate my point: you live in society and thus have an obligation to support the whole structure of society. Which does include poor people who need help. And most often poor people are poor not because of their own actions.

      and

      Instead, poor people should be helped by providing free education (including higher education), free medical services and better access to basic infrastructure (public transportation, etc.)

      Jesus Christ and Christians (true believers) would agree with you in principle. Unfortunately, we live in a society that, on the whole, doesn't follow altruism to that degree. Just look who our elected officials are, who we do business with, and what goods and services we purchase. The market is a reflection of that behavior.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    66. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      is 19 kids in 1 generation really that much worse than 4 kids each over 5 generations at earlier and earlier ages of reproduction?

      On average, yes. a 19:2 growth rate is much faster than a 4:2 growth rate.

      those 19 kids and counting all might choose to not have ANY children.

      .... and at the other extreme, they might all choose to have 19 kids apiece. But most likely they will, on average, choose to have the average number of kids.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    67. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Knitebane · · Score: 1

      What sucks about this is this guy has got a point, but that's lost because his actions are plain nuts and will drown out most mainstream discussion.

      What sucks even worse is that if I said:

      "What sucks about this is Timothy McVeigh has got a point, but that's lost because his actions are plain nuts and will drown out most mainstream discussion."

      ...the leftists here would vicariously beat me like a rented mule.

      Personally, I'm not a big McVeigh fan and prefer to think of him as just a murdering monster and not even worry about whether he has a point. Dropping Lee into the same category would be fine with me too.

      But to want to endorse the man's beliefs and merely castigating his actions while at the same time NOT having the same reaction to someone that isn't a left wing loon is just plain hypocrisy.

      --
      "...history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --Ghandi
    68. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, this whole thread has devolved into fucked-up "BLAME THE POOR!" bullshit, so I'm not going to argue with you past pointing this out: in states where guns are readily available, THEY ROB YOU AT GUNPOINT.

      And you know what? The immensely greater lethality of firearms, and the ease of learning to use them means that, no matter how AWESOME and FULL OF TESTOSTERONE you are, in a confrontation involving guns on both sides, you're just about as likely to end up being shot as the other guy.

      P.S. For anyone who bought the "robberies aren't as common in states with permissive gun laws" line, check out the statistics on violent crime and cross-reference by gun ownership statistics. If that's TLDR, I'll let you in on the twist ending - MOAR GUNZ != LESS CRIMEZ!

    69. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by jbeach · · Score: 1

      Well, any points that rely on Malthus are basically wrong. Malthus thought that:

      a) food production only increases arithmetically - which is untrue. Thanks to technology it can expand exponentially.

      b) populations always increase geometrically - which is also untrue. When societies become affluent, the rate of population growth drops drastically.

      We should watch what we have, of course. But we are nowhere near the end due to overpopulation. We are facing many more difficulties re: global warming.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    70. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      Dear Uninformed Person who spouts libertarian nonsense,

      Ever used the highways? How about city water? If so, shut up about goddamned taxes, and stop using bad logic to equate your political opponents with a schizophrenic murderer. It's childish and stupid.

      Taxes aren't voluntary - this is true. But it's not the few that are forcing you to feed those children (or, rather more accurately, to shoulder one or two billionths of the burden of feeding those children). It's the many. REP RE SEN TA TIVE means that our government gets its mandate from the people, under majority rule (with safeguards to protect minority rights). And since very few people of voting age are dumb enough to hold your opinions, you're not going to get your way on this.

      Signed, An Adult

    71. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      Well, when you put it that wa-

      But wait - I've worked as a public school educator.... and seen the difference between the schools located in districts where poor people can afford to live, and those in districts where it's mostly rich people.

      Just because a system has the potential for the exceptional to overcome its classism, doesn't mean that there is no classism, or that all exceptional individuals do so.

    72. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by cain · · Score: 1

      If you're going to just ignore the definitions of words, what's the point of trying to engage you in conversation?

    73. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by urmish · · Score: 1

      well said.

    74. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by M.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      But most likely they will, on average, choose to have the average number of kids.

      wow, you are bad at logic. they MOST DEFINITELY will have the average number of kids on average... BECAUSE IT'S THE AVERAGE.

      now do some research and let me know the average number of children had grouped by number of siblings... then you can start talking about something relevant.

    75. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "It's people like YOU who are a good part of the problem with this planet..."

      Assuming there is a problem. But how could I fight it? Who would dare oppose your viewpoint- even if you and your posse were wrong?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    76. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      You're half right in the first paragraph, in that they benefited from having parents. Parents with money. But it's not this indirect quality bullshit you're preaching - the benefit is that they had their parents as a safety net, allowing them to make choices with higher risks and higher rewards.

      Case in point - I've had to fund undergrad and grad school entirely on loans supplemented by sporadic work. When I get out, if I don't immediately get a job making at least 48,000 a year or so, I'm screwed. Even after that, a medical crisis, crime, or

      A friend of mine, whose parents are in the upper middle class, has made the same choices as me, but with the advantage of being from a wealthy family. She's much worse about money than I am, but since she's not on the hook for loans, and has the option of living with her parents, she has many options I don't have. She can take a lower-paying job and be essentially fine, despite the fact that she routinely spent all the way through $500 per week of college, after room and board.

      Also - day care workers - poor as hell, most of the time. Lots of teachers and teachers aides - pretty damn poor (especially the aides).

      ...wasting their money on booze and satellite TV instead of education for their children, etc. Ever notice how many satellite dishes there are in trailer parks?

      Honestly - what could a poor person buy that you wouldn't hate the shit out of them for? Because they're poor, they aren't allowed to have news, or entertainment? Can they have the internet? Or should they just work their 40-60 hours (remember - working multiple part time shifts is the new norm!), then come home and turn themselves off until it's time to serve you burgers again?

      You are a horrifying person, who has chosen to basically declare large groups of people nonhuman and worthless, simply on the basis that they don't have as much money as you.

    77. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      So, tell me. On 14,000 a year (the most I've ever made in a year, with, mind you, a bachelor's degree, no criminal record, lily-white skin, and good diction and decent interviewing skills, where are these savings and retirement accounts going to come from?

      You talk about skilled and unskilled, middle class and poor, like they're alien races in the libertarian science fiction novel in your head; these are real people. My father had a law degree, and he died penniless. This could happen to you as easily as it happened to him; and no amount of demonizing the poor and fomenting to destroy social safety nets is going to make it less likely.

    78. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by fferreres · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He rebutted your "solution", so it's your turn to answer your question. He's just saying that giving them help is not making things worst, and actually pointing that you need to slow down the birth rate of people that will not care for their childs education, well being and economic needs.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    79. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you put kids in a dangerous environment without any food/money, and reject and scorn them as a society so they have to fend for themselves, they don't just die off cleanly. They form gangs.

      So what's your solution? Give them money, so they raise more kids to be gang members?

      they're fed by robbing you at knifepoint and taking everything you have.

      Where I live, anyone trying that would simply be shot. Robberies (esp. with knives) aren't so common here in states where you don't know who's carrying a gun. But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

      I live in Texas. People are always going on about how, "oh if someone breaks into my house or tries to rob me, I'll pull some heat and and defend myself" like owning and using a firearm is just like some Hollywood action movie. All it really does is escalate the violence when the criminals know people have guns, which is why we have such a violent home invasion problem here. When criminals invade someone's house around here, they don't know who is carrying a gun, so instead of random loners burglarizing random houses, they get three or four guys with guns, kick down the door and are then more likely to kill if they are startled and think the occupants are armed. Google "home invasion" on news.google.com and look at the plentiful daily examples of this. Only on rare occasion does an armed home owner successfully defend themselves.

      The reality is, very frequently when this happens the stray bullets go through the wall and end up killing someone in their family, or the bullets fly across the street and kill some kid riding their bike or a neighbor. Plus, when three or four armed men come to rob your house in the middle of the night, you're not going to fare well for yourself jumping out of your bed drowsily in your undies and trying to defend yourself with one handgun.

    80. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Antimatt3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where I live, anyone trying that would simply be shot. Robberies (esp. with knives) aren't so common here in states where you don't know who's carrying a gun. But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

      Yes robberies in the states with knives are not common. Since weapons are so easy to get here in the states our criminals have them more than the people who can legally possess them. In the states you get robbed and gun point and most likely shot as well.

    81. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by fferreres · · Score: 1

      You don't need to prevent anyone from living. It's not as if the world is about to end in a century...unless we destroy our planet (which is what's happening at overpopulated places, the ocean and wildlife). But in order to for more people to live, you need to treat the earth as something that has to last several billion years, not one or two centuries. Your point of view is so myopic that it hurts the eye. Humans have caused more damage to earth in two centuries that in the past million years. Go travel around the world and see for yourself. You might learn that you ideals weren't wrong, but that you were not looking at the right places. Additionally, habits don't change unless we have no choice...so we will change no sooner than when things are unsustainable (and when the world has already turned into a dull, ugly and harsh place).

      Maltus was wrong and we know we CAN support exponential growth...but exponentially ruin the world as we go along...When was the last time you drank potable water from a river? Did it have a large population around? Was a place were you could allow humans to do what they wanted like build houses, install factories, etc?

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    82. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robberies (esp. with knives) aren't so common here in states where you don't know who's carrying a gun. But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

      Everyone having the permission to carry a gun hardly makes a state/country any safer. It only means the robberies are committed with a gun, not a knife. I might also add that it makes enforcing the law a lot easier when the criminals can't get their hands on firearms so easily.

    83. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by M.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      to help you: my mother came from a family of 10 in a 3 bedroom house... lots of stories about eating fast and sharing beds. she had 3 children, as did almost all of her siblings except 2... 1 had 1, 1 had 0. i'm not ashamed that i had my own room growing up, and always had more than i wanted to eat. my wife is pregnant.

    84. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point entirely. It is "really that hard" for some people to move up in society, because there are all sorts of things in the way. Tell the black contractor how easy it is just after he was passed over for an abatement job he was certified to do in favor of some white contractor who needed funding for the extra training to do the job (true story, I know the guy). The system is rigged. It may not be rigged "intentionally" in the sense of being a grand planned strategy but it is rigged nonetheless.

      --

    85. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The thing is, you can't just refuse to give a hungry child food ...

      Why not?

      Because if there are starving people around and you have excess resources, the rest of us will force you to share, at gunpoint if necessary. And you will post a bitter libertarian rant about how your precious property rights have been violated by taxes, rather than feed the wolves in the forest after being kicked out of your tribe, like your kind were dealth with in past times.

      Damn psycho.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    86. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by JxcelDolghmQ · · Score: 0

      I have a posse?

      Interesting.

      If you don't see that there's some pretty serious problems with this planet at the moment, aside from the normal trouble and strife that's been going on for eternity, then there's seriously something wrong with you, dude.

      We're heavily dependent on oil, yet we're running out of it. We're running out of food. We're completely destroying our landscape in the eternal search for energy sources such as coal, oil, and wood. We have created an oceanic landfill (waterfill?) the size of TEXAS in the Pacific Ocean. We make it worse by perpetuating this cultural idea that we should breed, breed, breed and that will solve the problem, or at least that it will give us more soldiers in God's good fight against evil. Amirite?

      No, I'm not some batshit crazy childfree person, either. I have a child, and stopped at just one. I just wish that more people would do the same.

      Furthermore, there's no Cabal, and no posse. I'm not going to be heading down to the CNN Center with explosives strapped to myself, taking hostages and demanding that they change their programming to suit my "agenda" any time soon. Why? Because it's friggin' hard enough to get you turds to listen to logic and reason without committing acts of violence and terrorism.

      I fully understand that so far, we have managed to find *temporary* solutions to problems such as food production through technology. Don't count on this lasting forever.

      "Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize that we cannot eat money." -- Cree Indian saying

    87. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by huckamania · · Score: 1

      Someone thought that was informative. That's pretty sad :(

      I've lived in 3 European countries, if you count England as part of Europe. I've been to at least a dozen, more if you count Luxemburg as a country.

      I can remember a kid from Texas asking whether we had driven back from Belgium. That's very sad, but also very funny.

    88. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has a point? I certainly hope the DHS is monitoring this thread so they can arrest you before you pop your cork. Hopefully society is learning the lesson that environmentalists are dangerous misanthropic psychos.

    89. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Total bullshit. The world is capable of feeding itself with current technology several times over if only we killed off restrictive first world trade practices. There is huge amounts of arable land across the world which is not getting used properly. Furthermore, having large families is a rational reaction to the issues faced in Third World societies, not an act of self-destruction. When their societies become richer, they will do the exact same thing we did - drop their birth rate down to one or two. If you're feeling bored some day, graph GDP against birth rate for some different economies, and tell me what you see.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    90. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by quetzalblue · · Score: 1

      > Ever used the highways? How about city water? If so, shut up about goddamned taxes,

      Yeah, I used to think like that 35 years ago. I drive on broken roads and drink questionable city water. And I dont believe my taxes went down to the same degree as the aforementioned "services". In fact, I think they went up. The problem is what OTHER nonsense my taxes are paying for now. Also, who asked me if I'd mind running up a deficit - I dont carry balances on my credit cards ya know.. why should I have to keep a deficit that's not likely to be paid off for another 20 years - if I'm lucky. As for REP RE SEN TA TIVE goverment you should already know that election promises or even just vague concensus dialogs have no value whatsoever. So how well does that REP RE SEN TA TIVE goverment represent the common shlep ? :-) or maybe they do actually represent the common shelp pretty well: fickle, uninformed, emotional/irrational and easily manipulated. 43% .. isnt that President Obama's popularity rating today ? How well does he prepresent you ?

      Signed, An Adult
      Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

    91. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, seriously? You think knife violence is more correlated to guntoting than it is to social equality? I mean I don't mind you having different laws and choosing to value personal choice over socialism. That is ok with me. But don't say that the reason for fewer crimes is more guns.
      That is almost as stupid as saying that the solution to crime is longer prison sentences, it just doesn't work that way.

    92. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not really. Overpopulation is not a problem on LA, you're confusing cause and effect.

      How do you figure? Tons of people have been coming to the USA from Mexico because there's no jobs there, mainly because there's too many people.

      Take China for example, they don't have problems with 6-12 children per family (and never had, in fact). But somehow that haven't made them the richest people.

      It took them a while to get to such a huge population. Also, during Mao's reign, he encouraged everyone to have as many kids as possible.

      Or Russia - it's depopulating fast, but somehow is not becoming the richest nation on the planet.

      Just because overpopulation will cause you economic problems doesn't mean shedding population will automatically make you rich. I don't think anyone here claimed that.

    93. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Crime rates in states with permissive gun laws are almost invariably much lower than in states and cities (like DC and Chicago) with very strict gun laws.

    94. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I live in Arizona, and we have home invasions here too. They're almost always criminal-on-criminal: the thugs already know that the people inside have something they want (usually a lot of drugs). It's not like they just pick a random house in suburbia to shoot up.

    95. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by indiechild · · Score: 1

      I'm an Australian and I have a hard time believing that Texas of all places has a daily home invasion epidemic, let alone the homeowners having guns making the problem worse.

      Here in Sydney, Australia we have home invasions now and then, and people still get shot and beaten half to death regularly even though they don't have any guns to defend themselves with. Much of the time the motivation for the home invasion is drug or crime-link related -- not saying that the homeowners are criminals necessarily, but sometimes their family members or relatives or friends have criminal connections and that's how the home invaders get their "intell" for raiding the place.

    96. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by n+dot+l · · Score: 1

      So what's your solution? Give them money, so they raise more kids to be gang members?

      You think people naturally want to be gang members? As in they grow up shooting and being shot at and their first thought when they see their baby is, "I want you to grow up to be just as miserable as I've been and live just as short as I'm likely to"?

      <morbo>THAT IS NOT HOW HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY WORKS</morbo>

      I mean you can say they should all go and get jobs, but the unemployment rate is 11% with likely half as many more unreported. The people with the money to have things made clearly have no need for more production, so where do you propose they find this work they should be doing to support themselves? It's not like they can start growing food in the middle of the city or form their own little economy amongst themselves when they're terribly dependent on goods (like food) sold at prices intended for the rest of us...

      And what's your solution, anyway?

    97. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not striclty true:

      Eskimo= Ethnic group
      Turk, German, Dane= Ethnic group or nationality

    98. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they need is education. And I don't mean maths, but how to live in society and enjoy life in general. Teach them to have pride in what they do, and help them do something productive for others and themselves too. Where I live this works wanders.

    99. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by NikolaiKutuzov · · Score: 1
      Then please explain to me what exactly makes "a Turk" turkish, or an Eskimo "greenlandish"?

      The US was built (to my understanding) on the idea that anyone could become an US citizen, if he accepted and supported the constitution and wanted to do so.

      Unless you are advocating a return to Germanys racist "volksdeutsche"-laws ("German is who has German grandfathers"), your statement is wrong, because what defines nationality is not an unchangable subset of genetic and cultural traits, but first and foremost a conscious choice. You make it sound as if nationalities were not changable.

      --
      Invita Invidia
    100. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

      I'd rather be at knifepoint than at gunpoint. I can outrun knives, not bullets.

    101. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      How was this modded insightful? It sounds like racist drivel to me. A german is a human with a german passport, nothing more, nothing less. If a turk lives in germany, speaks german and is steeped in german culture, he or she is german. The moment you start disagreeing, you start using words like aryans and superior races.

      And FYI, there are no human "races", if you can breed fertile children with him/her, you're the same race biologically.

      The word race should be used to describe groups like Protoss, Humans and Zergs.

      Carry on.

    102. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Europa is not a country. But I'd say that Europeans are a nation because they share culture, ethnic origin, and often the language. If you say that those makers are too diverse in Europe, then I challenge calling US citizens "Americans" because the culture and ethnic origin of man living San Francisco china-town is different to one living in El Paso and that is different to New York. There is a difference between language used in Taxas and Washington or Alaska and I don't even go deeper into usage of spanish, chinese and other languages.

    103. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      Not having RTFA, I'd say that it depends on their religion.

      --
      It is what it is.
    104. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      Well, we can all see from your capital letters that you REALLY REALLY mean what you say. The truth is that those robberies at gunpoint occur *more* in places where the law-abiding are not permitted to carry a weapon and where lawful ownership is very restricted. Another truth is that people lawfully carrying weapons in those places it's allowed contribute statistically zero to crime. Whether you choose to believe that they serve as a deterrent is up to you.

    105. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you have way more robberies than (most of) europe.
      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita

    106. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by HelloKitty2 · · Score: 1

      "We could always go back to the way things were done in the Middle Ages, because back then, a person's insistence on having lots of children only affected that family. If the family didn't have enough food to go around, some (or all) of them would starve."

      This is basically the situation in the poorest countries or Islamic countries that don't have any governmental support. Just look at central Africa where they will make 10 children with only one bread to share.

    107. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Sure, we need to have babies to keep the species alive,
      And why, pray, do we need to keep the species alive? Sure, there are answers, but are they good answers?

    108. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Bjecas · · Score: 1

      Where I live, anyone trying that would simply be shot. Robberies (esp. with knives) aren't so common here in states where you don't know who's carrying a gun. But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

      What moron would rob you with a knife if they can use a gun? Your conclusion is faulty though. The end result isn't a lower crime rate, it's a higher murder rate.

    109. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Africa? Really? Even if you ignore the desert regions with very low populations, Africa has a lower population density than most of Europe or the Americas.

      The problem that India, China, and much of Africa have is underdevelopment. They have enough farm land to easily support their population, but are using techniques that predate the agricultural revolution in Europe.

      Population density is not currently, and won't be for a while, a question of survival. It's a question of standard of living. The number of people that the world could support with a rural-Indian standard of living is huge, but you'd have a hard time convincing a typical westerner that this is adequate. The number that it can support with a US level of consumption is probably lower than the current world population.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    110. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're fed by robbing you at knifepoint and taking everything you have.

      Where I live, anyone trying that would simply be shot. Robberies (esp. with knives) aren't so common here in states where you don't know who's carrying a gun. But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

      FIRST, you said, "Where I live, anyone trying that would simply be shot." For such a bizarre statement, it's not unusual that you (and people like you) don't back it up with statistical evidence (or EVEN anecdotal "evidence").

      But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

      What states or countries are you NOT allowed to defend yourself? You sound like a Right Wing nut who is just making things up so that people who think like you can improve your Slashdot Karma. Trolls (like you) are the primary reason why I don't log in; because I don't care about Karma, Friends, Foes and all that other bullshit.

      You are a LOSER. Congratulations on your +5 Insightful troll posting.

    111. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure why you are modded insightful. This sounds like opinion unsupported by facts.

      How many is not very many Europeans?

      What level of population do you believe is correct for the U.S.?

      Who were the experts and what were they wrong about?

    112. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The European Union is a country in the same manner that the United States was under the Articles of Confederation (maybe even more so).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    113. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      No, we can see by my capital letters that I've emphasized sections of text for one reason or another - in this case, going by example, mockery, simple emphasis, mockery, and mocking summation.

      Nice attempt to reduce my statement to a formal element that there's a knee-jerk reaction attached to, then follow it up by restating the incorrect premise that its based on.

      To be fair, I will say that legitimate, licensed carriers do contribute insignificantly to crime; but you don't NEED a license to purchase at a gun show, and weirdly enough, having more legal sources for guns ALSO means that more "fall off the truck," and that it's harder to trace those bought without a record.

      Honestly, look the numbers up in a study not funded directly by an advocacy group. I'm not saying "OMG! GUNZ ARE EVIL!" or arguing that concealed carry is inherently bad - but the original statement I responded to is false, and so is the first of yours here. Florida has lax gun laws, and a much higher incidence of gun violence (adjusted for population) than, say, Massachusetts, where I live now.

      There are plenty of valid arguments for gun ownership, but "everyone's carrying around a gun, so we don't have crime" isn't one of them, sorry.

    114. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by LS · · Score: 1

      Does that count for 3rd generation Turks that still are not citizens? How about a 3rd generation Dane that lived with Eskimos all his life? Is he an Eskimo? Is "European" a race or a culture or a lineage?

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    115. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The world doesn't have an overpopulation problem. Some parts of the world do - Africa most of all, but also China, India, and some other parts of Asia. Europe doesn't have it (it has the opposite problem), and US and Canada - especially the latter - have plenty more room to expand, and, given the existing rates, plenty of time before it will become even a minor problem (and I suspect the birth rates will fall below sustainability point long before that, anyway).

      Africa has below world average population density, fyi.

      On the other hand, Asia is pretty much the place to be if you want to talk about lots or people per square mile.

      Europe, by the way, has a population density rather above (about four times world average, or a bit more) world average with the exception of the Scandinavian peninsula.

      Note that the birth rate is already below sustainability in the USA. Population growth for the last couple censuses has all come from immigration (legal and otherwise).

      Ditto for Europe - population growth, excluding immigration from outside Europe, is negative.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    116. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Robberies (esp. with knives) aren't so common here in states where you don't know who's carrying a gun.

      Er, ok. So they just shoot you then take everything you've got.

      Strange that you'd feel more secure just because you've notched up the level of violence by carrying your
      own weapon that then causes the bad guys to match your level of deadliness.

      Somebody (or some people) desperate enough to want to rob you with violence aren't going to
      be much fazed by your little gun. Remember, they do this for a living.

    117. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, I got mine, and here's the gun to prove the point!

      Yeah, I really want to live in a community where everyone has that attitude. You must be from Texas, not that my state is much better.

    118. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Lothar+0 · · Score: 1

      Guys, he's from Arizona, so of course he's going to post stupid Internet tough guy comments full of self-entitled classism. Ignore him.

      --
      "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
    119. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by cain · · Score: 1

      Again: if you're going to just ignore the definitions of words, what's the point of trying to engage you in conversation? I guess the most of the world is a nation as they are members of the UN, correct?

    120. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by cain · · Score: 1

      Europa is not a country. But I'd say that Europeans are a nation because they share culture, ethnic origin, and often the language

      You're crazy. They don't share language, culture, or ethnic origin. "Nation" is a word, it has a definition. You don't just get to make up the definition to suit your point of view. Sorry.

    121. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      Crime rates in states with permissive gun laws are almost invariably much lower than in states and cities (like DC and Chicago) with very strict gun laws.

      Correlation does not imply causation though. Is it high crime rates that lead to strict gun laws or is it strict gun laws that lead to high crime rates.

    122. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by hitmark · · Score: 1

      What's interesting is that living standards acts as a very nice birth control. When there are so many other distractions, there are little reason to distract oneself with activities in bed.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    123. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Nor do most of the citizens of USA, yet it is a singular nation (or collection of nations).

      Lately i see more and more parallels between USA, EU and perhaps even Germany. USA seems to have a interstate trade treaty that's being used as justification for a lot of top down regulations from Washington. EU started as a trade agreement between France and Germany. Germany itself started as a bunch of "nations" that became one as a trade agreement was used as political leverage (want to trade with those within the agreement, sign up with the agreement).

      Economy of scale have become such a leverage now that i suspect our grand-children may witness creation of super-nations covering North America, South America, Europe (with potential to spread into the middle east and butt heads with a Asian equivalent out of China) and Africa at least. Then later even these may merge into even larger systems of organization.

      That is, unless the whole capitalist engine comes to a grinding halt as it runs out of cheap fuel and buried in a saturated market.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    124. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Sally+Forth · · Score: 1

      The answer to this is not forbidding people from having children. The answer is discouraging a culture in which "my baby's daddy" is more common than "my husband".

      The Fragile Families study came up with some interesting data from which interesting conclusions can be made. For instance, roughly 70% of families with children could be lifted above the poverty level merely by having the mother marry the father, who is employed 80-something or higher percent of the time and is abusive less than one percent of the time.

      Even so, 'starving children' is almost non-existent in the U.S., to the point where they've had to coin a new phrase to claim that there's a hunger problem. Now it's called "food insecurity", which means that you had good meals today and will have good meals tomorrow, but you're not too sure where it'll come from beyond that.

      The other problem is poor nutrition, but that has nothing to do with the inability to afford good food. Families on food stamps tend to overspend on processed foods. I personally feed my family abundantly and healthily on only slightly over half the food stamp allotment in my state, and I do it by buying only food-stamp-allowed foods. (No, I am not on food stamps. I pay for other people to be on food stamps, so I don't have enough money left to eat like I was on them.)

      The trick, and I have been considering making a pamphlet or writing a book on this, is to watch your dollars per meal and per pound. Brown rice, white rice, beans, and lentils are far higher in meal per pound and far lower in dollar per pound than a bag of frozen Tater Tots. They're also nutritionally rich and not expensive to cook. (I can make most of my recipes with a pot or pan, a heat source, and a source of water, which even homeless families can acquire.)

      The answer to poverty is not birth restriction.

    125. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      sit in their parents basements sending 3,000 texts a day and spending the 12 hours a day that they are not sleeping playing World of Warfare.

      That would be pretty much the ideal citizen with minimal physical resource usage.

      Meanwhile you have people driving alone to work every day where they design plastic stuff that will break after a certain amount of time, that then is produced in a factory in a 3rd world country before shipped between continents so that the person can buy the plastic stuff that soon will break with the money he earned designing it. What an amount of resource wastage.

      Of course, we will soon to start to see the real toll on the current wastage in society. Resource access will be increasingly expensive during the 21st century as fossil energy gets more and more expensive to extract in sufficient amounts. Meanwhile the worlds population will continue to creep up, and may very well hit roof when we least expect it. The problem with exponential growth is that it is very difficult to correctly estimate when you will hit the roof as you can't truly see it until it is too late.

    126. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Sally+Forth · · Score: 1

      Let me add an addendum and example here:

      During the 2008 election, Obama made an infomercial that talked about the horrible conditions of want among the less fortunate Americans. One of his examples showed a woman with an exquisite nail job complaining that all she could afford was soda for her family to drink at every meal, so she couldn't afford to buy milk.

      For starters, I looked into what it costs to have and maintain fake nails, and for that cost alone, I could keep my family in milk easily.

      But all that aside... If she served water at every meal, she would have enough money for enough fresh milk for each family member to have one tall glass a day. The family would have the added benefit of avoiding the nutritional detriments of soda, which tends to counter all the positive effects of the main nutrients in milk. If she bought powdered milk instead, it would be cheaper than the soda. I agree the powdered milk is an acquired taste, but if it's combined with reconstituted canned evaporated milk, it's really pretty decent and still costs as much or less than the equivalent amount of soda.

    127. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      And how much fossil fuel is expended every day to produce all that food. Sustainability is exactly that, sustainability. Burning fossil fuel to support a qualitative life for the world population is not sustainable.

      And as I very much prefer qualitative life over quantitative life I am very much in favor of general birth control.

    128. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Sally+Forth · · Score: 1

      That's because the richer people are living off of government aid, including the taxes being paid by the hardest workers.

      Trust me, the 'working poor' don't have as much in resources and disposable income as the people who aren't working at all. I've lived it.

    129. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by hitmark · · Score: 1

      And the "solution" to that will be the right to bear arms...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    130. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by m50d · · Score: 1
      What does it mean? Why do some people 'have' more resources? Are they stronger? Do they plow larger fields? Or maybe they have better-bred cows?

      They've contributed more to society, in some way or another; that's the way economics works. (Or they were lucky, or whatever - sure, the system is far from perfect. But it's not meaningless either)

      --
      I am trolling
    131. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Where I live, anyone trying that would simply be shot. Robberies (esp. with knives) aren't so common here in states where you don't know who's carrying a gun. But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

      If I was a mugger in a place where everyone was armed, I'd probably, you know, not use a knife either. I'd just get myself and a couple of friends some nice big guns and shoot first before asking any questions.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    132. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      in states where guns are readily available, THEY ROB YOU AT GUNPOINT.

      Guns are readily available everywhere, legal or not. Notice how Chicago has a horrible murder rate despite (or because) of their restrictive gun laws?

      However...

      in a confrontation involving guns on both sides, you're just about as likely to end up being shot as the other guy.

      Very true. Your safest bet is to give them what they demand, but that doesn't always work, either. A couple of decades ago I had a friend who drove a cab for a living, and he was shot and killed by a man trying to rob him, despite his pleas that he only had fifty cents on him (he'd just started his shift).

    133. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by M.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      i'd say you're very close minded to not realize that it depends on everything.

    134. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The solution is inherent in the problem.

      If the poor keep having too many kids and ending up in a cycle of poverty, perhaps we should attempt to get rid of the poor.

      Um, duh. Get people out of poverty. Then, tada, they stop having so many kids.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    135. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Much of the time the motivation for the home invasion is drug or crime-link related -- not saying that the homeowners are criminals necessarily, but sometimes their family members or relatives or friends have criminal connections and that's how the home invaders get their "intell" for raiding the place.

      Yup, that's exactly how it is here in Arizona too. We're also the kidnapping capital of the USA (in Phoenix), and it's the same thing: the victims have connections to the kidnappers. It's not like they go out to the richer parts of town and grab people off the street; in fact, they usually kidnap other illegal aliens, because they know that their families are reluctant to call the police.

    136. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Judging by all the gun crimes in cities like Chicago that have strictly banned guns, criminals don't have much trouble getting their hands on firearms. Drugs like pot and cocaine are illegal too, and that doesn't seem to make it hard for a black market to develop to supply people with it; what makes you think it's any different for firearms?

    137. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by noodler · · Score: 1

      "What sucks about this is this guy has got a point, but that's lost because his actions are plain nuts and will drown out most mainstream discussion."

      Well, at least there is a reasonable chance that this will make South Park...

    138. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      Admittedly I generalized and didn't say so, but around here the big families 'all' belong to a specific (subset of a) religion. The religion is rather strict and hard to get out of. Using contraceptives is forbidden and they actually follow this rule.

      And yes, of course it depends on everything. I hope the children do get to make their own choices.

      --
      It is what it is.
    139. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by M.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
      around here, generalizations are ignorant. i spent the better part of my youth doing things that prove people don't take "forbidden" too seriously.

      you are simply pushing the necessity and power of religion... why? how do you make your living?

    140. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      you are simply pushing the necessity and power of religion... why?

      I'm sorry sir, can you rephrase that? That doesn't exactly sound something I would do. At least not the necessity part. Plenty of social power though.

      how do you make your living?

      And not that it is any of your business, I am an agnostic atheist and make my living by programming. Oh. And my wife is religious. Anything else you want to know?

      So you don't take 'forbidden' too seriously, I know that there are plenty of people who do or have done so. And have met some of them. Hell, I married one of them.

      --
      It is what it is.
    141. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by operagost · · Score: 1

      China may be run by dictatorial fuckwads, but they have a point with their laws on having children. The entire society can't sustain it's population now, so adding another billion hungry mouths over 20 years is just going to fuck things up even more.

      Birth rates are self-regulating when the government doesn't take responsibility for supporting families.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    142. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Luckily, as dumb as criminals usually are, most of them are smart enough to restrict their activities to things that aren't murder, because even they know that they're far more likely to get caught for that, and to be executed for it or get life sentences, instead of the slap-on-the-wrist sentences that people convicted of lesser crimes get.

      Apparently, criminals are smarter than a lot of people on Slashdot.

    143. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The Fragile Families study came up with some interesting data from which interesting conclusions can be made. For instance, roughly 70% of families with children could be lifted above the poverty level merely by having the mother marry the father, who is employed 80-something or higher percent of the time and is abusive less than one percent of the time.

      There's some problems with this:

      1) For many mothers, marrying the father is not desirable, because then she'll lose her welfare and WIC benefits. However, having children (out of wedlock) is desirable, because she gets additional welfare/WIC benefits for each child. The system promotes infidelity and having children out of wedlock.

      2) From what I've seen, many low-income single mothers for whatever reason choose to have children with men who are criminals, in and out of jail, don't have a job, etc.

    144. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes except robberies with knives DO happen in the United States, just they happen in states more often where there are no Shall Issue laws regarding CCW permits.

      I hate Ted Nugent, he is nuts and overall a detriment to the movement for restoration of Gun Rights to civilians because of his attitude and methodology but one of his quotations is quite correct:

      "The 2nd Amendment is my CPL"

      We need citizens to have the right to properly defend themselves again. If gun control works then Chicago and Washington DC must have no crime.

    145. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Obviously, it's a complex issue like anything, but there's lots of large cities in America that don't have crime rates as high as places like Chicago and DC, and they usually have permissive gun laws: Phoenix, El Paso, Dallas, Denver, Omaha, etc.

      Whatever the cause, it definitely doesn't appear that strict gun laws ever do much to reduce the crime rate in those cities. However, crime nationwide has been falling a lot in the last 30-40 years, and coincidentally, gun laws are much more lax in most places than they were back in the 70s, when they were probably strictest. Before 10-20 years ago, having a concealed weapon was illegal in most places; now, it's easy to get a license that's good in about 40 states. So even if laxer gun laws don't reduce crime directly, they don't seem to be causing higher crime either.

    146. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What states or countries are you NOT allowed to defend yourself?

      UK. If someone breaks into your home there, and you use any force against them, you will be prosecuted. There was even one case where an older couple use a FAKE gun (probably a real-looking toy water gun or something like that) to hold some intruders until police arrived. The police arrested them for threatening the home invaders.

      States like New Jersey aren't too friendly to people who defend themselves either.

    147. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wow, I never knew Spain was such a dangerous country. Its robbery rate is 6 times higher than Mexico of all places.

      However, this list doesn't segregate the US states. So places like DC, Chicago, LA, and (shudder) Detroit and Cleveland are going to make the US look much worse than if you left those places out.

      What's the deal with Spanish-speaking people and crime, anyway? 4 of the top 6 countries in that list are Spanish-speaking, and #1 is the one I thought had a decent economy, being part of the EU as it is. Where is Brazil on there anyway? They seem to have forgotten that one, so we can't compare the Spanish countries to the Portuguese countries.

    148. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Weird; I just looked again, and noticed that Greece of all places is actually one of the safest countries, at #54, even though their economy's a wreck! So again, what is the problem with Spanish-speaking culture, that it promotes crime? Apparently, the Greeks don't turn to crime when they're having economic problems.

    149. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can. Most people couldn't hit the side of a barn with a handgun. When you're any significant distance away from a gunman, especially if you're moving, it's very unlikely he'd hit you. One technique if you're running away from a gunman is to run in zig-zags away from him. Most people can't hit moving targets at all, and even good shooters typically use shotguns (hence the sport of skeet-shooting). Hitting a moving target with a handgun is extremely difficult, and handguns already have poor accuracy over 5 or 10 yards.

      At close range, however (like within arm's reach), knives are really more dangerous than guns, since it doesn't take much skill to slash someone with a sharp blade, and pointing and aiming a gun is more difficult.

    150. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Where I live this works wanders.

      Huh? People wander away when they're taught these things? ;-)

      What they need is education. And I don't mean maths, but how to live in society and enjoy life in general. Teach them to have pride in what they do, and help them do something productive for others and themselves too.

      Sounds good. But education is free here in America, but it doesn't seem to be doing much for the lower classes. We're probably not doing a very good job teaching any values like you list, however. They seem to rely on parents and churches to do that, and restrict schools to only math, reading, etc. I'm guessing a bunch of stupid people would complain loudly if they tried teaching values in public schools.

    151. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I should also add that in Switzerland, every able-bodied male is given a fully-automatic weapon and ammo to keep at home. Their robbery and gun crime rates are extremely low.

    152. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Africa has below world average population density

      It doesn't matter if a particular region has density above or below world average - it's a meaningless metric. What matters is whether a particular region has density above or below what it can sustain.

    153. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by M.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
      you're an idiot. you claimed the determining stereotype at bar was religion. you are wrong... but why did you choose to be wrong in that way? there is only 2 reasons, and one of them is you're an idiot. because you dismissed the other reason, i'll say it again:

      you're an idiot.

    154. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by JonJ · · Score: 1

      Robberies (esp. with knives) aren't so common here in states where you don't know who's carrying a gun.

      This is why you shoot eachother instead. That's so much better.

      But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

      Bullshit, countries with stricter gun control than the United States have less crime and fewer shooting incidents. Your laws help absolutely nothing, and you're much more likely to kill a family member than a criminal.

      --
      -- Linux user #369862
    155. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      The statistics handily provided by someone else in this thread here prove you wrong. UK has a higher robbery rate than the US, and Spain appears to lead the world.

    156. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      you claimed the determining stereotype at bar was religion.

      Where did I do that? And what does that even mean? Are we talking about a bar or the bar?

      --
      It is what it is.
    157. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      You can forget my previous question. This is the last time I'll ever answer to you.

      And you couldn't be more wrong about me or my wife. (Whom I shouldn't have mentioned, I will remember this lesson.)

      For person who was complaining about generalizations you're making a shitload of assumptions about people you have never met. I will consider you a troll from now on. Thank you and have a nice life.

      --
      It is what it is.
    158. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're half right in the first paragraph, in that they benefited from having parents. Parents with money. But it's not this indirect quality bullshit you're preaching - the benefit is that they had their parents as a safety net, allowing them to make choices with higher risks and higher rewards.

      So your parents never taught you any values? They never taught you to avoid crime, and instead get an education and a job so that you'd live a comfortable life?

      Bad parents teach by example: they do drugs and crime, and their kids see that and emulate them. The parents don't care about education, say it's a waste of time, and their kids believe them. That's the way my mom grew up, being told that education is a waste of time and a woman's place was in the kitchen. She luckily realized it was bullshit and moved out, got an education and lived a much better life, but most of her relatives are living in the same rural area and are poor, and are raising poor kids. What's worse is that drugs are much more prevalent there now, unlike when she was young, so things are going downhill (not that they were great to begin with).

      You seem to have some strange idea that all kids learn the same values somehow. This is complete lunacy.

      A friend of mine, whose parents are in the upper middle class, has made the same choices as me, but with the advantage of being from a wealthy family. She's much worse about money than I am, but since she's not on the hook for loans, and has the option of living with her parents, she has many options I don't have. She can take a lower-paying job and be essentially fine, despite the fact that she routinely spent all the way through $500 per week of college, after room and board.

      Not everyone raised by a wealthy family will turn out to be a success. Some of them are failures, and are only able to survive by being a leach on their families. Eventually, the money runs out or the family gets sick of it and kicks them out (or they get a big inheritance and continue with their ways). It's not sustainable; these people generally won't be successful or have successful children, though their brothers and sisters might.

      It sounds like your friend is still in her early 20s, which means she's living off her parents just like every other middle class 20-something. What's she going to do in her 30s, 40s or 50s? If she manages to marry a well-off guy, she might be OK (esp. if he can reign in her spending habit). If not, she'll fall to lower-middle-class status or worse.

      Also - day care workers - poor as hell, most of the time. Lots of teachers and teachers aides - pretty damn poor (especially the aides).

      Teachers aren't poor. In most places, they make at least $30k, sometimes quite a bit more (some school districts are very aggressive about recruiting teachers from out-of-state). That is NOT "poor" (although some spoiled Americans seem to think anything under $100k is). "Poor" is being on welfare, food stamps, continually unemployed or under $10k/year, never paying rent (basically move into a place with 1st month's rent, then never pay any more rent and wait 3-6 months to be evicted, then repeat the process over and over again), not owning a car and taking the bus (even in cities with crappy public transit and 2-hour bus rides), etc. Also, most teachers are married, so their income is just a supplement to their husband's.

      Honestly - what could a poor person buy that you wouldn't hate the shit out of them for? Because they're poor, they aren't allowed to have news, or entertainment?

      I don't have satellite TV. Instead, I use a rabbit-ears antenna. OTA TV is free, always has been.

      It just shows where their priorities are: instead of saving money for important things (like quality food for their kids), they waste it on frivolous crap. And that's why they remain poor, and their kids remain poor. But apparently people like you think that taxpayers should be forced to subsidize these peoples' poor choices in life, so they can enjoy luxuries like satellite TV which more-frugal people like myself don't even have.

    159. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Kristopeit,+Michael · · Score: 1
      first you solely claimed:

      it depends on their religion.

      which is extra hypocritical and ignorant coming from you, after you stated you have no such religion...then you admitted:

      Admittedly I generalized...

      and now you play idiot:

      Where did i do that?

      my 3 letter word that you're having problems understanding implies the defeat or nullifying of a claim or action, or anything else that brings such things about.

      you're an idiot.

    160. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by cain · · Score: 1

      There exist these places, stores really. They sell books. I hear they even have one on the internet now. Anyway, in this place is a book which is just a list of words. This book has definitions for each word in the list. I mean, that's it's reason for existence. That's what it does - it defines words. It's usually pretty large. (Although they do sell smaller, abridged versions.) It's called a dictionary. I suggest you pick one up. Once you do that, you can learn the meanings of the words you use and we can all have an actual conversation because we have a shared vocabulary from which to build meaning and not just a vocabulary that is made up for argumentative convenience on the spot.

      Keep me posted.

    161. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by fatphil · · Score: 1

      "The best way to bring the birthrate down, though, is to improve the economic and legal status of women throughout the world."

      I'd have thrown education in there too. (And hopefully with education, parity of economic status would be more closely approached.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    162. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Where I live, anyone trying that would simply be shot. Robberies (esp. with knives) aren't so common here in states where you don't know who's carrying a gun. But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

      I take it you do not live in Detroit or Camden?

      Arguably they have a higher population to gun to person ration anywhere else in the nation, but for some reason robbery and violence seems to be a problem.

      And I've got 2006 numbers for you (I'm sure more recent are out there but those two cities haven't really improved much):

      http://detroit.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Detroit&s1=MI&c2=Camden&s2=NJ

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    163. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      Moral education isn't connected to wealth - my dad had a Lear Jet at one point, and was a racist jackass, and my wife's mother was raised in a house without a floor, and is a wonderful, kind, moral person. Furthermore, your belief that kids always (or even generally) ape their parents in terms of behavior is laughable. Half of human cultural history is the story of one generation's reflexive rebellion against the previous generation's mores.

      Also - your assertion that I claimed that all kids have the same upbringing is simply false.

      Teachers aren't poor. In most places, they make at least $30k, sometimes quite a bit more (some school districts are very aggressive about recruiting teachers from out-of-state). That is NOT "poor" (although some spoiled Americans seem to think anything under $100k is).

      So, way to ignore my mention of day-care and teachers aides. Also, in South Florida, public school teachers start around $24,000, not counting cost of certification; private school teachers can make significantly less, although they don't always.

      "Poor" is being on welfare, food stamps, continually unemployed or under $10k/year, never paying rent (basically move into a place with 1st month's rent, then never pay any more rent and wait 3-6 months to be evicted, then repeat the process over and over again), not owning a car and taking the bus (even in cities with crappy public transit and 2-hour bus rides), etc.

      Ahhh, so by "poor" you mean "Reagan's Fake-Ass Portrait of the Welfare Queen." I mean, if you're going to restrict the meaning of a word to a tiny fraction of any of its accepted uses, let a guy know, huh? Regardless, since your definition ignores how welfare/food stamps actually function, includes criminal activity, and is so obviously the product of the conservative stereotype machine, I'm just going to tell you that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and go ahead and suggest you google the shit out of what the poverty line is currently set at.

      I don't have satellite TV. Instead, I use a rabbit-ears antenna. OTA TV is free, always has been.

      Assuming you live somewhere that it comes in well enough to make any channels out. But this is beside the point; take your point as granted. The fact remains that you don't remotely have a right to say that a poor person is being bad and wasteful just because they have Satellite TV. Maybe they eat rice and beans three meals a day, so that they can afford saturday morning cartoons for their kids. Maybe they don't have cable internet available, and satellite is the only reasonable-speed internet available. Maybe gramma only speaks portugese, and they want to have something for her to watch from her sickbed, while both other adults are working.

      You don't know, because, HOLY CRAP, THESE ARE PEOPLE WITH LIVES! You are willing to pass judgment on people you don't know anything about, because you happen to be comfortably well off.

    164. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, I live in Phoenix.

      Detroit and New Jersey are places with strict gun laws (NJ is notorious for being very anti-gun throughout the state), so I don't find it surprising that their crime rates are so high.

      However, I wouldn't be surprised if Detroit's rates have fallen a little since 2006, only because their population is falling. That city just needs to be bulldozed and returned to nature (which they're actually doing in many places in that region). There's no good reason to live there any more; industry has moved out, and the weather sucks.

    165. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Sally+Forth · · Score: 1

      2) According to the study, the vast majority of fathers were neither criminals, in and out of jail, nor unemployed.

      1) You've pretty much got the actual reason down right there.

    166. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      I should also add that Switzerland has compulsory military service for all males.

    167. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      Did it ever occur to you that cities with very bad crime problems like DC and Chicago had to enact those strict laws to fight crime?

    168. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      Except it's impossible to die from a knife slash but if you get shot, even in the leg or something, it's immediately a life-threatening injury. People don't just recover from being shot. It can cause permanent nerve damage, lots of muscle damage that takes years to completely heal, and if you're unlucky enough to be shot in a bone then it might splinter and require implants and reconstructive surgery. A shot to the head is -extremely- dangerous and usually results in death or brain damage.

    169. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      The laws are more complicated than that. In Maryland (and this is how is should be), you can use lethal force to defend yourself when you're being assaulted and are under immediate threat of grave injury. But you can't defend your property with lethal force. If someone steals your wallet or is trying to make off with your TV at night while you're sleeping, you can't jump them from behind and stab them or hit them in the head with a baseball bat. A wallet or a TV aren't worth the life of a human being.

    170. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      Yeah because two counter examples makes his statement wrong. He didn't say all countries with stricter gun control laws, he said there exist countries.

    171. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      They are poor and reproduce too much because they are stupid. Giving them more money doesn't solve the underlying problem.

    172. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Except it's impossible to die from a knife slash

      Ever heard of a carotid artery? It's right on your neck, and very easy to slash. You'll be dead before the ambulance can get there.

    173. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You have a bachelor's degree and you've never made more than $14k? Even during the booming economies we've had lately? What on earth did you get your degree in? Philosophy? Have you tried building a career of some kind? You could do better working at McDonald's; if you're reliable, it's not hard to work your way into management there. Heck, you could make more than that just flipping burgers. McD's is paying about $7.50 these days, which equals $15k. There's tons of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs paying $8-10/hr. If you can't find one of those, there's something wrong with you.

      Why should anyone else make up for your bad choices in life?

      And how on earth does someone with a law degree die penniless? Sounds like more bad choices in life. If he made any money while he was working, he should have gotten Social Security (which pays out based on how much you pay in while you're working, so someone making good money as a lawyer should actually get enough to live comfortably, even though its rate of return isn't the greatest).

    174. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      Booming economies. Riiiight. Show me one of those that's existed in Florida in the past fifteen years, and I'll show you this lovely bridge, which has many development opportunities. It's located in Brooklyn!

      I would just like to point out that you're essentially claiming to know more than me about the circumstances of my life, without knowing dick about where I live, what years my degree and work experience cover, what years and work experience are in my dad's life, or apparently ANYTHING about how being a lawyer works in the real world. Yet, you're willing to go off and declare that it's all due to bad choices, instead of, oh, I don't know, the Florida real estate crash, a change of careers, a hiring freeze covering Sarasota county or my mother's multiple sclerosis, or any of the actual, for real events that occurred in my life or my family's.

      This is my entire fucking point - you are being offensively arrogant, and saying that, without knowing a fucking thing about what you're talking about, you can declare that whole groups of people are behaving in certain ways, and destroying themselves and society. You're wrong, but even if you were right, it would be fucking coincidental, because 99% of your conclusions come straight from your imagination.

      I mean, as an example of something you are perfectly willing to make up bullshit about - tons of lawyers end up penniless - it is, in fact, incredibly common to end up below the poverty line as a public service lawyer (even before adjusting income to take loans into account).

    175. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You do realize there's other places in the US to work besides Florida, right? If things are so bad there, MOVE. Why should society pick up for you if you're unwilling to do anything to change your own situation? You sound like one of those people who whines that there's no jobs where they live, yet they refuse to move more than 10 miles away from their birthplace, like they have some kind of right to a job in exactly the place where they want to live.

      I don't really care if I sound arrogant to someone who only whines about how hard his life is, and appears to be unwilling to do anything to fix it, or to own up his own bad choices in life.

    176. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      You sound like one of those people who whines that there's no jobs where they live, yet they refuse to move more than 10 miles away from their birthplace, like they have some kind of right to a job in exactly the place where they want to live.

      And you sound FAT.

      The preceding sentence is just as valid as your argument here. You know FUCK ALL about what I am or am not doing to make my life better. At no point have I whined or complained or done ANYTHING to lead you to believe that I refused to move, or that I believe that I have a right to a job, or ANY of the cookie-cutter libertarianism talking points you're spewing. You know nothing about me, and are still perfectly willing to try and dictate the terms of my own argument and, fuck, the conditions of my personal life to me.

      This is why people will continue to be pissed off at you; you are engaging in bad behavior towards them. You are insulting them, without having a goddamned leg to stand on, or any right to be doing so. They're not mad because they're whiny, or somehow inferior, or lazy, or any of the imaginary bullshit you try to attach to them; it's because you are a rude, insensitive jerk, who can't be bothered to actually listen and consider other people's positions before making a statement about them.

      I mean, for fuck's sake, you actually told me, without knowing anything about the situation, that my dead father made bad decisions, and that's why he died with nothing to his name. You are willing to go so far as to talk shit about the dead relative of someone you have no information about? That's pretty fucked up.

      I mean, I could just as easily say that you have never had to worry about money because your sweet mouth is worth $200 a pop on the street - but I don't, and wouldn't, because I'm actually debating, rather than trying to force you into a losing position by dictating the terms of your argument.

      You're doing it to people you directly engage with on the internet, and you've done it to entire classes of people in your arguments. It's bad logic, and frankly, disgusting behavior.

      I honestly shouldn't bother to engage with your ridiculous "you can always move" argument - it's practically the "hello world" of Libertarian BS arguments. But, if you really want to put that forward, how about you try this. Plan a move from Sarasota, Florida to, let's say, for argument's sake, Boston, Massachusetts (Note - since you can't pick and choose where you'll live, any state has to be possible - I picked an example where the housing is comparable and the job market is substantially better). Do this assuming an $8 an hour job, no savings, a car that won't survive the trip (and is worth less than $500, maximum), and that you'll need first, last, and deposit at any place you'll be moving into. Further assume that a crooked landlord has decided to keep your security deposit from your existing apartment (pretty much the norm in Florida for student-level housing). You have to either transport or re-buy a bed, a desk, and a chair (Note - this is INCREDIBLY generous - setting up a real apartment, even bare bones, involves a shit-ton more than this). Come up with a practical, low-to-moderate risk solution, that doesn't have a near guarantee of worsening the person moving's financial state to the point of insolvency. Oh, and remember, you get immediately fired when you turn in your two weeks (which you have to do, because elsewise, you're engaging in behavior only worthy of the shiftless poor), and you can't short the landlord any rent, although he's free to fuck you over on the deposit (same reason). This is a perfectly reasonable real world example. Note, before you come back with more vapid attacks on me personally - I'm not whining about my own experience.

      I think if you actually thought this out, it might open your eyes a bit; I don't have any real hope that you will, though, or that you won't use it as an excuse for Libertarian wish fulfillment and declare it solved.

      Either

    177. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      P.S. Also, a law degree still isn't an automatic ticket to massive money and the economy has been depressed across the country for years. Just cause you ignore points made doesn't make them go away.

    178. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      and you can't short the landlord any rent, although he's free to fuck you over on the deposit (same reason).

      Not true; two can play at that game. You don't have to pay rent to stay in an apartment. All you have to do is stop paying, and stay there. The landlord has to go through a lengthy process to evict you legally. Hiding from the process server might extend it a little further.

      At no point have I whined or complained

      Actually, you seem to be arguing in favor of social services for poor people, in order to "redistribute wealth". So in a way, you are indeed whining, because you have a hand out trying to take my (and other taxpayers') money.

      You say you have zero money, but apparently you managed to save up enough to go to college, something only a minority of the population is fortunate enough to enjoy. What did you do for a degree that didn't lead to a decent career and paycheck? And you still haven't said how your father could be "penniless"; either something was done very wrong, or there were some really weird extenuating circumstances there, because as I pointed out before, we do have Social Security in this country for people who worked (and also for disabled people, even if they didn't work). I'm not saying SS pays great, but it's enough to keep you from being "penniless".

      you get immediately fired when you turn in your two weeks (which you have to do, because elsewise, you're engaging in behavior only worthy of the shiftless poor),

      Wrong. Shitty employers will happily terminate you at their convenience in an at-will state. There's nothing preventing you from doing the same to them; "at-will" works both ways. However, it can render you "ineligible for rehire" in case a new employer calls, but big deal. They can't bad-mouth you, or else you can file a hefty lawsuit against them (get some buddies to call them and act like new employers checking references, and record the calls; a demand letter from an attorney will usually yield a nice pay-out if they open their mouths beyond that which they're allowed to verify: dates of employment, and eligibility to rehire). Just for reference, I walked out on my job yesterday after having enough of the BS; I didn't give any excuse. I don't foresee having any trouble finding a new job in the future. My skills are in demand, and I have plenty of good references from previous supervisors and coworkers to not worry about this one bad employer. Anyway, if your employer is that bad, it doesn't seem like there's going to be any difference in giving notice or not. If they suck so much, they're not going to give you a good reference, no matter how good you were; they're going to be pissed that you're leaving and not going to be their wage slave any more. Any decent new employer knows this and won't care about what the old company thinks, but it's very useful to get good references from some friendly coworkers and supervisors along the way.

    179. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, lots of lawyers really don't make that much money. However, unless you're disbarred, it is pretty much an automatic ticket to a job that pays well enough to keep you well above the poverty line. It really shouldn't be that hard to make $50k as a lawyer, and up to 80 or 90 before you have to start screwing around with being a "partner" and all that crap. You might have to take a job as a wills and trusts attorney, or some lowly assistant corporate lawyer, or something else really boring like that, but there's jobs out there if you have a law degree, even if they aren't all high-paying like the high-profile law firm partners jobs.

    180. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      As clarification (I wouldn't want to seem unfair) I specified that you can't short the landlord on rent and that you have to turn in your two weeks BECAUSE you previously used that as a negative behavior that the loathed "poor people" engage in. You're exceedingly harsh in criticizing the criminal and/or immoral behaviors you say all poor people engage in, so it's unfair for you to use them here as valid steps to improve your situation.

      As for the rest of your post, blah blah unthinking libertarian talking points. I would like to point out that I'm not going to respond to your questions about my life for a reason; my point is that you engage in ad hominem attacks on zero information (which you continue to do here). I have zero interest in providing you with a free dodge of that point. You are being rude and failing to argue in good faith.

    181. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      Why, if that wasn't a load of horse puckey, it would perfectly skewer my argument!

      Why not look up starting salary for a public defender (let's say in Massachusetts, a state that I'm sure you'll agree is high tax and highly prone to spending money on civil service), and average student loans.

    182. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I specified that you can't short the landlord on rent and that you have to turn in your two weeks BECAUSE you previously used that as a negative behavior that the loathed "poor people" engage in. You're exceedingly harsh in criticizing the criminal and/or immoral behaviors you say all poor people engage in, so it's unfair for you to use them here as valid steps to improve your situation.

      Sorry, I can see the confusion here. The problem is that there's bad tenants, and bad landlords. Not all landlords are bad, nor are all tenants (poor or not). I was complaining about some poor people making it a habit to go from apartment to apartment, not paying rent and waiting for the eviction before disappearing. As a pattern, I think that's wrong.

      However, if you happen to have one especially shitty landlord, I don't see any problem with using that tactic if you really need to, and the negative consequences are less bad than not doing it that way. I wouldn't make a habit of it though. It's like my previous mention of leaving a job with no notice. If you do it all the time, for every job (and never stay at any job more than a few months), you're doing something wrong. However, if you do it once because of an especially bad employer, I don't think that indicates there's anything wrong with you, especially when the rest of your work history is OK. Some employers are just horrible to work for, and you have to do what you have to do sometimes.

    183. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      Florida's "shall issue" concealed carry laws were enacted *in response* to that higher crime rate. They were not the cause of it, as you clumsily allude; they were a response *to* it.

    184. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      This isn't confusion on my part, it's backpedaling on yours; present it that way if you want to change your tune here. You don't get to present something as one of the markers of a plague on society in one place, and then turn around and claim "Oh, I've always said it's ok sometimes!"

      And anyway, this is my point; circumstances matter, life is complicated, and you can't reduce something as big as "the reasons for poverty" to a single (highly offensive, by the way) social theory, just because it simplifies your headspace and supports your politics.

      Your "people are poor because they're BAD!" argument doesn't function. Furthermore, your method of argument isn't fair or actually logical - you've been repeatedly focusing on or inventing detail arguments, to prevent having to come to grips with the basic problem; that your insistence on attacking things you don't actually have first-hand or evidentiary information about is bad logic, and produces rudeness at a staggering rate

      Listen - I'm sure that, when you get up in the morning, you're not actually thinking "I'm going to go out there and condemn people without knowing about them, and insult people for no reason." But that's what you're doing, because you're so gosh-darned keen to fit everyone into your personal set of ideological lenses.

      P.S. My wife has graciously pointed out that, even if you allow your ridiculous backpedaling, your argument is stupid as hell. HERE'S MAGGIE!

      "The premise is that the landlord will not give you your security deposit back, even if you've left the apartment in perfect condition. This happens at the end of the landlord-tenant relationship - you find out about your security deposit when you move, after final inspection. You pay rent before you move. You cannot stop paying rent in response to not getting your security deposit back because you've already stopped paying rent at that point, BECAUSE YOU'VE MOVED. Either you're advocating retaliation by not paying rent to a landlord that hasn't done anything wrong yet, or your plan of sticking it to the man involves time travel, so good luck with that."

    185. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      So, explain to me where I'm claiming causation here? All I have to prove to puncture the "Handgun States are Safer States" (Grishnakh's argument) is correlation; not causation. I'm not "clumsily alluding" anything; I'm stating, very directly, what I damn well mean.

      Also, you're full of crap, dude. Those laws were enacted due to a strong NRA lobby and a pro-gun state legislature. And even if you weren't, laws get enacted "in response" to problems all the time, without necessarily improving the situation.

    186. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      You claim that Florida, which allows CCW, has a greater incidence of violence than Massachusetts, which does not. Either you're claiming causation, or refuting deterrence. Whichever it is, you're not taking into account Florida's violence pre-1987 (I think), which was higher than it is now.

    187. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I'm not. I'm refuting the specific argument made by Grishnakh, which is that states with permissive gun laws have lower rates of robberies. He says that access to guns ends crime, and I called shenanigans - simple, elegant, complete in and of itself.

      Interesting arguments can be started from here; I'm not interested in starting them, or continuing them if you start them, partly because, unlike the factual statement I made in response to Grishnakh's argument, those discussions are long, complicated time sinks, with numerous factors outside of gun laws to take into account (like, oh, the war on drugs, say, and the effect it had on Miami, in particular), and they're beside the point, which was keeping Grishnakh honest in this specific instance.

      Deterrence as a rationale for concealed carry isn't the issue here; I understand that you'd much rather twist the topic around to something that you have ready arguments and a vested interest in, but sorry, I'm not talking about that, and won't be lured into doing so.

      P.S. I'm not against handgun ownership; please, in the future, try to pay attention to the actual conversation, rather than assuming the other party has picked up the opposite talking point to yours.

    188. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      Though you're trying to run away from it, you compared crime rates between a state that allows concealed carry for most people (FL) and another state that doesn't (MA), pointing out that FL's is higher. The point remains that FL's crime rate was higher *before* it liberalized its carry law, too, so your observation tells us nothing about the effect of CCW on crime.

    189. Re:A kernal of sense in an insane mind by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      And you're comparing Florida's crime rate during the middle of the war on drugs with its crime rate after, and claiming that the change is concealed carry, which is crap. I mean, come on.

      I don't have any illusion that the single number that is crime rate tells any sort of compelling story about CCW's affect on crime. It's a variable with a million factors, and frankly, I'm pretty sure that CCW is a pretty minor one. It has an affect on the whether guns are available to criminals, because it does affect the availability of guns overall, but saying anything past that is certainly beyond the reach of anyone who hasn't done a lot of research, preferably original studies. And it's not a problem that is actually easy to develop conclusive studies about.

      My statement was correct as it stands, and isn't meant to prove further theory. I'm not running away from anything, and I'm not going to allow you to put words in my mouth. Stop being a jackass and trying to claim that I'm making your counter-argument by fiat.

      For the last time - Grishnakh claimed that crime rate is uniformly lower in states with permissive gun laws. It is not. The present tense is used in both statements. At no point have I said anything against concealed carry, open carry, or the purchasing of handguns by toddlers, for that matter. While somewhat dubious about the third, I actually don't have a problem with either of the first two. I have a problem with Grishnakh's counter-factual statement, and with his behavior towards myself and others on Slashdot.

  51. Impossible! by NerveGas · · Score: 2, Funny

    Washington has laws against such things.

    Maybe they should have passed two or three more laws against them, so the guy wouldn't have done it.

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  52. Malthus didn't forsee oil by xtal · · Score: 1

    Food supplies can grow given cheap energy. Fertilizer is almost all produced from fossil sources (LNG).

    Party ends when cheap oil is over unless Fusion, mass solar, or magic picks up the slack. The first two take a decade to scale. ...I'm hoping for magic.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Malthus didn't forsee oil by yyxx · · Score: 1

      Even cheap energy isn't going to help indefinitely: topsoil is eroding rapidly and arable land is decreasing. Fishing has also declined greatly.

    2. Re:Malthus didn't forsee oil by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      We're all going to fucking die. I'm just hoping I die before my car runs out of gas.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    3. Re:Malthus didn't forsee oil by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You need to look at the bigger picture.

      Cheap or "free" energy changes everything. Minimal-soil-loss farming becomes practical... even manufacturing more topsoil from compost. Fertilizers can be synthesized dirt cheap from carbon, nitrogen, and water. Even killing weeds and insects may be possible without using poisons. The applications are endless.

      It would be the next "green revolution". Not to mention so many other things...

    4. Re:Malthus didn't forsee oil by yyxx · · Score: 1

      Energy is already cheaper than it has ever been in human history, and we are destroying more topsoil, not less. That's because, no matter how cheap energy becomes, it's still cheaper to destroy the topsoil than to produce by other means.

    5. Re:Malthus didn't forsee oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Energy is already cheaper than it has ever been in human history, and we are destroying more topsoil, not less. That's because, no matter how cheap energy becomes, it's still cheaper to destroy the topsoil than to produce by other means.

      The more topsoil you destroy, the lower your crop yields. The lower your crop yields, the lower your return on investment on farming. The lower your ROI on farming, the higher the ROI on buying topsoil (or fertilizer, or whatever) from the guy who can dig the fertilizer out of the ground, or the guy who can use the energy from the nuclear power plant who can synthesize it out of thin air. The less food there is, and the more people there are, the more valuable food becomes.

      Sure, the rumors came out in 2009. Now the only question his whether it's BHP or someone else who buys Potash, Inc.

      Given sufficient time, markets self-correct. Population/demographic trends are trends that take decades to play out. More than enough time for even the slowest market to react, and that's why (despite the crashes of 1929 and 2008) Malthus. Was. Still. Wrong.

    6. Re:Malthus didn't forsee oil by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Cheaper" is not the same as "cheap". And I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to VERY cheap indeed.

      Further, I disagree that it's cheaper today than ever before. I don't recall the last time my energy rates actually went down, especially in dollars adjusted for inflation.

  53. This is why... by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is why radical atheism should be considered to be a religion. Blind faith in ANYTHING can bring irrationality. Yes, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, but avoiding touching a stamp could be considered to be a hobby.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:This is why... by Loomismeister · · Score: 1

      Atheism embodies the absence of religion. And science the absence of faith. Atheism cannot be a religion by definition.

    2. Re:This is why... by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Atheism and science do involve faith though. Faith in the peer-edited journals, faith in your senses, faith in your calculations, etc. Its impossible to have science without faith in something. You have to have faith in uniformitarinism and a lot of other laws of science. When you get down to it, everything requires faith in something.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:This is why... by rcastro0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > This is why radical atheism should be considered to be a religion. Blind faith in ANYTHING can bring irrationality. Yes, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, but avoiding touching a stamp could be considered to be a hobby.

      Avoiding touching a stamp is not a hobby: it is OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) -- a mental illness.
      Likewise that man's defining characteristic is not religion -- he is mentally ill.

      Blind faith is not the bringer of irrationality: blind faith is irrationality in itself. Saying this mad man is a man of faith is a tautology, IMHO.

      And let me object to the "radical atheism" label, while we are at it. How many degrees of "no god" are there to make someone a radical atheist?

      --
      Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
    4. Re:This is why... by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      When the idea that not-god makes you live your life differently than someone who has never posed a question of if there is a god.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:This is why... by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      BS.

      No faith required. You can go back and do the experiments/research published in journals yourself if you are so inclined and have the resources to do it. The same cannot be said for religious faith.

    6. Re:This is why... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      its not the same kind of faith.

      I can TRUST that a fellow scientist go to this or that conclusion. I can VERIFY it (or have someone do it) and that removes the trust and 'faith' part.

      however, there's absolutely no way to 'test' for existence of god. there is no verification, no matter how smart or wise you are.

      so, the 'faith' that people refer to isn't at all the same. it has the same word being used but in a very different meaning.

      essentially, science uses verified information whenever possible. religion cares not a white about verifying a damned thing. they are happy to make stuff up and never once question it.

      finally, most people 'of faith' didn't even choose their faith, they inherited it. its called 'accident of birth' and if you were born in india, chances are you'd be a hindu, etc etc.

      how many scientists are scientists because 'their father and their fathers father was' ? its absurd isn't it? but then why do people simply accept what their parents believe even when shown that other parents, 'way over there in that country' believe something else. is it ego that says 'but ours is right!'?

      a scientist who sees conflicting info won't say 'well, theirs is right for them and ours is right for us'. how would that work, anyway? water freezes 'for us' at zero but 'for them' its 10C?

      absurd.

      please don't use the word 'faith' when it comes to science and reason. its not the same meaning at all.

      a world of difference, there.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:This is why... by moonbender · · Score: 1

      There is really nothing particularly atheist about his, eh, manifesto. He doesn't mention god at all, and he mentions religion only once, condemning civilization and "its disgusting religious-cultural roots." This doesn't say much about religion or spirituality in general, and less about the existence of a god. I guess it makes him, if anything, a (radical) primitivist.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    8. Re:This is why... by Loomismeister · · Score: 1

      Lack of faith in your god has no relevance to why this asshole went nuts. He could have expressed his insanity in a much more violent way in the name of your god

    9. Re:This is why... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This guy isn't technically a "radical atheist", though. He's definitely a radical environmentalist - a case where the label "eco-terrorist" is very apt - but his atheism is very much coincidental here.

      Lenin, with his brute force interpretation of "religion is opium for masses", truly was a "radical atheist". This guy, not really.

    10. Re:This is why... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      And let me object to the "radical atheism" label, while we are at it. How many degrees of "no god" are there to make someone a radical atheist?

      I'd say the whole range of behaviors of how you deal with others is quite open, the religious too vary from extremely tolerant to extremely intolerant. You can be fairly radical in that you think religion is the world's longest-running scam exploiting the emotional need of their followers for the benefit of the religious leaders through childhood indoctrination, threats of damnation and promises of eternal bliss to gain power and wealth. Or you can simply think "god, what a fairy tale - good that I don't believe in it" and shrug. True, you have no god that pushes you to become a radical but some end up there anyway...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  54. Re:His concerns are very valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm. I guess your planet is doing fine, humanity's is not.
    We already have a major overpopulation problem. Ask yourself when was the last time you saw a story about the planet running out of something says oil, or fish or clean water or... Daily? weekly?
    Who do you thing is using up these things? Yep, the population.
    We can't just put the large fish back in the oceans, they are going away and will be gone as the ravenous overpopulation needs to feed its face. Even without corrupt governments starving their people the people would still need to eat something as well as use other resources. Watch "End of the Line" to find out what all the hungry people have done to the oceans. Watch some documentaries on other things we are running out of. We have too many people, so having a channel glorify irresponsible reproduction is reprehensible.
    If only people who can afford to take good care of kids had kids, we would not have this problem.

  55. Re: by idontgno · · Score: 1

    Speak for yourself.

    Five, with the sixth on the way.

    I suppose that would have pissed ol' Nutjob right off.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  56. Bender? by yyxx · · Score: 1

    Bender? Is that you?

  57. I had a talk with him once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I told him "violence solves everything and if its not working your simply not using enough", I didn't think he would take me seriously. Sorry guys.

  58. When atheism becomes a religion by airfoobar · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    As a race, we may be naturally predisposed to be religious -- a very unfortunate remnant of the evolutionary process that has brought us this far. As fun as it is to mock the christians (or whoever else believes in similar fairy-tales), we should never forget that some atheists can also bastardise science and turn it into a religion. Atheists can also be religious zealots, who blindly cling onto their beliefs, who unquestionably believe in old scientific texts like Darwin, and who are prepared to use force to impose their beliefs on others... which is totally ironic. Those people are probably psychologically damaged (or very stupid, or both), because that's EXACTLY what the scientific method and critical thinking are supposed to discourage.

    If only I could erase the genes that create people like him, the world would be a much happier place...

  59. the real question is by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    what is his slashdot id?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the level of intelligence displayed in his stupid rant, 444983 would seem a safe bet.

    2. Re:the real question is by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you referring to 444983's sig? There is a passing resemblance to the manifesto.

    3. Re:the real question is by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Presumably the the scenario is that 444983 is surrounded by police, mortally wounded and still finds time to post a question on slashdot from his blackberry. Or maybe the message was sent by the ghost of circletimessquare.

      --
      Nullius in verba
  60. 'disgusting human babies' ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

    He wants them to avoid encouraging people to produce more 'disgusting human babies'

    Well, if human women start giving birth to giraffes, let me know. Nice critters.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:'disgusting human babies' ? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Of course, people could just change the diapers more promptly.

    2. Re:'disgusting human babies' ? by maugle · · Score: 1

      Now that's a Discovery channel show I'd watch.

    3. Re:'disgusting human babies' ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...in the year one million and a half, humankind is enslaved by giraffe. He will pay for all his misdeeds, when the treetops are stripped of their leaves!

  61. Re:His concerns are very valid by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    Ok, so we're running out of oil, we have other power sources, its just that either A) The people who don't want us to oil want to block those too or B) Because we aren't going to be running out of oil until sometime in the distant future, its still cheap enough for our needs.

    Eventually, cheap, efficient solar cells will be able to provide a lot of power. Safe nuclear reactors will be able to provide a lot of other power. And wind and other energy sources will be able to provide the rest.

    Fish can be farmed, just like any other animal. Yeah, so you might not be able to say that you are eating a 400 pound prized sport fish caught yesterday, but its very much possible to raise animals in captivity, just like humans have been doing with cattle, etc.

    Clean water will also be solved through technology, and such. There isn't any water magically going out to Venus, we have a pretty much closed water cycle, the ocean is filled with water, if humanity -really- needed to we could simply build more desalination plants. Plus, if global warming happens the world would be filled with even -more- water in the water cycle.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  62. Not to mention their theme song... by spun · · Score: 1

    You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals,
    let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel

    Why, they are practically cheerleaders for overpopulation! Not to mention that terrible documentary they did on roving gangs of bloodhounds...

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  63. Huh.... by Ironhandx · · Score: 0

    I don't know whats worse, the fact that he's a nutso that took hostages or the fact that I just read his web site and actually partly agree with some of the things he said...

    1. Re:Huh.... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      careful of 'binary thinking'. even lunatics can sometimes have valid points.

      things in life are rarely black and white.

      (the details are in the microcontrast, as they say in photography)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  64. Sounds like we have a leading candidate by joeflies · · Score: 1

    for the creator of the Georgia Guidestones! As a reminder, the Georgia Guidestones are a gigantic monument with several notable qualities, the most prominent being a multi-language warning against overpopulation, laws, nature, and national boundary disputes. The second most notable quality is that nobody knows who ordered the creation of this monument.

    1. Re:Sounds like we have a leading candidate by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      I know you're being facetious but just pointing that James Lee would have been around 13 years old at the time the Guidestones were erected.

  65. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Given that you and your wife are having 6 or more children, I am curious of whether you ever considered overpopulation.
    Do you think each of your children should also have 6 children?
    What fraction of your resources do you expect your children and grandchildren to use.
    What do you think the maximum occupancy of the earth is?

  66. Deliciously refreshing by spun · · Score: 1
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  67. Montauk Boy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His manifesto reads like it was written by someone who's suffering the late stages of dis-associative identity disorder. Perhaps he's an MK ULTRA operative who's front alters are getting too close to exposing his true programming, triggering a cascading wave of suicidal/homicidal imprints to manifest and ensure he gets himself destroyed before any competent deprogrammer has a chance to untangle his fantasy and reality threads...

  68. When you *think* Shark Week is over... by Mr.+Jaggers · · Score: 1

    ...is when you get EATEN.

    They're like velociraptors that way.

    Constant vigilance!

    --

    When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
  69. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Drown them in the bathtub, you dirty breeder.

  70. Moore's law of food by kpainter · · Score: 1

    The food supply is directly proportional to the size of Al Gore's ass.

  71. Decrease population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like he should have left out #3. Having a huge war may actually decrease the population faster than the birth control measures suggested.

    He should read more SciFi. There's lots of material for decreasing human impact through massive wars that eliminate lots of people...

  72. Re:His concerns are very valid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    "Ok, so we're running out of oil"

    No big deal there, considering how inefficient oil is in regards to the amount of pollution that is caused by it and the risk of oil spills such as the recent one.

    "we have other power sources"

    Yes, we do.

    "A) The people who don't want us to oil want to block those too"

    What? Are you saying that the people opposed to using oil are opposed to using clean, efficient, and renewable energy sources? Or something else? All of those things are highly important when choosing a new energy source.

    "B) Because we aren't going to be running out of oil until sometime in the distant future, its still cheap enough for our needs."

    Another problem introduced by worthless artificial currency and greed. How unsurprising.

    "Eventually, cheap, efficient solar cells will be able to provide a lot of power. Safe nuclear reactors will be able to provide a lot of other power. And wind and other energy sources will be able to provide the rest."

    Hopefully.

    "Fish can be farmed, just like any other animal. Yeah, so you might not be able to say that you are eating a 400 pound prized sport fish caught yesterday, but its very much possible to raise animals in captivity, just like humans have been doing with cattle, etc."

    Just because they can be doesn't mean they should. The lack of consideration for other species is simply astounding. We should reduce the population and consume things that don't suffer just as we do. For such a 'civil' and 'moral' species, we sure do seem pretty evil by killing things to satisfy our own taste buds. Survival? Fine. That's one thing. Even if it was a human who was eaten. However, most of the time these animals are killed not because there's a lack of plants to consume, but to satisfy the taste buds of humans.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  73. The manifesto wasn't 'released' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The manifesto wasn't 'released'

    He self published it you fucking ASSHOLE FUCKTARD FUCK THIS ARTICLE FUCK FUCK FUCK Imma go blow slashdot up now.

    http://www.savetheplanetprotest.com/

  74. Re: by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    and just what is the reason for 'needing' so many kids?

    I have to admit: I don't respect parents who become breeders like that. a kid or 2 is one thing; but the days of 'working the farm' are no more.

    ego is also at play here: perhaps this guy 'needs' to have many copies of himself. perhaps he thinks this is the way to immortality.

    I can't get inside the head of people who think that huge families, today, are appropriate.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  75. From the Yahoo! article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Original Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_discovery_channel_gunman

    Adam Dolan, a sales director in Discovery's education division, said that when he got to the bottom floor he saw shattered glass near the company's daycare facility and suspected it was broken to get the children out. He later got an e-mail saying the children were safe and had been taken to a McDonald's.

    That's nice - take the kids to McDonald's. Maybe next time, they will be too big to get through the emergency escape door

  76. Re:MALTHUS. WAS. WRONG. by CommieLib · · Score: 1

    Amen.

    I think this is a perfect example of Pope's dictum "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Malthus is notable in economics because the particular way in which he was wrong serves as a powerful example of failing to appreciate incentives.

    It is, however, useful, in quickly exposing people as knowing just a little, but not enough, about economics.

    --
    If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
  77. Next Week on Mythbusters: by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Next on Mythbusters, we bust the myth that human beings are a plague upon the planet. Exhibit "A": Kari!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  78. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Are you Mormon, by chance?

  79. At least it had a happy ending. by wonderboss · · Score: 1

    EOM

    --
    more cowbell
  80. I knew it... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Malthus immediately came to mind after hearing just a bit of this guy's manifesto on the news.

    Have we stopped Malthus/proven him wrong, or have we just delayed the concepts?

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  81. Posting as AC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Cause I sadly agree with most of what he has to say. While I want to say that I don't agree at all with his methods, I can't because it seems those methods are the only ones anyone is paying attention to now. :/

  82. "still a mess" by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Yeah, latest news report I saw said that the cops were still checking the building for explosives

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  83. In the Immortal words of Dr. "Bones" McCoy by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  84. Re: by CannonballHead · · Score: 0, Troll

    I can't get inside the head of people who think that huge families, today, are appropriate.

    You must live in an urban, overcrowded, overpopulated, smoggy city.

    Some people live on several acres, you know. Or even one acre. Some people actually grow some of their own food and could probably grow more, if they had to. Some people actually enjoy kids, having kids, raising kids... and in fact, find the most lasting fulfillment of their lives in raising kids.

    Perspectives shift significantly when you live in "the country."

  85. Re:I lol'd at the contradictions by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    more war == less humans. It comes out equal in the end.

    You're kidding, right? A modern war does not reduce the net world population except in the very short term. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. After the two bloodiest and most destructive wars in recent history, WWI and WWII, the population tripled within two generations, as pointed out by our illustrious manifesto writer du jour.

  86. Violence begets violence begets violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just so nice to see the authorities model their actions on those of a lunatic. He used a gun; so they used a gun. Now he's dead and they think they've done a good job. I guess he just wasn't American enough to be a member of the public the police are supposed to be there to protect.

    Heck, I even teach my kids that violence is counter-productive, ineffective and morally wrong. Why can't some people just grow up and stop glorifying violence as an acceptable method of policing in a humane and progressive democracy.

    1. Re:Violence begets violence begets violence by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      These days, if you can swim your way through the sewage of media and entertainment without losing such basic perspectives, then you are basically super-human.

      -FL

  87. Comment moderation systems by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    The Washington Post article now has 533 comments. Why can't all sites just use Slashcode?

  88. Re: by jmkrtyuio · · Score: 1, Troll

    Because I want them. And they are sure happy to be here. As I am. A shout out to my parents for not being a pair of idiotic post modern fuckwads like seemingly so many of you out there. Fuck you. I dont give a flying fuck for all those people walking around thinking about how the world would be so much nicer if they were the only people in it. I could give two shits. Fuck them all. I'll have the kids they wont. Its called Children Credits (Patented)(TM). I'll raise the kids the lazy selfish fuckers rationalize and put themselves on pedestals for not having. They deserve their fate, let them all die old alone unloved and helpless. By their own philosophy their should all bury themselves alive six feet under and spare us all. Saving the planet? Fuck you, the planet gives less shit about you than I do.

  89. Oh no... by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

    The hipsters are taking up arms now.

  90. Re: by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Just because someone chooses to have 6 children doesn't mean that everyone will look at them and also choose to have same or more. So long as the overall birth rate is not an issue even despite the lack of regulation (which is presently the case in most First World countries), there's no point in tracking individual rates.

  91. "The man has now been shot by police,..." by superdave80 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Good.

  92. Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    No one seems to think that summary execution is a problem in America.

    This guy was a nut, sure. Protect innocent civillians, ok. Kill him on the spot?

    It's not the first time US 'Law Enforcement Officers' have killed someone on the street for a supposed crime. What happened to criminal jurisprudence?

    1. Re:Due Process by afidel · · Score: 1

      Uh, he took hostages and threatened to use a bomb, the obvious solution is a bullet through the brainstem. I'm fairly anti-cop myself as I think they need to be put back in their place as public servants who are more beholden to the law than your average citizen due to the extraordinary privileges and responsibilities given to their position, but even I can see that this is the correct course of action. If you threaten mass harm to people you need to be eliminated from the picture before you can carry out your threats. This is one of the few things the police force should actually be used for.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  93. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hes prob a mormon.

  94. Al Gore should be held accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/01/maryland-police-respond-hostage-situation-man-gun-enters-building/

    From the link above:

    "At the trial, Lee reportedly said he began working to save the planet after being laid off from his job in San Diego. He said he was inspired by "Ishmael," a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn and by former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth.""

    Since this proves Al Gore caused this crime, by the book he wrote he should be held accountable for this crime. Same as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter was held responsible when George Tiller was killed by a crazy person who read books by Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. At least in the Liberal Media, like the New York Times, and Slashdot.

  95. Re:MALTHUS. WAS. WRONG. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could turn around and feed a population five times the current one by simply using land for crops that we don't already use and going vegan.

    Going vegan as a measure of land-use efficiency only makes sense in certain countries. In other countries, there is land that's able to be grazed but not farmed (extremely mountainous or hilly land, rocky land, arid or near-arid land, land that can only support plants that we can't or won't consume, etc). In those cases, the animals actually act to "convert" the non-arable land into foodstuffs, so are a net gain.

  96. Reviewing website he's clearly crazy by LittleRedStar · · Score: 1

    He used Frontpage.

  97. Just goes to show by meerling · · Score: 1

    there are nutcases for every subject and type, but this one is a really bizarre one

  98. Re: by khallow · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that some people have stated that they believe a population die-off will occur. If in addition, you believe there is considerable merit in your genes, family, or other inheritable characteristics surviving that die-off, then it is rational to have as many kids as you feasibly can, in order that more of your progeny survive the die-off.

  99. Seriously people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least his heart was in the right place... sadly wasted in actions that would alienate most people.
    Particularly a bunch of smart-asses who need to over-assert their intelligence on slashdot.
    Sometimes things are just as simple as they look.

    1. Re:Seriously people... by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates? Is that you?

      -FL

  100. There are two types of people ... by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

    There are two types of people concerned about over population: suicides and hypocrites. Given that you're still pounding away on your keyboard, we know which category you fall into.

    While you're at it, please don't pull an Al Gore who breeded exponentially. As a libertarian liberal I generally despise the religious right -- but at least they have the good sense to throw their whore humping preachers under the bus -- the totalitarian left give 'em Nobel Peace Prize.

    1. Re:There are two types of people ... by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      There are two types of people concerned about over population: suicides and hypocrites. Given that you're still pounding away on your keyboard, we know which category you fall into.

      Advocating that exponential growth is a bad thing does not make you a hypocrite if you aren't a suicider. But at least we know one thing. Only a complete moron would fall into that kind of reasoning, so we know which category you fall into.

    2. Re:There are two types of people ... by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      The comment was obviously meant as a joke given the rank hypocrisy of the environmental crusaders like Al Gore who did breed exponentially, have a 12 times the normal carbon footprint, and then want to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

      So forgive me for not following your whore humping preacher.

      The OP is grossly overreacting -- stating that every child born is taking food out of his mouth. If he lived in one of the African states that is deliberately starving their people out, he may be able to whine about his neighbors, but nearly anywhere else in the world he's gone off the deep end. He should stop reading the apocalyptic spew of Al Gore and seek psychiatric help for dealing with the real world.

      And if you're really that frightened of the future, don't breed. The European birth-rate is such that their population is decreasing; remove immigration and see what happens to the population of the United States. So not only is Al Gore a whore humping preacher, he's preaching to the wrong audience.

  101. Re:His concerns are very valid by russotto · · Score: 1

    What? Are you saying that the people opposed to using oil are opposed to using clean, efficient, and renewable energy sources?

    Yes. Most of them will say they aren't, but when you actually have any sort of practical project to harness those resources, they immediately move to block.

  102. So you don't believe in atheists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > They made Communism their religion.

    So you're saying that atheists don't exist? Or are you trying to tell me that there are people whose set of beliefs is the empty set? Remember, that would imply that their set of beliefs could not contain things like "the scientific method produces reliable information", "sense data is reliable", and "I think, therefore I exist."

  103. Manifesto response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You and your anchor baby ain't no worse than mammals, so let's start by killing you at the Discovery Channel.

  104. Re: by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    Speak for yourself. One day my plan to create human-tissue hybrids will succed and then I'll take over THE WOOOOORLD! MWAHAHAHAHA!

    Well, either that ot I'll get a reality show on Discovery.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  105. Traditional media vs Social networks by DeadPixels · · Score: 1

    I first heard about this story through a Canadian friend. I'm a born-Marylander attending school elsewhere in the States and tried tuning into some local (as in Maryland) news outlets for info. Nothing. I assumed the national media wouldn't have much and I was right. My third stop, however, was Twitter, and it was there I found information, including the gunman's suspected identity, links to his webpage(s) and MySpace account, and the fact that he had protested outside Discovery in the past all before the local news had even picked up the story.

    Several hours later, I sat down after coming back from class and checked the local news outlets. They were just now broadcasting some of this information, saying things like "We believe that the suspect may have been tentatively identified..." and interviewing bus drivers and people walking to Chick-Fil-A (that's not hyperbole either; those were actual interviews they aired) before finally turning to videos from YouTube.

    Say what you will about Twitter's uselessness for most purposes, but when it comes to breaking news, it can be incredibly informative. Obviously you have to sift through more misinformation, but the news outlets don't vet the info they get either. They originally stated one hostage before refusing to state a number, finally coming up hours later with 3, and contradicting their previous statements several times regarding the number of shots fired, if any shots WERE fired, the number of hostage-takers in the building, their motives, etc. If you have a working bullshit detector and are able to sift through information fairly well, Twitter is a very good source for these sorts of events.

  106. Is it just me or by plague911 · · Score: 1

    is this just fucking funny. Taking hostage the discovery ? I had figured this was a parody when i first heard about it.

  107. Hm. This is totally messed up. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    When hostages are taken, when people are killed, when terrorists use terror to spread their message, what is the ONE thing which never, ever happens?

    Their demands and manifestos are NOT made public. Why? Because this encourages similar crimes. So something here is seriously off.

    Mind control is quite real; Manchurian Candidate style mind programming works; we know this. You can make people, using hypnotism and drugs and personality splitting trauma, to do whatever you want them to do on auto-pilot. This stuff works, and it would therefore be naive to assume that it isn't used.

    My guess is that this whole current example was deliberately put together so as to seed the public with the idea that the populace needs culling so that when the authorities take action to cull the population, (as it always intended to, via all those empty prison camps on U.S. soil), the public will be mired down in debate. It is of particularly convenient timing because Bill Gates' bullshit foundation for population reduction has been caught with creepy ties to Monsanto. (i.e., Population reduction through engineered food shortages.)

    Heck, read the responses here; there are actually people on Slashdot who think that culling the population is a good idea. -Of course, nobody has explained to them that THEY will be included among the culled. (What? You think they only kill people in Africa? Your white, pasty arse is too good for the gas chamber? Ha. Think again. The economy is being sunk for a reason. Caucasians were useful for a time, used to invent the tools of technological/industrial domination, but the Chinese are the favored race because they are genetically better at knowing their place.)

    People consistently fail to take into account when considering what is best for the human race that we are in the present position of over-population by design, and were put here exactly by the very ones who are now trying to program us to accept our own harvesting.

    -FL

  108. Re:His concerns are very valid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    Who are you talking about? I've never seen anyone that objects to clean, efficient, and renewable energy sources.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  109. He is happy now.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure he is in line for a DARWIN AWARD!!!

  110. INVENT, DAMN YOU!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    INVENT, DAMN YOU!!

  111. Re:I lol'd at the contradictions by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

    Need more nukes.

  112. Re:His concerns are very valid by aXis100 · · Score: 1

    Nuclear is far far cleaner than oil, and yet treehuggers block that all the time.

    They dont want gradual improvement, they want instant perfection and will block anything that doesnt fit that - which ironically dooms us all to continue with dirty hydrocarbons for longer.

  113. On sensemaking tools to prevent such tragedies... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    See: http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/2846ca1b6bee64e1
    on "The need for FOSS intelligence tools for sensemaking etc.".

    I wrote most of that weeks ago, but was getting it ready to post coincidentally on seeing this slashdot article.

    From there

    Summary: This note is essentially about how civilians could benefit by have access to the sorts of "sensemaking" tools the intelligence community (as well as corporations) aspire to have, in order to design more joyful, secure, and healthy civilian communities (including through creating a more sustainable and resilient open manufacturing infrastructure for such communities). It outlines why the intelligence community should consider funding the creation of such FOSS "dual use" intelligence applications as a way to reduce global tensions through increased local prosperity, health, and with intrinsic mutual security.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology
    http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
    http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/morton_deutsch/?nid=2430 ...

    How does one figure out what is right in such a manifesto and what may be
    very wrong in a manifesto (or the actions that accompany it)?
    "Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence"
    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence....

    Again, better sensemaking tools could help with that. :-) Both for making
    sense and for educating people who use such tools.

    For example, if that despairing and angry guy had known, through a global
    sensemaking process, that we could make self-replicating space habitats with
    room for quadrillions of humans, maybe he would not have said so much about
    "human overpopulation" in his Discovery manifesto? The Earth may have
    limits, but space is limitless as far as we know (although we may reach
    limits, but they are 1000s of years away). He might have learned that the
    major problem in the industrialized world is actually lack of population
    growth, not a high birth rate:
    "[p2p-research] Peak Population crisis (was Re: Japan's Demographic Crisis)"
    http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-A...
    Likewise, he might have seen that the problem is not lack of solutions
    (because they were nicely cataloged in such a tool, including some with
    their SKDB apt-get instructions), but the problem was more in lack of broad
    understanding of the solutions we do know about, and lack of the will to put
    them into action more quickly or think them through systematically, in part
    from economic dogma? And then, rather than threaten the Discovery Channel
    with a bomb, he perhaps could have seen a non-violent way forward to improve
    his local community through contributing to the gift economy, democratic
    resource-based planning, lobbying for a basic income, and helping improve
    local subsistence production in a stronger community?

    Instead, lots of people went through a lot of stress and he is dead, and
    some police officer has to live with having killed him, because of a failure
    of effective sensemaking on his part, and, I might suggest, a lack of FOSS
    public sensemaking tools that might have made the process easier for him.
    And in the proc

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  114. Re:His concerns are very valid by russotto · · Score: 1

    Who are you talking about? I've never seen anyone that objects to clean, efficient, and renewable energy sources.

    Oh, no, not in the abstract, not usually, anyway. I have seen a few who claim that energy itself is the problem and we should learn to live without either fossil fuels or substitutes. But usually it's more like "Yay wind!" until someone proposes to build windmills, then it's "Dammit, you're killing birds and spoiling the view". Or "Yay Solar!" and then "But we'll need a 20 year environmental study on whether it's a good idea to reduce the albedo of the desert, and oh, watch for those threatened desert species". And forget about hydro (kills fish) or geothermal (kills geysers)...

  115. Kind of surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone didn't snap like this a while ago.

    between the tea baggers, Hannity, Rush, Beck, Fox News, spineless Democrats, and on and on and on...

    The major difference between the right and the left is that this kind of action is not expected from the people on the left.

  116. omfg!!! by Charliemopps · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clearly Al Gores hate speech has gone too far. We need these sorts of videos banned, or at least labeled. Not even the columbine kids wanted to sterilize people!

    1. Re:omfg!!! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yes they did. They just used a different method.

  117. HO...LEE...SHIT by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    OMG you're a disgusting person. Your words are unfathomable horrors from the bowels of hell. The fact that you have an Internet connection up in your ivory tower of privilege is a powerful argument against the existence of a benevolent deity.

    This must be what it's like to read Rand. Lovecraft has nothing on this. I'm going to sit under a hot shower and cry for a while now.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  118. Disgusting by hackus · · Score: 1

    Describing the only known sentient beings as filth is insanity.

    He also suggests exactly opposite actions to problems of human population, if you can call it a problem.

    It is quite clear, when people are well fed, and have medical care and civilization, they DO almost stop breeding.

    It is only when greed, violence, lack of education and poverty and hunger come along you see families with 10 babies and slash and burning of forests.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  119. 1800 vs today by symbolset · · Score: 1

    In Malthus' day there were only a billion humans. By happenstance, today there are almost exactly a billion undernourished humans out of our teeming 6 billion according to the WHO. It seems unlikely that we'll get to 36 billion souls 200 years from now, but if we do it seems nearly certain that there will be as many starving then as are alive today at least.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  120. Finally... by hargrand · · Score: 1

    ... an environmentalist who practiced what he preached.

  121. Not insightful - back-handed racism by microbox · · Score: 1

    A Turk living in Germany is a German in the same way that a Dane living in Greenland is an Eskimo.

    You, my friend, have committed the egregious fallacy of equivocation. You see - Germany is a sovereign nation *and* a race, but eskimo is just a race.

    Then again, you could have merely been engaging in boring back-handed racist hatred. Germany doesn't have the patent on burning jews, but it is relevant because history has shown what untrammelled nationalism and racism begets.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  122. Not insightful - backhanded racism by microbox · · Score: 1

    A Turk living in Germany is a German in the same way that a Dane living in Greenland is an Eskimo.

    You, my friend, have committed the egregious fallacy of equivocation. You see - Germany is a sovereign nation *and* a race, but eskimo is just a race.

    Then again, you could have merely been engaging in boring back-handed racists hatred. Germany doesn't have the patent on burning jews, but it is relevant because history has shown what untrammelled nationalism and racism begets.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:Not insightful - backhanded racism by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Well, Turkey has prior art on a method for ethnically cleansing eastern territories during a time of war, what with their Armenian Question and all. And the Brits developed the concentration camp during the Boer War. So the Nazis were infringing on all kinds of patents.

      That said, I'm an American of Irish, English and German extraction, so my ancestors all historically hate each other, and it doesn't really matter to me what goes on in the EU. I just like being contrary, especially when I'm tired.

  123. Also want to stop population growth? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The answer is to raise standard of living. Turns out that as standard of living goes up, population growth goes down. However you may discover that to do that in the developing world may require some carbon based fuels to be burned. I'm not saying other technology can't or won't be worked on but right now you need things like diesel water pumps.

    The key to stabilizing world growth really does seem to be to bring everyone up to a reasonable standard of living. That doesn't mean the same as the US or anything, but something where basic needs are met, where you can live a full life and not die of a disease, and where you have a reasonable chance of your children surviving in the same fashion.

    Rather than trying to be assholes and say "Fuck it stop feeding the starving people," we could realize that the people who are working to feed everyone are actually the ones working to solve the problem. Get everyone food, water, shelter, basic medicine, education and contraception and you will find the birth rate stabilize rapidly.

  124. Also by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I think too many people think that religious beliefs are only such if the follow a church that calls itself such. Not really. The complete zeal in your beliefs, the blind faith, the hatred and demonization of those who think different, the refusal to compromise, those can apply to things other than a deity. People can worship other things they can, in every real sense, be religious fanatics about things other than gods. Fanatics come in many forms. There have long been extreme eco freaks for whom environmentalism is their religion. They have a set of beliefs about the environment and world that they are unwavering on, and they are willing to go to extreme means to try and force those on others.

    Just because you don't belong to a formal church or believe in a god, doesn't mean you can't be a religious zealot. It is the unwavering dedication to a set of dogma and the mindset that everyone must believe as you do that makes you one.

    1. Re:Also by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Strongly held convictions can be dangerous this is true, but I remain to be convinced that unwavering and extreme commitment to an idea alone is particularly dangerous. Ghandi was pretty extreme about the whole non-violence thing and I'm not saying that some consequences of that weren't unpleasant but on the whole non-violence hasn't done much harm even in the hands of it's most extreme adherents.
      I don't really disagree with your point that it is possible to be a de facto religious zealot about any ideology, but I'm not sure being a religious zealot along represents that big a deal. People who aren't organised have limited powers, people who lack motivation to harm others will generally not do so.
      The Holocaust or the Crusades are the result of people following ideologies that were organised, extreme and unpleasant.

  125. Malthus was wrong only in details by serbanp · · Score: 1

    You're just a simpleton. Your baseless optimism, rooted in ignorance, is at once both entertaining and depressing.

    The only moment in recent history when the food production jumped ahead, giving the human race several more decades to catch up, was when Fritz Haber discovered how to make ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen harvested from the air. Without the synthetic fertilizers, which boosted depleted soils and opened formerly sterile areas to agriculture, the collapse would have happened at the 2 billion people mark already.

    Malthus lived in a time when Europe's people were suffering from endemic malnutrition (accounting for the stunted development of 17th to 19th century europeans). Yes, cheap sea shipping and refrigeration allowed remote and fertile areas (Argentina, US etc) to bring in cheaply produced food but the benefits were already wearing off at the WW1 outset. Then came the synthetic fertilizers, but today their boosting effect reached a ceiling and their overuse downsides start becoming more and more disruptive.

    Instead of writing about subjects on which you're utterly ignorant, you should invest some time into reading more.

    1. Re:Malthus was wrong only in details by Shihar · · Score: 1

      If we do exactly nothing and the population keeps growing we will starve. Malthus was right in this regard. What made Malthus an idiot is that humans don't do that. We change the environment when it is getting ready to kill us. The idea that a few billion humans will merrily walk off into the abyss is absurd.

      So the soil dies without synthetic fertilizers? Are you utterly convinced that it is simply impossible that there exists a technology to take the next leap? Last time I checked we have no shortage of matter or energy around here. It doesn't even take much in the way of imagination see solutions. Genetically engineered crops for fallow fields to restore the soil faster is one solution. Modified plants to survive in depleted soil is another. Hell, boring old good and sustainable crop practices eliminate much of the dangers of soil degradation and are only avoided because synthetics are so damned cheap.

      That doesn't even include the pretty dull social changes we could make to keep starvation at bay. Simply eliminating absurd waste of calories that go into luxury meat production would let us feed many billions of more people without a drop of new tech. Toss onto the top of that heap the fact that human populations have been throttling back their growth rate steadily from the 70s, and it shows that once again, the Malthusians in the room are wrong... as they have been continiously despite prophecies of doom for the past 200 freaking years.

      I hope that if I ever come up with a prediction that is proven continuously wrong for two-hundred-fucking-years I have idiots in the far future still singing my praise convinced that the idiots singing the same praise (who were also wrong) for the past 200 years were just a little too early.

      Malthus was wrong in every single conceivable sense of the word and continues to be so. He has the same track record as alien doomsday cults. Actually, I take that back. Alien doomsday cults tend to only have a record of being wrong for a decade or two at the most. Malthus outstrips them all with his 200 year history of complete failure to understand humanity and its very strong desire to not starve. Only Bible nuts predicting the Armageddon for the past couple thousand years manage to put Malthus to shame.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_increase_history.svg

  126. The movement has begun! by PPH · · Score: 1

    Re-unite Gondwanaland! Stop continental drift!

    And free the Mallocs!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  127. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > > I can't get inside the head of people who think that huge families, today, are appropriate.
    >
    > You must live in an urban, overcrowded, overpopulated, smoggy city.

    Do you understand how "the country" turns into a "urban, overcrowded, overpopulated, smoggy city"?

    Many cities in California, for instance went from acres of farmland to all 1/4 acre lots in a few decades.

    If you have more than two children, then any fulfillment you are getting from that raising children on many acres will be a shrinking dream for your children and grandchildren.

  128. That's just what he was talking about by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Have you every talked to anyone in the Tea Party? How you tried to see their point of view, consider what they want, what they stand for, where they are right, where they are wrong? Or do you simply deride them all as "Tea Baggers"? Do you equate them all with the extreme members who get the most face time?

    Funny thing is if you look at the Tea Party you'll discover that like most human groups, it is not homogeneous. Some people simply believe in less government interference and think this is the best chance they have at that. Others may be misinformed on some things but generally nice people who are trying to do what they believe is right, even if it is base don bad information. Still others may be complete not-ball shithead wackos.

    If you lump them all together and pretend that they are all a bunch of extremists then you are doing just what the GP is talking about. You are defining a whole group by the extremist elements.

    If you are willing to do some introspection you can take this self test: Do you find that pretty much everyone you know that disagrees with your deeply held views is crazy? Do you find that most people who agree with your deeply held views are on the level, at least in most things? If so, what is happening is your views are colouring your perception of reality.

    1. Re:That's just what he was talking about by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Will the tea party get rid of Medi-care? What about severely cutting the largest government expense (military)?

      Or will we just get a bunhc of christians trying to turn America into Jesus-Land where brown people aren't allowed?

  129. Another case of vitamin D deficiency? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1
    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  130. BS by mjwx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Europe doesn't need growth limits. At their current rate of replacement, there won't be many Europeans left in this world in a few generations.

    Christ all mighty, this Neo-Con bullshit again.

    "Oh noes, teh evil immigrants are going to kill our nation and history, blah, blah, ADDED FOR EXTRA SCAREMONGERING!1!one1!"

    I call BS.

    I live in Australia and over the last 50 years we've had so many new groups integrate it's not funny. The local racist organisation will tell you that the Africans have come to destroy the Australian way of life. Maybe but 10 years ago that same racist organisation said the same thing about the Indians (so how are the Africans going to succeed where the Indians failed). When I was a wee tacker (20 years ago) they used to tell me how the Asians were going to steal all the Jerbs and there would be none for me (yep, saw how that one turned out). When my dad was my age the same thing was said about the Wogs (Greeks and Italians), the Irish before them, going back to when captain Cook first settled onto Botany bay there were these same scaremongers spouting the same bullshit and to be quite frank, I'm sick of it.

    So with a Greek Kebab (souvlaki), Kwai Teow, Indian Curry, Meat Pie and Cold Beer I call BS. Immigration has done nothing but help this nation and I can say with absolute certainty that introducing and integrating new groups has not destroyed the things that made Australia great.

    So kindly sod off with this nonsense.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:BS by huckamania · · Score: 1

      Australia is not part of Europe and what does anything you wrote have to do with population reproduction rates? Maybe living at the bottom of the world has addled your beer infused brain or maybe that shrimp on the barbie wasn't throughly cooked.

      You must be from New South Wales.

    2. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post said nothing about immigration. It is a simple fact that the birth rate of first-world nations is extremely low. If the current rate doesn't raise, then sooner or later the number of people in the workforce will not be able to sustain the number of people outside of the work force. As to the question and implications of who will replace them, the topic was not brought up except by you. /Anon because of Mod Points

    3. Re:BS by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Australia is not part of Europe and what does anything you wrote have to do with population reproduction rates?

      I guess you've never heard the argument.

      The GP doesn't give a shit about reproduction rates, the reproduction rates of western nations are low for many logical reasons (mostly financial), the argument is that there will be no $WESTERNERS left because the $BAD_RACE is out breeding us (which is true but irrelevant) so the idea is to stir up fear and mistrust of non-western races as a precursor to an anti-immigration campaign.

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and say your naive, incredibly naive to not pick up on that. If true I kind of envy you, I wish I'd never met the racist morons I've suffered through.

      Also, reproduction rates are great enough in every western nation that our populations will keep growing. The GP's argument is a complete farce, as I said, precursor to an anti-immigration rant.

      BTW, the reason the average woman has more children in the Philippines then in the United Kingdom is primarily because in the Philippines parents become entirely dependent on their children when they get too old/impaired to work where as in the UK there is enough wealth (either in savings or OAP) to support them. So the fact that there are more births per woman in the Philippines is irrelevant.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:BS by lxs · · Score: 1

      "As to the question and implications of who will replace them, the topic was not brought up except by you. "

      Apart from the implication that the people who will replace them will be less European than the current population.

    5. Re:BS by Bertie · · Score: 1

      Not sure how many Aboriginals would agree that immigration has done nothing but help Australia...

    6. Re:BS by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      Wogs (Greeks and Italians)

      Interesting how two different parts of the world use the same racial slur to refer to completely different people, to the knuckle dragging British racist (e.g. a BNP member) a wog would normally be African with spic a more likely insult to refer to an Italian.

    7. Re:BS by Dread_ed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "introducing and integrating new groups has not destroyed the things that made Australia great."

      Introducing and integrating is great. The US, for one, is a country where the introduction and integration of new groups has led to adaptability, resilience, and strength far beyond many ethnically monolithic nations. However, what the poster above was referring to is when outside groups do not integrate and what he fears is if and when they fundamentally change those things that make a country great.

      IMO, this is the crux of the current illegal immigration debate in the US, though it is frequently couched in other terms. Australia assuredly has fewer problems with this as they are surrounded by water. Furthermore, they do not share a porous land border with, for instance, an underdeveloped and corrupt nation where the kidnapping, torture, and murder of travelers, citizens, police, military personnel, journalists, and even public officials is a daily occurrence. In addition, I do not think the Australian government is actively assisting in the isolation of those immigrant groups by inhibiting their assimilation the way the US government has done and still is doing.

      The US and many other countries have done an excellent job of integrating their immigrant populations in the past. However, there are new issues to contend with. Unprecedented levels of illegal immigrants are pushing for isolation within their new borders, whether geographically or through language segregation, and even receive assistance from vote hungry politicians. Those politicians are catering to non-citizens and in doing so are not only ignoring and violating established laws with impunity but are also endangering their true citizens' lives, their property, current and future financial prospects, and even the national economy. Furthermore, wide and growing support for subversive political ideas, like the "Reconquista" of the southwestern US, give a glimpse into the radical departure from the norm that new immigration problems have taken.

      In short, immigration is nothing new to the US and many other countries. However, the motivations and subsequent interactions of immigrants with their new government and their new neighbors have radically changed. Don't make the mistake of equating similar situations, especially in light of glaring evidence that the circumstances and results are fundamentally different from your past experience.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    8. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [... T]o the knuckle dragging British racist[, ...] spic [refers] to an Italian.

      "Spic" is an abbreviation of Hispanic, itself a reference to Hispania and Spain.
      As a pedant, I've lost all respect for knuckle-dragging British racists.

  131. Really? by gillbates · · Score: 1

    Don't tell me you seriously believe that the world would be better off with a decreasing population.

    I know it sounds provocative, but its true: the most materially successful generation of Americans was the one which had the most kids.

    And I'm not a part of it. Right now, the US is facing - and has been facing, for the past ten years - the single greatest depression since the Great Depression. The Baby Boomers had a lot of kids. My father's generation didn't. My generation didn't. So guess what?!

    There's nobody left to buy houses, cellphones, computers, cars, etc...

    I've seen the housing market crash. I've seen the largest American carmaker bought by the government. The company that invented the cellphone - Motorola - lays off people at the drop of a hat. Why? Because between the 40 million+ abortions and the reduction in fertility rate, the children necessary to support the ever-expanding economy were never born.

    Granted, it's not the end of the world. However, every time I hear someone complaining about having too many mouths to feed, I'm reminded of the law of supply and demand; it is exactly the kind of problem every farmer dreams of having. The problem nowadays isn't that there's too many mouths to feed, but rather, so few that a farmer - you know, someone who actually produces something for a living, by the sweat of his brow - can no longer make a living. We don't need fewer mouths to feed, but more.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  132. I wanted to make a joke out of this... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but crazy or not, a man died.

  133. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for reminding me of the Idiocracy movie.

    You should write down your insightful so your children and grand children may learn from your example.

  134. I cant believe /. is defending this person. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Some of his points are valid,

    This is not directed at the Parent but to all who have expressed such views (and there are a few of you in this thread).

    This guy is a complete nutbar, having read his manifesto it reads like something that comes out of a mad dictator rather then a rational plan for change (Forcing the TV stations to show a program based on a specific philosophy, no immigrants, filthy babies and so forth). None of his points are valid because they are all tied into ridiculous extremist philosophies.

    Now I'm normally the first to blame America's gun culture or to call out the police for excessive violence but I can do neither here. This guy was a nut, no culture could have prevented him from doing insane things and the police acted rationally and expediently in this situation. 9 out of 10 hostage situations that the police deal with are crimes of opportunity (bank robbery, botched escape) and hostages are taken in the heat of the moment as a means of escape, this is why police use more negotiators then snipers. But this case is the rare 1 in 10 where a negotiator is useless and the hostage taker needed to be removed with as few civilian casualties as possible. As far as I'm concerned, this was resolved in the best possible way with 0 civilian casualties.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:I cant believe /. is defending this person. by somersault · · Score: 1

      Obviously he's a nut, but that doesn't mean that some (not all obviously) of his points are valid, and if he actually presented them in an acceptable way then people would be a lot more likely to listen.

      If he said "the sky is blue", does that then make the sky not blue just because it was him that said it?

      I wasn't saying the guy shouldn't have been taken down - taking hostages is unacceptable - just pointing out that if you want to have people listen to you, you have to present yourself in the right way.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  135. Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html
    "Studies of social movements in the United States also show that the necessary social disruption has to be created through the principled use of strategic nonviolence. Any form of violence, whether property damage or physical battles with opponents and police, will turn off the great majority of Americans and bring down overwhelming police and military repression."

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  136. I agree with him by koan · · Score: 1

    That's all.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  137. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we see that environmentalism is a form of mental illness, and environmentalists in general are murderous nut-jobs ;-P

  138. Don't shoot! by Kohath · · Score: 1

    We'll continue to provide this forum for your doomsday predictions.

    BTW: I'm sure you bought oil futures because you know that peak oil is real. How could anyone take your knowledge of the future seriously otherwise?

  139. shot by urmish · · Score: 1

    he was shot!

  140. 4-24hour green shows in 1 24h day by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    I DEMAND 4x24 HOUR PRO-GREEN TELEVISION SHOWS IN ONE 24-HOUR DAY!!!

    asdasdffdfdfasdfsdf asdf sadf asdf df sf sf saf sa sdf (to throw off the caps filter issue)

  141. Pol Pot for a start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Pol Pot for a start.

    Pol Pot recreated himself as a deity and persecuted all that didn't follow his religion.

    Here's the thing about 'gods': many were real people who were deified (the rest were entirely imaginary).

    Rastas is the god of the Rastafarians, he was Ras Tafari (later Haile Selassie) was a real person. (did I mention that my grandfather was presented a lion skin cape by Ras Tafari in 1922 in Aden?).

    Hirohito was a Shinto god until the allies made him stop.

    Alexander the Great was considered a god by some of the subjects he conquered.

    Caesars became gods when they died.

    It seems quite likely that many of the gods of ancient Greece, of Hindu, of many others, were actually real people who became mythologised (including the god of the jews).

    Pol Pot was just another.

  142. Glad they shot this pussy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish they'd shot him in the head with a high-powered rifle and shattered his head like a pumpkin dropped off of a skyscraper. Thanks for giving us this nut, Manbearpig. You should stick to nutting on Portland masseuses. And you /.ers should stick to fapping furiously over Justin Beiber Youtube videos.

  143. Re:Hm. This is totally messed up. by u38cg · · Score: 1

    Oh dear. Sir, you scare me. Not because I think you're right, but because I think you're a fruitcake.

    --
    [FUCK BETA]
  144. ...or maybe it's because they're sociopaths... by n+dot+l · · Score: 1

    Gonna go a little out of order here.

    ...communists need to have a look at their ideology and ask themselves why every time communists get sweeping powers they do such unpleasant things.

    Correlation is not causation.

    Hitler and Mussolini did unpleasant things in the name of National Socialism. The Japanese emperor did unpleasant things in the name of his glorious empire. The dictators of 20th century South and Central America did unpleasant things in the name of capitalism. The Iranian and Saudi governments do unpleasant things in the name of Islam. Then Chinese (now) do their unpleasant business in the name of harmony and social order.

    Sociopaths say and do whatever the fuck it takes to gain and keep power, which tends to be whatever will get the locals of that place and time are likely to go along with. Communism was a convenient way to whip up the terribly oppressed masses of what were then near-feudal societies. It might as well have been a new religion - Stalin would still have been scheming his way to the top, in a funny hat if necessary.

    Don't mistake my argument - I'm not supporting communism here. But it also annoys me that someone can make a shallow statement like that as if it were a full explanation of the history, especially as I never want to see that particular bit of history repeated.

    They killed people because they were radical communists...

    No. They killed people because they were sociopaths with unchecked power. Go read history and you'll find everything they did done by others for a hundred other gods, fatherlands, and miscellaneous causes.

    Stalin had Lenin killed to get power. He spent the rest of his life purging random people in the party in order to eliminate or control those that knew where all the bodies were buried. Saddam Hussein's reign was much the same. Oh, and Hitler's. And let's not forget the old Czar's secret police or how folks ended up in the Bastille. As has been the reign of many, many, others like them.

    Stalin got a bunch of Russians killed in WWII. Like the Czar (and, well, pretty much everyone) did in WWI. Like countless idiot leaders have all throughout history. No common ideology, just idiocy and the threat of unspeakable violence against anyone that would dare correct it.

    Stalin purged religious folks, made their lives miserable, wrecked their shit, sent them off to camps. So did Hitler. And some of the Ottoman rulers. And the Romans at times. And, if the bible is to be believed, even the ancient Hebrews on their way into the "promised land". And many many others. Ideology isn't the common thread here; it's tyrants that want to eliminate groups that might band together to oppose them (and taking all their stuff must be a nice bonus, too).

    Stalin fucked up the economy and millions starved to death. While the scale and speed of Stalin's famines is impressive, government mismanagement causing economic suffering is hardly unique. People in parts of Africa starve and die of preventable diseases every day because the warlords horde everything. People die for similar reasons in some of India's more badly managed rural areas. I know people in the former USSR who tell me of friends, family members, and neighbors that got sick and died because they couldn't afford to heat their homes after the collapse of communism, or because they were malnourished, or because what medical infrastructure there was completely collapsed and the nearest doctor was a day's drive away. Is that an indictment against capitalism, or is it just corruption, cronyism, and high-level idiocy? Rulers have been starving the masses to death, wondering why they don't just eat cake instead, since ancient times, regardless of gods or ideals.

    So no, Stalin didn't kill because he was a communist. He killed because that was his path to power and because he was an idiot who'd kill anyone that tried to help him past his own idiocy. He kept killing because people

    1. Re:...or maybe it's because they're sociopaths... by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      But let's just blame it on communism. Yeah, that's way easier than talking about the social and political environment they took power in and the factors that enabled them and why nobody stopped them before they did such great damage. If we did that, we might notice parallels forming as the political process decays in our own societies, and that would just be so unpleasant...

      The social and political environment includes the fact that communism was a popular ideology. I'm not absolving histories sociopaths of the pain they are to blame for. Blame is not a finite resource.

      In the context of this discussion the type of blame I was trying to assign was at the level of particular ideologies. If you want to go a step higher in abstraction and talk about humanities love of authoritarianism I got plenty of blame to dispense there too. Similarly if you want to go less abstract there was plenty wrong with Lenin and Stalin as individuals.

      I am in no way suggesting that we 'just blame Communism'. I'm saying communism shares the blame. Communists don't get to go around saying "Stalin didn't do X because he was a communist, he did X because he was a sociopath".

      Let's take a concrete example. You are right that correlation does not imply causation, but you also mention collective farming. Collectivised farming justified by communism in the Soviet Union lead to mass starvation. What motivating factors would you say contributed to this atrocity? Which organised belief system would you say those ideas were drawn from? Is it fair to criticise an ideology which still incorporates those ideas? What people and ideas caused it? The widespread belief that Communism was a good idea was one of the major social and political factors that lead to this disaster.

    2. Re:...or maybe it's because they're sociopaths... by n+dot+l · · Score: 1

      Let's take a concrete example. You are right that correlation does not imply causation, but you also mention collective farming. Collectivised farming justified by communism in the Soviet Union lead to mass starvation.

      Ok, no argument there.

      What motivating factors would you say contributed to this atrocity?

      A clique within the party saw an opportunity to personally profit and they pushed it until Stalin himself decided to run with it. "Experts" were found to write articles. "Academics" rewrote them in prettier language. "Polls" were held to determine popular support. When collectivization took off, they went out and got really really drunk and had a fantastic time cheering their own success. As sociopaths of all races and ideologies are wont to do, should opportunity present itself.

      Keep in mind, there was an agricultural crisis at the time (still fairly early in the post-revolution period), several of the government's attempts to fix it had failed and been abandoned (some of them quite brutal in themselves - a lot of people died when Stalin decided that the peasants had simply betrayed "Mother Russia"), and the idea had been kicking around since before the revolution, so if you're a sociopathic fuck on the lookout for a quick boost to your career, pushing collectivization is a no-brainer.

      Which organised belief system would you say those ideas were drawn from?

      Obviously communism.

      Is it fair to criticise an ideology which still incorporates those ideas?

      It's fair to point out that the ideology's premise leads to such absurd ends, yes. And this is where you and I could both go on all day picking over various idiocies - like the inherent brittleness of highly centralized systems and the lack of incentive to innovate and excel under the Soviet system or its simple incompatibility with basic human nature.

      What people and ideas caused it?

      This is my point. It's the people that get power who make all the difference. The ideas are whatever happens to be lying around at the time.

      The widespread belief that Communism was a good idea was one of the major social and political factors that lead to this disaster.

      Ignoring the fact that a vast number of Soviet citizens were already disillusioned with the new government and didn't actually really believe in them...

      I'll agree that it led to the idea, and even to the idea getting government sponsorship and support rather than being outright laughed into oblivion.

      The bit where the government didn't do something to backpedal or fix things when the obvious problems began? Stalin's stubbornness. The bit where people reporting actual starvation back to Moscow were vanished? Stalin's precious ego. Well, his and those of the sycophants he elevated. If someone comes to you and says "you're causing millions to die a slow and terrible death, and here's the proof" and you shoot him it really doesn't matter what you believe, you're just plain sociopathic and insane.

      I understand where you're coming from, I do. Ideas aren't all equal and they certainly influence things. Yes. Agreed.

      But when you're looking at evil people doing evil things, the ideas are minor details. Communism isn't evil because Stalin did shit in his name any more than free-market capitalism is evil because Yeltsin and his cronies utterly destroyed what was left of the Soviet economy (which also killed a lot of people, if less directly) in the name of privatization and free enterprise. It's wrong in its own rite, and I wish people would stop confusing that because it makes it impossible for us to learn from history, whether it be copying the few things they did right or being able to publicly draw parallels between our sociopaths and theirs without being dismissed with a shallow, "but they're commies and we're [any other label], and those are opposites, so your example is trivially inapplicable (you moron)".

    3. Re:...or maybe it's because they're sociopaths... by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      I take your point but I think you are underestimating the interaction between the form of popular ideologies and the likelihood of sociopaths having power in the ruling class when those ideologies are part of the founding tradition of a political system.

      The totalitarian inclinations of the likes of Bush and other very unpleasant politicians in the West today is not unrelated to their ideology. I would argue that a nuanced look at the history of communism allows one to draw those parallels more effectively not less.

      Bush rammed through his oppressive agenda in part because he is a sociopathic son of a bitch, and ignored the damage it did because he was a sociopathic son of a bitch, but his agenda is also a result of his ultra-conservative ideology and it is no co-incidence that many of these sociopathic arseholes come from his wing of the Republican party. The totalitarian tendencies of the neo-cons and the totalitarian tendencies of the Bolsheviks are a parallel one is justified in mentioning.

      I would argue we have to combat both dangerous ideas and dangerous people, not just the latter.

    4. Re:...or maybe it's because they're sociopaths... by n+dot+l · · Score: 1

      I take your point but I think you are underestimating the interaction between the form of popular ideologies and the likelihood of sociopaths having power in the ruling class when those ideologies are part of the founding tradition of a political system.

      Possibly. It's hard to say for the specific case we've been discussing. I'd chalk the people's willingness to accept it up to education and upbringing (keep in mind that, as bad as they were, the commies were in many ways better than the disaster the Czar had been - and Stalin came into power at a time when most people could judge that for themselves). Their history also afforded them other opportunities: look at how effective it's been for each American government to claim that it's idiocy is necessitated by the previous government's idiocy or tragedies like 9/11 - the communists had the Czar's reign and both world wars to hide behind - if not for that then people might have gone from disillusioned to outright hostile a lot quicker, and the Cold War may never have happened.

      Look at what 9/11 was morphed into and imagine what Bush (since you mention him, you could substitute many others) could have done with a history like that!

      The totalitarian inclinations of the likes of Bush and other very unpleasant politicians in the West today is not unrelated to their ideology. I would argue that a nuanced look at the history of communism allows one to draw those parallels more effectively not less.

      Bush rammed through his oppressive agenda in part because he is a sociopathic son of a bitch, and ignored the damage it did because he was a sociopathic son of a bitch, but his agenda is also a result of his ultra-conservative ideology and it is no co-incidence that many of these sociopathic arseholes come from his wing of the Republican party. The totalitarian tendencies of the neo-cons and the totalitarian tendencies of the Bolsheviks are a parallel one is justified in mentioning.

      Eh. They said one thing when it got them what they wanted, and then they said the opposite when they wanted something else. Now their PR department writes articles in their defense saying, "Who could possibly have predicted it would go as badly as it did?" as though none of us have memories. The only thing that changed in between was 9/11 causing a shift in public opinion, which they opportunistically picked up and ran with as fast as they could. Shrinking government? Balancing the budget? Where was all of that when Bush gave his little speech about how great it was that he expanded Medicare to ridiculously unsustainable levels? Why did the DHS grow while the military had to delegate even more of its non-essential functions to contractors? Not nation-building? OK, then why did Secretary [I forget which] spend the week after 9/11 berating his intelligence officers for not giving him something he could attack Iraq with? And how is it that their "principles" suddenly matter again now that Obama's in the White House?

      The only consistent thing about them is doing whatever looks like the easiest way to shift power and influence to their friends. And you can claim that that is their real ideology, but then water is also wet and the sky is occasionally dark, so...

      The Democrats hold as opposing an ideology to Neo-Conservatism as is possible in US politics, but their behavior is identical. Compare Obama going on and on about how evil Guantanamo and warantless wiretapping and torture and rendition and Bush's other power grabs are to his administration's current apathy towards Guantanamo and the expansion of the ideas Bush pioneered to include it being OK for the executive to order someone killed without running their evidence and reasoning past a judge. They said they support accountability and whistle blowers, and now look at the Wikileaks debacle. They can't even say they tried their ideas and found they had to temper their idealism since they discarded all principle a couple of Novembers ago, the moment they ceased to be useful.

  145. The US over population problem by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    People in the USA use so many resources and have such a high standard of living that the world can not sustain it forever. Long ago I read a paper where the conclusion was that if you gave everybody EU standards of living (surely lower than USA back then) the planet and economy could only sustain less than 2 billion people.

    In terms of resources, I would put the USA at 4x the EU per person - so that is a lot less people. The USA doesn't have the resources to sustain its current population. Now if standards of living came down a lot... then it would be possible.

    Now economically, the USA can't sustain itself and hasn't been able to do so arguably since the manifest destiny period! I'm not merely basing this position on the decades of severe trade deficits... although that is enough of a problem in itself.

    If you want to talk about starving to death, then naturally things could get really bad before levels get that high-- but that would be ignoring the fact millions worldwide ARE starving to death many times as a result of inequitable trade policies that favor the rich nations. The real world will NOT model the simple biological simulations - or even that of actual animal populations because human behavior is a big factor in how such things play out.

    One could limit the population to meaningful jobs in which case it would probably never hit a billion. Consumerism is promoted because its important to the function of this over populated system to find work for people...
    Like how George Jetson's job is to press the ON button on the computer and keep the boss feeling important while the computers do ALL the real work...

    1. Re:The US over population problem by huckamania · · Score: 1

      This is pure unadulterated bunk. I've lived in Europe and my standard of living did not decrease or change one bit. There is virtually no difference in lifestyle between a European and an American. The only reason the USA appears to consume more resources is because the USA has the largest GDP. We consume more resources, not on a personal level, but on a national level, but that's because we produce more. We squeeze efficiencies out of our free market and because of that our GDP rises faster then our population.

      Idiots like you think that is a bad thing. We need more Americans, not less.

  146. You know, he does sort of have a point, and by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    ... wait, Discovery? Where Kari Byron works? KILLLLLLLLLLL HIIIIIIMMMMMMMM!

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  147. our precious bodily fluids by mrax · · Score: 1

    I can no longer sit back and allow TLC infiltration, TLC indoctrination, TLC subversion and the international TLC conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

  148. Who the hell are you to judge that? by ZmeiGorynych · · Score: 1

    People have raised families in this fashion for centuries, and it worked out just fine, arguably a lot better than for example sticking kids into a creche or kindergarten or some such official institution. At least I know I'd rather have grown up in an outsized family.

    'Effects of neglect' indeed - how do you know? Or is it just bad because that's not what *you* think is normal?

    When I was 4-5 years old, my parents trusted me enough to leave me alone at home when they went to work, because I hated fucking kindergarten (didn't see why the adults in kindergarten could order me around). I'm sure idiots like you have already made this illegal in places like the US, and all I can say is when I have kids (soon), I'll just have to move to a country that leaves parenting to the parents.

  149. Re:I lol'd at the contradictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    more war == less humans. It comes out equal in the end.

    You're kidding, right? A modern war does not reduce the net world population except in the very short term. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. After the two bloodiest and most destructive wars in recent history, WWI and WWII, the population tripled within two generations, as pointed out by our illustrious manifesto writer du jour.

    thanks . very nice

    www.bilisimforum.org

  150. A solution by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    The only way to prevent over population (and to stop the future people from coming back to "tuuuk ur jubs") is if we all become Gay. Where does Malthus-Darwin stand on this?

  151. and the winner is... by bWareiWare.co.uk · · Score: 1

    This has to be a contender for the Darwin Award.

  152. Supression-field, NOW! by Smekarn · · Score: 1

    Maybe so, but back then the earth wasn't quite as over-populated, right? Some of those kids would likely die, right? They didn't need assloads of cheaply manufactured, yet expensive shit, right?

    According to my extremely uninformed calculations, bringing up one kid in a wealthy country automaticly fucks atleast three other third-world babies in their proverbial colons (meaning they'll be making clothes, food, electronics etc. for a salary that you can indirectly afford).

    Also, if every couple has more than two babies, and all of them lead healthy lives, the eventual overpopulation is un-a-fucking-voidable by very simple math. How hard is this for people to understand!? Reproducing is not a god-damned right. Well it might be a right, but that doesn't make it ethically or morally correct.

    I'd very much like to have babies one day, but I don't feel I really have the right to, given the current state of mankind. Why am I the only one ready to keep my boys in my balls?

    1. Re:Supression-field, NOW! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>According to my extremely uninformed calculations, bringing up one kid in a wealthy country automaticly fucks atleast three other third-world babies in their proverbial colons (meaning they'll be making clothes, food, electronics etc. for a salary that you can indirectly afford).

      How is that fucking them? If Mr. Rich Kid in America wasn't born, would that 1) Improve or 2) Make worse the situation for Mr. Poor Kid born in Pakistan? Think about it for a second, and then get back to me.

      >>Also, if every couple has more than two babies, and all of them lead healthy lives, the eventual overpopulation is un-a-fucking-voidable by very simple math.

      No. The replacement rate is around 2.1, give or take. So it is possible for couples to average more than two babies, but still result in the human population going extinct.

      By very simple math.

    2. Re:Supression-field, NOW! by Smekarn · · Score: 1

      Those are two very good points that I will definetely take into account from now on.
      What I'm really getting at is that the larger the number of people in developed countries, the larger the demand for products cheaply produced by poor humans. It sucks enough that they're poor, don't make them work for chickenfeed on top of that. If we would pay them reasonable salaries for non-dangerous jobs, then sure, but good luck getting some kind of union going, let alone the reasonable payments.

      I guess you're right in some sense that an extremely low salary is better than no salary, but I somehow feel that both are just as bad. I'd rather see the kid pretty much as poor as now (I mean it's not like he or she can actually afford stuff any way on the current pay) but not risking his or hers health mining/manufacturing stuff 20 hours a day. I agree that our not having babies wouldn't stop exploitation of cheap labour, but it would most likely simplify making changes that would eventually lead to grown-ups doing their job for a fair pay, and the kids being educated in schools instead.

  153. new and improved movie trailer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and in other news, the new and improved trailer for Machete now includes footage from the scene at Discovery Channel HQ

    Boom Headshot !

  154. Re: by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    In principle, I don't object to people having children, but I really hope I don't ever have to live in a society where the majority of the population receives its early indoctrination from someone with attitudes like yours.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  155. Speaking of Darwinism... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    His Darwin Award is on the way.

  156. Mythbusters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad he didn't shoot those faggots from Mythbusters.

  157. Oh no... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Ok, ......what did Discovery do THIS time???

  158. Josh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was his name Josh? Sounds like another nutbag I know.

  159. Re:MALTHUS. WAS. WRONG. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok. So if we take it to the extreme - when every continent has people standing asshole to bellybutton from shore to shore and border to border, and there is NO PLACE on which to grow food. THEN are people going to starve? Or is there absolutely no limit on how high population can go? Ok, how about asshole to bellybutton ALL OVER the planet, including over water (if we're packed in so tightly, we won't sink into the oceans and seas). I'm sorry, at some point, growth just cannot any longer be sustained.

  160. Re:Hm. This is totally messed up. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    Oh dear. Sir, you scare me. Not because I think you're right, but because I think you're a fruitcake.

    That you felt compelled to pipe up and voice your rejection suggests something about your fundamental nature. And no, it's probably not what you'd like to think.

    Sorry.

    -FL

  161. Re: by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    >and just what is the reason for 'needing' so many kids?

    Just a few generations ago, infant mortality was in the double digits, and the normal family business was farming.
    Cultural idioms move faster than culture itself.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  162. Re: by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Now you tell me! I only had two kids, both in their twenties, and neither one seems too anxious to make me a grandpa. And I'm too old to be a sperm donor (and here I thought age discrimination was illegal...).

  163. It's everywhere in companies/organizations by lpq · · Score: 1

    It's pretty pervasive.

    How many times have you been in some planning or brainstorming session, and come from that with the idea that now the 'group' is going to move forward with 'the plan'?

    And how many times is it usually the case that once 'the plan' has been decided upon,
    then everyone is supposed to 'buy' into it and support it 100%, as "part of the team"
    (woe be unto those are are marked 'not a team player').

    It's a real pain being the only dissenting voice after some vocal majority claims to
    have 'consensus'.

    Even recently, after a recent vote on bakabt regarding whether or not people watched English-dubbed Anime. Some took the fact that only 1/3rd of the responders said they sometimes watched them, as some lame mandate that the majority has spoken therefore, no more dubbed Anime would be accepted: only original language and 'subbed', because the democracy ruled, and that's the way all should go.

    If ever I needed reminding of how democracies can easily be another form of tyranny, that would be a prime example in it's theater. Almost always, Americans (maybe elsewhere, too) see dissent as a 'negative' thing and consequently, see dissenters negatively. They don't understand that their freedom of thought is being protected by the dissent even as the dissent maybe be challenging their thoughts and opinions.

    So often it's expected that we all 'stop thinking' while we go along with the majority -- even in a free society. This is pressure to just 'go along with the
    majority' is far more insidious and dangerous, IMO, than the comparatively farcical examples when extremists make their demands.

    -l

  164. The article has a bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've noted this in almost all media. If a person has a middle eastern sounding name, you have terrorist all over the article, but when a non-middle eastern sounding name tries or threatens to harm people 'using explosive devices, and/or biological weapons' (excerpted from the definition of 'terrorist') then he's just a guy with a bomb. This person is/was a terrorist by definition and the media should express that here.

  165. ha by xmvince · · Score: 1

    how sad they had to shoot him, he could have been our next president

  166. The Population of Europe and Racism in Australia by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

    Europe isn't defined in terms of race, but in terms of politics and geography. The statement you attempt to dispute discusses Europe, a geopolitical entity, and Europeans, the inhabitants of Europe, not Caucasians nor white men. The assertion that Europeans will become extinct is a value-neutral fact (though not necessarily a true fact) about the population of a geographically defined region, which follows simply from the assumption of constant, negative population growth. Fortunately, the truth of short logical statements is unaffected by any amount of political agendas, straw men and unrelated anecdotes.

    It is telling that, instead of responding to the contents of the post in question, you invented a completely unrelated opinion and then spent the majority of your post attacking your own opinion. I'm glad that you realize that your straw-man position is nonsense. Was your exhortation to kindly sod off also part of a dialogue with yourself?

    I share your sentiment about racism, but passion is no substitute for thinking carefully and acting accordingly. Unquestioned opinions and careless, misguided policies may cause more harm than benefit to your endeavors against racist sentiments and unequal treatment.

    The following links may prove useful introductions to several of the preceding concepts.
    Europe
    Population growth
    Anecdotal evidence (Generally, your life story is not relevant unless it is the topic of discussion.)
    Straw man argument
    Critical thinking

    --
    Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
  167. Re:His concerns are very valid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 0

    I still don't know who you're talking about. I'm someone who cares about the environment (rightfully so), and the only reason I'd object to something such as that would be if it caused more harm than good. Those don't, and they are surely improvements over oil.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  168. Re:His concerns are very valid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 0

    "yet treehuggers block that all the time."

    If by "treehugger" you mean "those that actually care about the environment," then I don't know what you're talking about. I certainly care about the environment, and I welcome any improvement over oil. Unless the people you're talking about are opposed to technology, of course.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  169. Did they ramp it up in response to this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got up this morning and the wife had TLC on... and I was amazed at how many of these "Gazillion-baby family" shows were in the line-up! One was on, and lots more were coming up.

    Was it always like this? Or did they ramp it up in response to this guy?

    No wonder he went ballistic!

  170. Sorry by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    He did sort of get his wish when the police reduced the Earth's human population by 1.

    Sort of sad really. He sounds crazy, but he made a good point about overpopulation and the inaction around the issue.

    Not the best way to approach it, though likely frustrated, and well crazy.

  171. you need to do some reading by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Start by looking at the environmental resource usage numbers and how many earths we need to keep it up at the current pace - not the perpetual growth our economy is based upon and have been selling that whole religion to most the world as well.

    The USA consumes and it does not produce much; I suggest you look at the trade deficit problem.

    I've read plenty over the years where EU people use less resources. "Quality of life" is highly subjective, I don't think you are interpreting it the way I do - I see it from the view of the people I know here in the midwest USA; personally, I differ greatly on what I'd consider quality of life from my neighbors. My brother thinks the EU sucks in part because they can't drive fast massive gas hog monster trucks with cheap gas like he does here. If transit is part of the equation there is a big difference...

    Just because you lived in 1 place in the EU and your life didn't change doesn't say a whole lot. If you are some geek on the computer in an apartment and cubical all the time it wouldn't probably matter where you lived.

    Quality of life is relative plus even by your measurement it may not apply to other income groups, social groups, locations(mass transit?) etc.

    I object to the largest GDP comment. I'd like proof of that one; even then I'm not sure I like GDP as a measurement anyhow. The largest economy has been the EU for years now and China is close to second place-- its so close some minor tweaks to the meter changes the rankings. Currency levels skew this stuff as well, since China is probably #1 but their output is measured by relative monetary value - they are not... if you measure internally and remove the exchange rates China is probably near 1st place and the USA is probably not even 3rd (due to trade deficit.)