Welfare. (huh!) What is it good for? Absolutely...

Remove all ads!

That would be fine if all actually completed their studies let alone ended up benefitting from them but alas there are plenty of drop-outs and people who just aren't dedicated enough. So how to ensure that these get cut away from the start? Making studying hard, and forcing the students to work for their survival. Then the lazy ones will be weeded off and only the strong will end up surviving. So no point in supporting those who are just too lazy or weak to survive the toughness of life.

 

Chandos, are you trying to imply that I'm a Conservative, and an avid supporter of your monkey President? Hardly. I suggest you break from the 'Democrat/Republican split' so prevalent in American society. I'm not American, hence I'm not braindead enough to attempt to fit my ideology in with the Blues or the Reds.

However, I appreciate you mentioning Dubya. The perfect example of a mindless idiot promoted to power by a degenerate theocratic society full of religious retards.

It's amazing that America is supposed to be the champion of free thought and introspection, yet its own citizens practice so little of what they claim to treasure. Any society which is willing to tolerate a news station such as 'Faux News' claiming itself as 'fair and balanced' is intellectually stunted.

Such retardation exists in such high proportions precisely because these Westerners are no longer exposed to natural selection. What we need is a eugenics program. Hell, I'd even be satisified with a good ole genocide. Anything to reduce the number of witless Homo Sapiens on planet Earth.

Morg:

That's a good question, as I've been pondering it for a while. Perhaps the best system would be if students were to first 'prove their worth' with good grades.

Those who demonstrate themselves as competent, diligent students would receive scholarships to cover their education and living expenses. If their grades slip, their scholarship would be rescinded, and they would have to pay back the money.

This is pretty much the system that overseas students in my country operate on. They are usually here on scholarships, which pay for their education and living expenses. In return, they need to achieve a Distinction average (ergo. 70-80% grade). If they don't meet these expectation, they lose the scholarship.

 

I'm afraid grades won't prove anything. Quite often those who recieve mediocre grades end up in a better position than those who recieve the best grades. This might be due the lack of social skills or the fact that while intelligent the student recieving good grades is lazy and stubborn. The most intelligent one is not necesseraly the one who contributes the most and therefore grades are not a solid basis for measurement and needs to be complemented with the ability to work. Hence combining work and education is the best way of measuring the most suitable people for the highest education.

 

Morg:

False.

 

Ah yes I probably should have phrased that better. Grades prove something allright but they don't prove nearly enough. Grades are all about completing theoretical tests, the practical execution of that knowledge is however something completely different.

 

Good grades demonstrate diligence and good work ethic.

And I don't agree with:

 

MH, just be careful in any political-minded forum, your ideas have some similarities with the Nazi ideology. Not saying you like it, but it exists. Anyway, mind if I nitpick?

"However, I appreciate you mentioning Dubya. The perfect example of a mindless idiot promoted to power by a degenerate theocratic society full of religious retards."

Oooh, spooky. Mind you, it kinda meshes with the "top classes deserve to be there" theory - the Bushes have been among the US elite for at least a few generations. So either the entire country is f....d up genetically (and that does not bode well for the rest of the world, given that the US has been giving us marching orders for some time), or genes don't work so well. That, or one can make some unappealing comments about the marital fidelity of a certain former First Lady. Only then you need to make such suggestions about a whole lot of rich and powerful people throughout the world, whom we often classify as inbred b.....s. And then the question is - if the strong and genetically fit have allowed the weak imbeciles to get on top and mooch like crazy (and 1 CEO mooches as much as thousands upon thousands of welfare recipients), then how exactly are they strong and fit?

"Such retardation exists in such high proportions precisely because these Westerners are no longer exposed to natural selection. What we need is a eugenics program. Hell, I'd even be satisified with a good ole genocide. Anything to reduce the number of witless Homo Sapiens on planet Earth."

I tend to be averse to mass genocide on a general basis, as I have no guarantee which side of it I will end up. Especially as I am not born in a country with nuclear weapons. Anyway, man-made "natural" selection, does that ever work sideways in practice. The barbarians eventually wiped out Rome - how many of those managed to get anything like a stable kingdom, much less an empire to rival old Rome? The Franks - one of the first along the way (and in the Great Movement of People, the first to arrive were usually fleeing from the others) and the most "Romanized" were the only ones that got close. The part that survived, and lasted for some 1000 years more, was based on Constantinople and the Greeks. Baghdad, when it was razed by the Mongols, was considered to be decadent and weak. Well, sure - only the "selection" that took place did not produce anything better (or even comparable), and the Mongols did best only where they didn't butcher wholesale, but actually worked with the inhabitants - China. Examples abound. Apparently, very often the people doing the "purging" were the ones that were least qualified to manage the selection. It might work well in theory, I guess - well, so does communism.

Now, a theoretical counter-argument: when have humans as a species not acted in groups? Dude, HS has never been THAT powerful, hardy or fast. Yet our forebears were hunting and killing beasts several times their strength and size and fending out - eventually killing - predators much stronger and faster than they. They used group tactics, which required community. It worked, works, and chances are - it will work. Welfare is an off-shoot of that community idea - if you are willing to risk yourself for a group, the group must be ready to give something for you if you need it. Few sane people would agree to taking risks if they don't get something back. Religion has been instrumental in this, and you'd be surprised how many religions stress hospitality and helping strangers. Not only that, but this trait seems to increase proportionally to the hardships that environment imposes. The bedouin were historically a good example - they have very elaborate courtesy and hospitality that is almost ritualized.

As for the scholarships idea, afaik almost all study scholarships involve some rescindment clause. However, getting actually given and spent money out of the students and their families is generally considered to be rather hard in most countries. Court proceedings tend to cost money, often more than they get.

Edit: grades demonstrating dilligence and work ethic? Not necessarily. I myself have gotten higher grades than people who studied more than me. The difference was that I knew better how test questions were phrased (and I am not even touching cheating or teacher preferences). AFAIK many businesses don't care that much what your grade is if you have the qualifications

[ August 09, 2007, 11:34: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Unless the standard for recieving those grades varies drastically from that I used to have then no grades don't demonstrate much more than good grades, how they are achieved varies. However by far the most important part is the exams, which by definition are theoretical.

We're slithering quite far off topic now though so I think I'll drop out of this discussion. If you wish to discuss the matter further feel free to PM me or start a new thread about this specific subject.

 

Some humans are the biggest waste I've ever seen. Look at the UK, where I live (but wasnt born). we have people who are proud to be "chavs" (which means they have no ambition and are proud of their mediocrity), who live of the welfare of others, without thinking they should repay it in anyway.

I dont expect them to return the money - some people just cant earn enough money, how could they? I expect them to care enough about their children to raise them properly, to love them and prevent them from joining gangs and killing other youths. sadly, they dont do that. I dont think you can blame gangesterism in the UK on lack of money - the state bends over backwards to help struggling parents. The only thing I can blame it on is the parents who just dont care, who think the school should discipline their child, but then vote to remove all power from the schools, who wont support the police, despite the fact that they are desperately needed.

On the other side of the coin, we have the super rich, who often make money at the expense of others, and do their best to preserve their own money and prevent others from attaining their own wealth.

Who is worse - the man who doesnt value his children or the man who over values his money?

In truth, although many human beings seem to be total waste, I couldnt commit genocide or order them to stop breeding. as much as this will probably sound very liberal, we need to find a better solution to the problem, and that solution needs to start from the top - the media and the corporations need to stop broadcasting the crap they do. our society is actually extremely controlled, everything you even think is largely the result of an action by a corporation, whether it is a news corporation or some such.

I didnt expect this to turn into a good ol rant against the corporations, and in truth they arent all bad. but I do think they are partly to blame for our rotting culture by promoting cheap, easy, fast, glamour rich lifestyles, and de emphasizing quality and family.

 

Actually, I'm fairly certain that Chandos is implying that your ideas are so utterly and laughably absurd that no one can possibly take them seriously.

Similarities? Just similarities? Let's not beat around the bush, here. Saying there are "similarities" between the ideas MH has been expressing and Nazi ideology is kind of like saying Violet is "similar" to Purple.

 

Drew:

Funny. Last time I checked, nature had a nasty habit of implementing my ideas. The weak, the sickly, the runts, the incompetent, the retards, the cripples, are continuously weeded out by Mother Nature's unforgiving hand. It's such a beautiful thing, it brings tears to my eyes merely thinking about the process.

But never mind. Surely the opinions of one pampered Homo Sapien are worth more than Mother Nature, whose laws have kept all of Earth's biosystems running harmoniously for 4.5 billion years.

You're a Nazi. Waa waa waa!

Typical. When whiners find someone's particular ideology repugnant, they label them a derogatory term ('racist', 'sexist'). Reminds me of the Republicans branding people like Drew as 'darn Liberal do-gooders!'.

 

The major difference in this case is that such action was not undertaken by a human being. Yes, such things happen naturally. That doesnt mean we can take things into our own hands and decide who lives and who dies.

Part of the great thing about natural selection is that it is impersonal - no one can say it is biased in anyway. Were a human to do the same, they would, without a shadow of doubt, be biased.

I dont believe the ends justify the means, and I'm not willing to stain my conscious and my soul for the "salvation" of the human race.

 

Let's go to the video tape, why don't we?

A position supported by the Nazi party.

Also a position of the Nazi party.

Also a position of the Nazi party.


Sure, you don't support all their stances, but the ideas you've expressed do come straight from their playbook.

 

TMH, I was not, and am not, trying to deride your ideas. I do, however, say that there is a similarity. Survival of the fittest, loose the parasites, the importance of genes - including eugenics - all those concepts were there, read up on it if you have to. If you can't accept that some other people - saints or sadists - shared some of your worldview, than maybe you should change it.

 

I'm not so sure that genetics is the reason for what you describe.

In fact, can you honestly claim Paris Hilton has better genes and thus a stronger right to live than a poor university lecturer? Had Paris' parents not been rich, would she have met success or been a failure?

There are many factors that may make someone not contribute to society. Genetics plays a role, but by culling people you will also weed out a lot of strong genes.

 

Attention, atheists! We have now been given proof of the existence and benevolence of God!

 

And what you don't seem to understand is that by aiding the less competant, they can become more competant, thus lessening their need and increasing their indipendence. While the concepts you list do indeed weed out the weak, they are also the antithesis of civilization. While certainly slower, recent history has shown that helping the weak to become stronger and contribute to civilization we achieve the same effect without suffering and death on such a grand scale. It's far easier to destroy than to create, and the barbarous genetic cleansing you advocate is, frankly, laziness. I'd also add heartless, but that much is obvious.

You're giving far too much credit to nature in modern society, where nurture plays a far greater role than nature. By your logic, the children of starving street scum in Africa who are adopted by wealthy white Americans, loved and provided with the best schools available, will still grow up to be starving street scum because of their "genetic garbage," despite being given every opportunity to succeed by their new environment. That is demonstrably false.

 

Thank you - I was just about to make the same request.

 

You've actually demonstrated a very controlled theme through your rants, MH. The problem is that you are arguing that nature, or a natural model, is for humans to emulate. We have to have a different topic to debate that, although it does tie into the welfare topic as a major point. It is a serious topic, but to those who feel that the human destiny is separtate from that of nature, or the natural world, your ideas do seem more than a bit absurd, as Drew mentioned. But I was not trying to be offensive to you, MH.

And I did not even make a smart comment about just how "strong Paris Hilton's genes" were. But then I never tried to get her out of them....