Khukuri techniques ??

Originally posted by munk
Eikerang; The more hard working, intelligent and ambitious you are the less you reproduce. Look at academics, they don't have babies until after 30, and look at other social groups, they start in their mid 20s and some even before 20, and they tend to have more offspring. >>>>

This may be suggested by the birth rates in the industrialized nations now, but there are far more variables at work here.


You must explain for me. If there is something that I have overlooked then I am deeply interested.


>> Who doesn't love freedom? I do too. However I don't need physical symbols to know that my abstract thoughts are real. Hmmm... tribal societies use physical symbols too for symbolizing their abstract toughts. Oh well, I guess it is only human.>> Eikerang

I said symbol and TOOL for firearms, but you conveniently overlooked that.

No, since our talk all along was about firearms as a tool it could hardly be forgotten by any of us. So I just made a sidestep and looked at the symbol aspect of it. Impossible for any of us to forget about the tool aspect.


The flag is a symbol, but we don't love it per see, we love the Nation behind it. You're being patronizing, Eikerang. It is not a symbol that keeps Governments straight and families secure. I'd like to see your abstractions do that. If you think you can carry on a conversation without the superior air and smug one liners, I'll continue. Nothing abstract about that, Eikerang, that's a value judgement based upon real behavior.

munk

You'd like to see my abstractions do that? Well, since there are other places in the world that do not share the society problems of the US and they don't use guns as a mean to achieve that, then it is obvious that things can be different. However, since the US population genetics are unique then political solutions from other countries cannot automatically be fitted onto the US society. Hmmm... I don't dare to elaborate this further right now. If the readers of this forum take uncomfortable facts personal, then it is the best for this forum that I don't spill such things here. What do you think munk? Maybe it would be better to end this here? I think you have an idea of what I am talking about anyway, and I believe eugenics could fix it. But it will take generations to achieve. In the meantime stay armed.

About me patronizing and having an attitude of being superior. How you take my comments will depend on how you imagene my intentions. This is the real weakness of forums since we can't "feel the air". I know from experience that some of my comments can tease even a stone on me, but other people just smile and give a clever comment back. No harm meant, it was just for heating things up. But I will cut it from now on of course.
Click to expand...
 
You'd like to see my abstractions do that? Well, since there are other places in the world that do not share the society problems of the US and they don't use guns as a mean to achieve that, then it is obvious that things can be different. However, since the US population genetics are unique then political solutions from other countries cannot automatically be fitted onto the US society. Hmmm... I don't dare to elaborate this further right now. If the readers of this forum take uncomfortable facts personal, then it is the best for this forum that I don't spill such things here. What do you think munk? Maybe it would be better to end this here? I think you have an idea of what I am talking about anyway, and I believe eugenics could fix it. But it will take generations to achieve. In the meantime stay armed. >>>Eikerang

You know the Nazi's had a breeding program? Think about it.

I wasn't aware I was talking to someone who thought his opinion was synonymous with fact. You think US genetics unique and can't extrapolate to other people, other countries? What places in the world do not share the societal problems of the US? Are there many people living under that stone?

Explaining your behavior by, "if readers of this forum take uncomfortable facts personal" allows you no responsibility for your
own words.

I think you are right about this thread being at an end, and I'll be happy to talk about Khukuris with you in others.

munk
 
Originally posted by munk
I think I'm a well armed, sloppy sage. Maybe I'm not....they don't have to have followers do they? Well, my son's love me.

Come to think...scholars become sages, warriors become sages, and sages become cranky.

munk
Click to expand...

Or around here, get harvested and sent off to the the NDN.;) :D
 
I sure needed a little Light right now. Your voice came in the nick of time. Send them off to the Ndn? Hell. Send all of them back to the Maker.

"And what did you all learn there?"

munk
 
Originally posted by Eikerværing


I am not saying that we should start negative eugenics like sterilizing. But we should do something to favour reproduction in certain social groups, and perhaps put a limit on it in other social groups. This is called positive eugenics since it doesn't exclude or discriminate anybody.

This all seems pretty inhuman doesn't it? Well, before you judge then take a look at yourself, you are alrady practicing eugenics. When you chose your wife you chose her for her soul, her abilities, and social status... in other words for her genes. So already you have been out "gene shopping" the best possible genes for your kids. And that makes you and me equal when it comes to personal agendas. The only difference is that I have realized how we could apply this sexual selection process for good genes onto the society as a whole and not only use it for personal gains (as we all already do) but for the best of society (and the best for society is the best for any free individual too as he is part of a society).
Click to expand...


I think this is one of those things which sounds (potentially) good in theory, but would be difficult to have work (in the way one would want it to) in practice. Negative eugenics ([forced?] sterilisations) is obviously a rather frightening path...though India, under Indira, did some borderline forced sterilisations (more as population control than eugenics per se). Positive eugenics - how would one make it work? How does one choose who has desirable traits? And does one work with pre-existing couples or start a 'breeding programme'?

China and Singapore are already openly discussing this as national agendas. And if the giant China achieves a better population average then the US or The West as a whole then we can kiss our dominant economical position in this world good bye.
Click to expand...

China and India may well become the 'dominant' nations in the next century or so in any case...

This guy has some good ideas: http://home.att.net/~eugenics/
Click to expand...

some pretty weird stuff too - arguments about the 'aryan' race vs. the 'judaic' race... the differences he talks about (to the extent that they are valid anyway) are cultural, not racial...

in any case, cheers,

--B.
 
munk:

what else would you expect from a state ( Nevada ) where the sage is the state flower? ;) :D
 
Yeah, I like that. Nevada, where if you want to be a sage, you go to the desert. Dobey Gillus: "you wanna be a Sage, make like a shrub."

Too bad I don't have the Audubon plant guide..I'd look up 'sage'.

My Webster's says, "any of a genus of the mint family having a two lipped corolla and two stamens." That why the West has so many Mint Bars?


munk
 
Originally posted by munk

You know the Nazi's had a breeding program? Think about it.

The Nazis used guns too. That doesn't make guns evil or bad. The gun was simply their tool. Their eugenics program was a tool too, just like the eugenic programs in USA and entire North Europe at that time. You already pointed out to me earlier in this thread that a tool is not evil or bad in itself.


I wasn't aware I was talking to someone who thought his opinion was synonymous with fact. You think US genetics unique and can't extrapolate to other people, other countries? What places in the world do not share the societal problems of the US? Are there many people living under that stone?

Well that's quite assumptive of you, but I don't let my opinions be synonymous with facts, but I do let facts be the basis of my opinions, and thereby your confusion I guess.

Excuse me about US genetics but... isn't it a fact that you have a population that consists of Europeans (north and south), Western Africans (ex-slaves), Hispanics, Amerindians, Pasific Ocean Islanders, East Asians of various kinds and probably a couple of more that I am forgetting right now. I really have never heard about any other population like that. So the US genetics are unique right?
And the reason why we cannot extrapolate this is because currently there is no good science done on racial mental differences. IQ research has some results though, but mostly it is impossible to say anything about racial differences right now and so we cannot extrapolate when we lack this necessary knowledge. Two different populations might need different political solutions. I can give you one example in another post if you are interested?

What places in the world do not share the societal problems of the US you ask. I can easily point out Norway, Sweden and Denmark. I think there are about 16-17 million people living under that "stone" so it is more like a mountain range. If you wish to be sure that I am not being overly nationalistic in my evaluation then I have an article about Norway only written by an American journalist in the LA Times. I can send it to you or post it here. I prefer to post for all readers but I don't know if it is legal to post it (in case of copyrights). But I can e-mail it to you if you wish. Perhaps this forum's moderator can tell us something about copyrights?


Explaining your behavior by, "if readers of this forum take uncomfortable facts personal" allows you no responsibility for your
own words.


Highly assumptive of you again. As you can see I stated "facts", and facts are something that is used in order to talk about issues. If I state a fact like for example Mount Everest is 8000+ meters high, then I really do not wish to be held responsible for it (since I did not measure that mountain). Surely this has nothing to do with me not taking responsibility since it is out of my reach anyway.
I just wanted to make sure that when I quote uncomfortable facts then people would not get offended for no good reason since facts are not to be taken personal or associated with the person who transmits them. What I was not interested in was to have readers of this thread getting emotional about race and IQ.


I think you are right about this thread being at an end, and I'll be happy to talk about Khukuris with you in others.

munk
Click to expand...

I guess so. Race and IQ is as far away from khukuris as it gets.

Khukuri stuff on us next time munk!
 
Originally posted by beoram



I think this is one of those things which sounds (potentially) good in theory, but would be difficult to have work (in the way one would want it to) in practice. Positive eugenics - how would one make it work? How does one choose who has desirable traits? And does one work with pre-existing couples or start a 'breeding programme'?


A good question. I would say there are as many strategies as there are nations, cultures and even social groups. People can pick their own strategy.
I know about one case in USA where a private company has offered sperm to women (they even made it to the media headlines in Norway when they contacted our national hero Bjørn Dæhlie, the world's best skier, for his sperm). They use sperm from what they define as high quality males by their own definitions. They have offspring today that are over 20 years old and are getting top grades in universities and are being very good athletes.
I don't say that this is the desired way of doing it, but it proves that genes are really making a difference and eugenics will be effective.
One other possible scenario is to impose different economic effects on different social groups within society and thereby causing a differention in the groups' relative reproduction. It is already being done today by accident in most Western nations. You can camoflouage it as socialism or capitalism, just pick your choice.
I must say personally I prefer openness about it all. No hidden agendas.


China and India may well become the 'dominant' nations in the next century or so in any case...

You are right.

some pretty weird stuff too - arguments about the 'aryan' race vs. the 'judaic' race... the differences he talks about (to the extent that they are valid anyway) are cultural, not racial...

in any case, cheers,

--B.
Cultural or racial is always the question. But why are you sure it is not racial? You are at http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm on table 1, right? I am not embracing everything on that website. But I see ideas there that can be tested. So I like it as source of ideas (and some facts).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top