Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: r/K Selection Theory Naturally Opposing TZM/RBE

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Hold on, hold on here just a minute.....there some spreading of 'myths w/in the above statement.......That "people in poverty have more children to collect benefits' is a mantra coming from the Right for Decades...its an outright lie that has been used to denigrate and keep the poor in poverty, and remain the primary victims in the battle we 'claim' :roll eyes: to be waging...(Most of them are in fact, White Folks).....it has been proven incorrect time and again to little avail it seems because even well meaning people are still making these kinds of statements......Stop it!....or at least investigate it before making such a broad and hurtful proclamation....PLEASE!!!!

    The number one reason poor folks 'tend' to have more children is 'denied access' to needed medical resources......and that ain't getting any better....any time soon.....
    Even better!

    I know I'm conceding on some points that should be challenged when to challenge them will require finding the right data, and then the data is challenged, etc...Then the original argument gets buried, etc...

    If there was one place I could go for correct statistical data to confirm all this stuff, I would.
    "The stress of nature never ends, but at a certain level still other driving forces originate which put the whip to the creative power of man with a multiplied force... The new relations are detected first by a few (with the finest moral tentacles), afterwards by more, then they are consolidated in rules which begin to push aside the earlier moral code and in the end eliminate it."

    "They who decry the loss of masculinity the loudest, are certain of it in themselves the least."

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,900
    Snopes is pretty good most of the time. Politifact is another that I use.......there's a couple other's (I check them all).....but I'm not waking up the wife to ask.......
    fsir likes this.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Hold on, hold on here just a minute.....there some spreading of 'myths w/in the above statement.......That "people in poverty have more children to collect benefits' is a mantra coming from the Right for Decades...its an outright lie that has been used to denigrate and keep the poor in poverty, and remain the primary victims in the battle we 'claim' :roll eyes: to be waging...(Most of them are in fact, White Folks).....it has been proven incorrect time and again to little avail it seems because even well meaning people are still making these kinds of statements......Stop it!....or at least investigate it before making such a broad and hurtful proclamation....PLEASE!!!!

    The number one reason poor folks 'tend' to have more children is 'denied access' to needed medical resources......and that ain't getting any better....any time soon.....
    Molyneux says it's that poor people don't have a propensity to delay gratification so they become poor for the same reason they have more kids (irresponsibility).

    I'm not sure that's entirely true, but it has a ring of plausibility.

    Then he continues that welfare forces the responsible people to pay for the irresponsibility of the others. He says if there were no welfare, then the poor would not have as many kids and the responsible people would keep more of their money and decide to have more kids. He says welfare is a eugenics program which is altering the genepool.

    FWD to 16:45


  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Molyneux says it's that poor people don't have a propensity to delay gratification so they become poor for the same reason they have more kids (irresponsibility).

    I'm not sure that's entirely true, but it has a ring of plausibility.

    Then he continues that welfare forces the responsible people to pay for the irresponsibility of the others. He says if there were no welfare, then the poor would not have as many kids and the responsible people would keep more of their money and decide to have more kids. He says welfare is a eugenics program which is altering the genepool.

    ]
    Define "irresponsible".

    Aren't those the people who are just not good at capitalism?

    Molynuex already has argued that their lower average IQ makes them have less value under a capitalist model. And if they get beaten as children (no fault of their own), that gives them a propensity toward violence and crime.

    So you ask them to compete under capitalism where, because they have a lower average IQ, they can't expect the same return for their investment and participation than whites or Asians. So if they participate in capitalism (this so-called "fair" system) the correct way, they are going to have work twice as hard as everybody else just to get the same return.

    Wow, that's some selling point for a resource management model. "Come participate in capitalism where you'll get less from your participation than other races." Where do I sign up?

    And your BIG solution is to strip the most vulnerable under capitalism of welfare, the one thing holding them up.

    And then you wonder why people steal and commit crime.

    If you're telling people out of the gate they will be at a disadvantage and struggling economically compared to other races (and therefore more susceptible to taking lower paying jobs) if they participate in your resource management model, why would they want to participate?

    If you were them wouldn't look for some other resource management model that provided them with a more abundant access to resources and services?

    Answer the question. Don't wait for the translation.
    droneBEE likes this.
    "The stress of nature never ends, but at a certain level still other driving forces originate which put the whip to the creative power of man with a multiplied force... The new relations are detected first by a few (with the finest moral tentacles), afterwards by more, then they are consolidated in rules which begin to push aside the earlier moral code and in the end eliminate it."

    "They who decry the loss of masculinity the loudest, are certain of it in themselves the least."

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    Define "irresponsible".
    Those who are not able or willing to delay gratification. Blowing-off saving to pay a bill in order to party with some friends instead or to buy a new toy. Things like that make one irresponsible.

    So, now, because someone blew off a responsibility so they could have fun, then I should have to pay for it?

    Aren't those the people who are just not good at capitalism?
    Those are people who are not good at anything except having fun. Satisfying the most immediate desire and to hell with the future.

    Molynuex already has argued that their lower average IQ makes them have less value under a capitalist model. And if they get beaten as children (no fault of their own), that gives them a propensity toward violence and crime.
    I don't know... I guess...

    So you ask them to compete under capitalism where, because they have a lower average IQ, they can't expect the same return for their investment and participation than whites or Asians. So if they participate in capitalism (this so-called "fair" system) the correct way, they are going to have work twice as hard as everybody else just to get the same return.
    That seems pretty accurate... assuming that IQ is the only problem and not irresponsibility or lack of motivation.

    Wow, that's some selling point for a resource management model. "Come participate in capitalism where you'll get less from your participation than other races." Where do I sign up?
    I don't support capitalism, molyneux does.

    And your BIG solution is to strip the most vulnerable under capitalism of welfare, the one thing holding them up.
    That's what nature would do. It's a pain in the butt to keep the big animal from eating all the food and letting a smaller one starve. I hate that.

    And then you wonder why people steal and commit crime.
    So they can impress the chicks?

    If you're telling people out of the gate they will be at a disadvantage and struggling economically compared to other races (and therefore more susceptible to taking lower paying jobs) if they participate in your resource management model, why would they want to participate?
    Because they're "free" to rise to their potential. You too can be a Bill Gates if you apply yourself (and get really lucky, and kiss the right butt, and buy lots of stocks... don't forget to buy lots of stawks!)

    If you were them wouldn't look for some other resource management model that provided them with a more abundant access to resources and services?
    Who gets a choice? You can either lay there and starve of go tow the line to make someone else rich.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,900
    Oh Man....lots of 'assumptions' about the less fortunate members of our society,,

    The poor, more than any other Class.....live under the shadow of 'delayed gratification' unless and until they find a way out of it.....most don't.....the obstacles are many

    I've got to wonder how many posters here on the TZM FORUM have gone without a meal, have been homeless, been forced to do unspeakable things to carry on another day.......For that matter;.....I wonder how many posters even know someone who has struggled.....

    ....the 'assumptions' and generalizations presented are telling me more about you than those caught in the web of poverty.......

    Since I have lived in poverty myself, was raised in poverty, and still visit poverty stricken places regularly (from Big City Skid Rows to Indian Reserves) conducting the work we do......I believe I can offer a different perspective not heard around here.......and can offer some credibility for surviving......and even thriving despite it all.....

    I will eventually die a content Man, knowing that what I 'put into' this short life was 'purposely' meaningful....
    Ernest likes this.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Molyneux says it's that poor people don't have a propensity to delay gratification so they become poor for the same reason they have more kids (irresponsibility).

    I'm not sure that's entirely true, but it has a ring of plausibility.

    Then he continues that welfare forces the responsible people to pay for the irresponsibility of the others. He says if there were no welfare, then the poor would not have as many kids and the responsible people would keep more of their money and decide to have more kids. He says welfare is a eugenics program which is altering the genepool.

    ]
    The problem is welfare was never meant for the irresponsible. Not everyone on welfare is irresponsible.

    So Molyneux's solution is to take away welfare from everybody? Even those who are not irresponsible but disabled, elderly, etc..

    Molyneux has set up a straw man that says welfare is all about rewarding people who don't need it. And that was never what welfare was about.

    And if able-bodied people are running to welfare to hide from capitalism, that's not a failure of government. That's a failure of capitalism.

    Capitalism is driving people away from itself. If it's so much better for everyone than any other resource management model, then why are people looking for ways to circumnavigate it, undermine it, illegally feed off of it and escape it?

    And on top of capitalism being a competitive resource management model, you openly admit people of different IQ's and upbringings and circumstances will get less out of capitalism than white men.

    You're just begging people to look for alternatives to capitalism, be it, challenging the law with crime or looking to create different resource management models that cater to their own specific strengths and vulnerabilities.


    I thought without welfare and government taxation the responsible people would suport the vulnerable people through more giving to charity? But you say they would put the money they keep into themselves and having more children. Well, which is it?

    So the real objective to dismantling government and taxes and welfare is really about not helping other human beings.

    You keep posting the same points in favor of destroying government by Stefan Molyneux but his arguments have been eloquently addressed and defeated by other Youtubers, including inmendham:

    Last edited by fsir; 11-20-2016 at 07:41 AM.
    Ernest likes this.
    "The stress of nature never ends, but at a certain level still other driving forces originate which put the whip to the creative power of man with a multiplied force... The new relations are detected first by a few (with the finest moral tentacles), afterwards by more, then they are consolidated in rules which begin to push aside the earlier moral code and in the end eliminate it."

    "They who decry the loss of masculinity the loudest, are certain of it in themselves the least."

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    The problem is welfare was never meant for the irresponsible. Not everyone on welfare is irresponsible.

    So Molyneux's solution is to take away welfare from everybody? Even those who are not irresponsible but disabled, elderly, etc..
    Is irresponsibility a disability?

    Molyneux has set up a straw man that says welfare is all about rewarding people who don't need it. And that was never what welfare was about.
    Well FDR started it, so let's see what he had to say:



    Welfare is about fighting the distribution of wealth that capitalism fights for.



    And if able-bodied people are running to welfare to hide from capitalism, that's not a failure of government. That's a failure of capitalism.
    Able-bodied and able-minded people have no interest in welfare, but only the sick, in one form or another.

    Capitalism is driving people away from itself. If it's so much better for everyone than any other resource management model, then why are people looking for ways to circumnavigate it, undermine it, illegally feed off of it and escape it?
    Hence the wars against socialism. If socialism were so bad, then why attack it? If bad ideas are really bad ideas, we shouldn't need to be compelled to stay away.

    And on top of capitalism being a competitive resource management model, you openly admit people of different IQ's and upbringings and circumstances will get less out of capitalism than white men.
    I think it has more to do with luck.

    Warren Buffett's sister, Doris:

    "When I was twenty-eight and married, I remember thinking 'Isn't this strange? My brother's a genius, my sister's a Phi Beta Kappa, we all have the same parents, and I'm such a dummy.' I bought it. I really believed that." Much later, she discovered that the woman who had administered an IQ test to Bertie, Warren and Doris when they were eight, ten and twelve, respectively, was still alive. Doris checked the results: her IQ test result was 150, a couple of points lower than Warren's and a couple higher than Bertie's. "I don't know that I believed it, but I immediately joined Mensa because I could get in on that score," she said with a chuckle. 'Giving It All Away: The Dorris Buffett Story' by Michael Zitz - ABC News

    And Warren's Ovarian Lottery:



    I thought without welfare and government taxation the responsible people would suport the vulnerable people through more giving to charity? But you say they would put the money they keep into themselves and having more children. Well, which is it?
    Yup, the old charity argument. So now charities have to compete to get the money. Grandma wants to give everything she owns to the animals. Others want to fight breast cancer. Bill Gates is worried about Africa. Carnegie built some libraries. If you are a charitable case, then how do you get some attention? Gofundme?

    So the real objective to dismantling government and taxes and welfare is really about not helping other human beings.
    Right. Well, unless you believe that a competitive hierarchy is good for society.

    You keep posting the same points in favor of destroying government by Stefan Molyneux but his arguments have been eloquently addressed and defeated by other Youtubers, including inmendham:
    I just post points for specific reasons and it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them. I may or may not. Molyneux has some good points and some others are not.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    637
    The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War,[53] and known in Vietnam as Resistance War Against America or simply the American War, was a war that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955[A 1] to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. It was the second of the Indochina Wars and was officially fought between North Vietnam and the government of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese army was supported by the Soviet Union, China and other communist allies and the South Vietnamese army was supported by the United States, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and other anti-communist allies[54] and the war is therefore considered a Cold War-era proxy war.[55] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

    In other words, capitalism vs communism.

    Fortunate Son

    "The song speaks more to the unfairness of class than war itself," Fogerty said. "It's the old saying about rich men making war and poor men having to fight them." Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival Songfacts

    Some folks are born made to wave the flag
    Ooh, they're red, white and blue
    And when the band plays "Hail to the chief"
    Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
    It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

    Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
    Lord, don't they help themselves, oh
    But when the taxman comes to the door
    Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes

    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no
    It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

    Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
    Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
    And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
    Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh

    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
    It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one



    It's another picture of the Ovarian Lottery. No one gets where they are without luck... and the soldiers who fought in that war fought for the very system that benefits by their lack of fortune.

    Korean war - war against communism.
    WWII - war against national socialism.
    WWI -

    The Industrial Revolution modernized the German economy, led to the rapid growth of cities and to the emergence of the Socialist movement in Germany. Prussia, with its capital Berlin, grew in power. German universities became world-class centers for science and the humanities, while music and the arts flourished. Unification was achieved with the formation of the German Empire in 1871 under the leadership of Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. The new Reichstag, an elected parliament, had only a limited role in the imperial government. Germany joined the other powers in colonial expansion in Africa and the Pacific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany

    Even the Civil War was about money.

    Certainly slavery was a cause for the Civil War, but not the primary cause. Lincoln knew that the economy of the South
    depended upon slavery and so (before the Civil War) he had no intention of eliminating it. Lincoln had put it this way in his
    inaugural address only one month earlier:

    "/ have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe
    I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

    Even after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, Lincoln continued to insist that the Civil War was not about the issue of
    slavery:

    "My paramount objective is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without
    freeing any slave, I would do it. "

    So what was the Civil War all about? There were many factors at play. Northern industrialists had used protective tariffs to
    prevent their southern states from buying cheaper European goods. Europe retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the
    South. The Southern states were in a financial bind. They were forced to pay more for most of the necessities of life while
    their income from cotton exports plummeted. The South grew increasingly angry.

    But there were other factors at work. The Money Changers were still stung by America's withdrawal from their control 25
    years earlier. Since then, America's wildcat economy, despite the presence of fractional reserve banking with its attendant
    booms and busts, had made the nation rich - a bad example for the rest the world.

    The central bankers now saw an opportunity to use the North/South divisions to split the rich new nation - to divide and
    conquer by war. Was this just some sort of wild conspiracy theory? Well, let's look at what a well placed observer of the scene
    had to say at time.

    This was Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, the man who united the German states in 1871. A few years later, in
    1876, he is quoted as saying:

    "It is not to be doubted, I know of absolute certainty," Bismarck declared, "that the division of the United States into two
    federations of equal power was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were
    afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and were to develop as one nation, would attain economic and
    financial independence, which would upset the capitalist domination of Europe over the world. "
    https://archive.org/stream/TheMoneyM...sters_djvu.txt

    It seems like every war is fought to protect a capitalistic system.
    droneBEE likes this.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War,[53] and known in Vietnam as Resistance War Against America or simply the American War, was a war that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955[A 1] to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. It was the second of the Indochina Wars and was officially fought between North Vietnam and the government of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese army was supported by the Soviet Union, China and other communist allies and the South Vietnamese army was supported by the United States, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and other anti-communist allies[54] and the war is therefore considered a Cold War-era proxy war.[55] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

    In other words, capitalism vs communism.

    Fortunate Son

    "The song speaks more to the unfairness of class than war itself," Fogerty said. "It's the old saying about rich men making war and poor men having to fight them." Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival Songfacts

    Some folks are born made to wave the flag
    Ooh, they're red, white and blue
    And when the band plays "Hail to the chief"
    Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
    It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

    Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
    Lord, don't they help themselves, oh
    But when the taxman comes to the door
    Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes

    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no
    It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

    Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
    Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
    And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
    Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh

    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
    It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one



    It's another picture of the Ovarian Lottery. No one gets where they are without luck... and the soldiers who fought in that war fought for the very system that benefits by their lack of fortune.

    Korean war - war against communism.
    WWII - war against national socialism.
    WWI -

    The Industrial Revolution modernized the German economy, led to the rapid growth of cities and to the emergence of the Socialist movement in Germany. Prussia, with its capital Berlin, grew in power. German universities became world-class centers for science and the humanities, while music and the arts flourished. Unification was achieved with the formation of the German Empire in 1871 under the leadership of Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. The new Reichstag, an elected parliament, had only a limited role in the imperial government. Germany joined the other powers in colonial expansion in Africa and the Pacific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany

    Even the Civil War was about money.

    Certainly slavery was a cause for the Civil War, but not the primary cause. Lincoln knew that the economy of the South
    depended upon slavery and so (before the Civil War) he had no intention of eliminating it. Lincoln had put it this way in his
    inaugural address only one month earlier:

    "/ have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe
    I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

    Even after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, Lincoln continued to insist that the Civil War was not about the issue of
    slavery:

    "My paramount objective is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without
    freeing any slave, I would do it. "

    So what was the Civil War all about? There were many factors at play. Northern industrialists had used protective tariffs to
    prevent their southern states from buying cheaper European goods. Europe retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the
    South. The Southern states were in a financial bind. They were forced to pay more for most of the necessities of life while
    their income from cotton exports plummeted. The South grew increasingly angry.

    But there were other factors at work. The Money Changers were still stung by America's withdrawal from their control 25
    years earlier. Since then, America's wildcat economy, despite the presence of fractional reserve banking with its attendant
    booms and busts, had made the nation rich - a bad example for the rest the world.

    The central bankers now saw an opportunity to use the North/South divisions to split the rich new nation - to divide and
    conquer by war. Was this just some sort of wild conspiracy theory? Well, let's look at what a well placed observer of the scene
    had to say at time.

    This was Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, the man who united the German states in 1871. A few years later, in
    1876, he is quoted as saying:

    "It is not to be doubted, I know of absolute certainty," Bismarck declared, "that the division of the United States into two
    federations of equal power was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were
    afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and were to develop as one nation, would attain economic and
    financial independence, which would upset the capitalist domination of Europe over the world. "
    https://archive.org/stream/TheMoneyM...sters_djvu.txt

    It seems like every war is fought to protect a capitalistic system.

    Nice post!

    I was a uniformed wearing member of "Elvis's Army" in Vietnam....we were trained to hate our enemies (slant eyed commies) so they'd be easier to kill, but as it turns out, most of us loved our comrades in arms more.....So that in the end....that was really what we all fought and died for....Each other......

    In a firefight no one cares a bit about politics or ideology......

    Wars are always fought to protect and serve the interests of those who don't do the fighting but do find/create the means to profit off the death's and the destruction caused.....

    As a musician I've been in various Bands over the the last 60 plus years.....but everyone of them since at least the early 70's has had "Fortunate Son" on its set list..including our current one.....Can't go wrong playing some CCR for folks.....Brings smiles all around....
    Ernest and SophicDrippins like this.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1