Mother Nature's stupid children

) 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer, author of "Animal Liberation," frequently weasels his way into newspaper headlines by recommending things like euthanizing the country's mentally deficient. Stupid people, in his view, don't deserve to reproduce or drain earth's precious-few resources.

Understandably, when folks hear recommendations like Singer's, usually they envision some despotic government out of a dystopian novel like "Brave New World," carefully sorting and cataloguing the nation's kids, dropping the occasional retard down a chute marked "rejects." This may not be necessary.

Some mental underachievers are good enough to make those sorts of arrangements on their own.

WND reader Jean-Pierre A. Maldonado, for instance, recently e-mailed me word of an Aug. 6 story in the Arizona Republic: "Gun hidden in pants fires, wounds suspect." As the story goes, a 27-year-old Kenny Miller stuffed his firearm down his pants after popping a few rounds at Phoenix police officers. Then the gun went off. "The bullet," according to the Republic, "entered Kenny Miller's abdomen and exited through his scrotum."

I hate it when that happens.

Wanting to rub it in, Maldonado sent along a limerick to accompany the story:

A hoodlum in the Phoenix heat, Pulled a stunt he can never repeat: Tucked a gun in his waist, As from coppers he raced, And blew his testes all over the seat.

The story proves, according to our faithful reader, "that Darwin's Law has its corollaries. The gunman, most likely, will not be able to pass on his criminal genes." Neither will Jonathan Berry.

Right up there with wise admonitions against tugging on Superman's cape, spitting into the wind and bringing a broken popsicle stick to a knife fight is the warning about trying to rob ex-Special Forces soldiers with BB guns. Berry apparently never heard that one, as evidenced by the Aug. 31 antics outside a Columbia, S.C., motel, when he attempted to pull just such a feat.

As reported in the Sept. 1 Columbia State, two businessmen, Thomas Bullins and John Nettles, were leaving the motel about 1 in the morning, when Berry stoked up enough courage to try his best (but hardly adequate) Black Bart impersonation.

Approaching Bullins outside his room, Berry raised his peashooter to Bullins' face and demanded money. Thinking Berry's airgun was the real thing, Bullins grabbed Berry's arm and, after a bit of a scuffle, pulled a .22 pistol from his pocket and blew a hole in Berry's aorta. Nettles, hearing the shot, bolted his room and, for good measure, drilled Berry's torso with three more slugs from his .45 -- though it was Bullins' first shot that the county coroner deemed the fatal bullet.

As to the legality of the shooting, "They were lawfully carrying weapons," explained Richland County sheriff's spokesman Chris Cowan, saying that Bullins and Nettles will not be charged. "They were well within their rights."

They were also well within their skill.

Bullins and Nettles "are ex-military Special Forces," said Sheriff Leon Lott. Berry and his partner, who survived unharmed, found cowering by the motel pool, "picked the wrong two guys because they're trained to teach people how to handle exactly the kind of situation they had last night."

In other words, Black Bart stopped the wrong stagecoach.

Singer is wrong. Addlepated nincompoops aren't people for whom the government should step in and deal with by sterilization or euthanasia. Stupidity, thankfully, usually provides its own solutions.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), September 05, 2000

Answers

Naahhh, there isn't enough stupidity to work as population control.

I think sterilization is fine. There are plenty of idiots out there that should never pass on their genes. We are breeding ourselves off the planet. But everyone is afraid to touch this sacred cow.

I chose voluntary sterilization because I thought one was enough. I never missed having more, and I never missed taking birth control pills for 20+ years either.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), September 05, 2000.

um..Gilda...are you calling yourself stoopid? ;)

Hey, but I agree. There's too many stupid ones out there still able to reproduce. Thanks to the "smart ones" who let them.

(eek! That didn't sound right...)

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 05, 2000.

>> We are breeding ourselves off the planet. But everyone is afraid to touch this sacred cow. <<

Almost all hunter-gatherer societies practise population control. Agrarian societies have tended to reproduce more prolifically, but they had a safety valve; they could send their excess populations to cities. Until about 1900, the death rates in cities invariably were greater than the birth rates, so cities were a sort of population sink.

The big shift came when cities began to invest in clean water, and public health officials became armed with more scientifically reliable information about how diseases were spread. Since then, all the bars have gone down. Food supplies are up. Life expectancy is up. Populations are up. World resources are being consumed at an astounding pace and everyone is out for a good time.

I guess we'll know for sure that the earth has exceeded its carrying capacity for humans when the global population starts dropping again from causes like famine or the diseases of malnutrition. Maybe then, societies will react by forming stronger taboos and rituals designed to keep populations down "voluntarilly" and to reduce total suffering.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 05, 2000.

Don't need to sterlize (spay and neuter) those who only pass as human, (but it couldn't hurt). Just get the pussy-wuss liberals to stop supporting them and their litters, and get the right-wing religious cranks to stop their anti-birth control, anti-abortion crusade.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 05, 2000.

Hey, A!

>> Don't need to sterlize (spay and neuter) those who only pass as human <<

Care to attempt a definition of "human" that leaves them out and still includes you?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 05, 2000.

There's plenty of room and plenty of resources for many, many more people on this planet, we are just very irresponsible and negligent in the way we utilize them. We need to stop destroying the planet or pretty soon even the wealthy and intelligent won't be able to live here much longer.

-- (dont.kill@mother.earth), September 05, 2000.

Since man is the "rational animal", it seems reasonable that someone who wishes to be considered human should be able to demonstrate rationality. How about providing the conclusion of a syllogism given its premises, or even solving a quadratic equation that can be factored into two terms with integer coefficients? I suspect most of the people posting on this board could pass either of these tests. But I could be wrong. It could be worse.

-- stupid is (as@stupid.Does), September 05, 2000.

"stupid is",

Major premise = only dorks post here

Minor premise = you post here

Conclusion = ergo, you are a dork

-- (MrChips@JonesJr.High), September 05, 2000.

>> ...someone who wishes to be considered human should be able to demonstrate rationality. How about providing the conclusion of a syllogism given its premises, or even solving a quadratic equation that can be factored into two terms with integer coefficients? <<

Let's see what fun "rational" conclusions we can draw from this test of humanity!

First, humans did not exist prior to roughly 500 BC, when formal logic, including the form of the syllogism was invented. That seems a more lenient conclusion than to conclude no one was human prior to the first enunciation of the quadratic equation - a much more recent event.

Next, children under the age of, oh, let's say 7 years old, just to be on the early side, aren't human.

Of course, everyone in a coma, a large number of stroke victims, the majority of people with Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases aren't human, either. Insane people will rarely pass this test.

But here's the clincher: at least a billion adults who work, raise kids and hold responsible positions doing important jobs would probably fail this test of being "human".

So, "stupid is", what ever led you to believe that humans were the "rational" animal, anyway? Not, surely, from examining your own example. One of the most characteristic behaviors of humans is laughter. Tell me what is so rational about that?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 05, 2000.

Major premise = only dorks post here

Minor premise = MrChips@JonesJr.High posts here

Conclusion = ergo, MrChips@JonesJr.High is a dork

Geez...what a moron, get me the rope, ma...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), September 05, 2000.

First, humans did not exist prior to roughly 500 BC

Huh? Need another rope...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), September 06, 2000.

Javold! Sieg Heil! Swastikas uber alles!

-- (goose_schtep@dasKoncentration.kampen), September 06, 2000.

gilda, it is fine that you chose voluntary sterilization. To all of the cyber Nazis out there, don't try to force it on any one else.

-- Arnie Simplin (simplin@no.mail), September 06, 2000.

Brian,

I'm disappointed in you. Did I say that someone who lived before 500 BC would have to know anything about formal logic? Of course they wouldn't, as it hadn't been invented yet. Therefore, if we were talking about people who lived before 500 B.C., we would have to come up with a different test.

Let's apply the same reasoning to IQ tests. As far as I know, most IQ tests given today require a knowledge of some modern language and of mathematics. Does that mean that everyone who lived before English, for example, was invented, had a very low IQ? Obviously not. What it means is that the current test isn't applicable to people who lived before anyone knew English, or for that matter to people who don't know English today. However, it is applicable to people who do know English.

-- stupid is (as@stupid.Does), September 06, 2000.

I agree with Mr. Chips, only dorks/moroons/wierdos post here. But I'm not ready to hang myself just yet. I found a group of peers and its great to be able to talk about all those wierd ideas and thoughts I used to keep clamed up in my head lest I'd be thought as a wierdo. Anything goes here (in terms of ideas ofcourse) and what a relief!

Anyway, yesterday I was driving back home through neighborhoods, and was gazing out the windows and while waiting for lights to turn green, lost in my thoughts. What's all this human life about? I thought while watching people go about their business in yards, jogging down the street, or delivering from their trucks. Hustle bustle. So many poeple in towns and cities, in the world. We are born, we go to school for years, then we work for years, we retire then we die. With emotional highs and lows in between. The cycle continues over and over. We think the world, heck, the universe, evolve around us. We think we're the cat's meow of the universe. Suddenly, I had a vision; I was a huge spirit floating in the universe and had a bird's eye view of earth, as a basketball size. On it there was a desease growing, a fungus like disease, especially visible on the dark side where the fungus glowed.

Wow I thought, that's humans taking over the planet. Overpowering the rest of organic life on it.

Phew! Thank goodness the light turned green and a car behind me honked his horn to snap me out of it. Mik Jagger came on the radio, and the depressing feeling was gone. I pumped the volume and started singing along, my foot keeping the beat on the break pedal at stop signs...

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 06, 2000.

>> Brian, I'm disappointed in you. <<

Thus sayeth the parent to the child. Sorry. Go tut-tut and finger-wag at someone else. Otherwise, I'm sticking my tongue out.

>> Did I say that someone who lived before 500 BC would have to know anything about formal logic? <<

No. You simply proposed a test of one's humanity that required a knowledge of formal logic. Because anyone who failed this test would be considered non-human, I merely pointed out the logical consequence of this premise. I completed your damn syllogism for you:

1) A being who cannot complete a syllogism is not human. 2) Beings could not complete syllogisms prior to 500 BB. 3) Beings were not human before 500 BC.

Looks like you've disqualified yourself as human. You didn't even recognize your own syllogism or its conclusion, when filled in.

>> Therefore, if we were talking about people who lived before 500 B.C., we would have to come up with a different test. <<

Look, if you come up with a test that invalidates a very large set of people known to be human (those who lived prior to 500 BC) then it is an invalid test. You suggest there is another test that is morevalid. Sorry. Either a test would be equally valid for all humans at all times or it would not be a valid test.

You follow that?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 06, 2000.

1) A being who cannot complete a syllogism is not human. 2) Beings could not complete syllogisms prior to 500 BB. 3) Beings were not human before 500 BC.

Looks like you've disqualified yourself as human. You didn't even recognize your own syllogism or its conclusion, when filled in.

Sorry, Brian, no sale. Since the discussion involved EXISTING people, not ones who lived before 500 BC, the major premise of my suggestion, if formalized, might be rendered as:

1) A CURRENTLY LIVING being who cannot complete a syllogism is not human.

This, of course, demolishes your argument.

-- stupid is (as@stupid.does), September 06, 2000.

Please point out where you made the discussion involve only EXISTING people.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 06, 2000.

Stupid is, I think I understand Brian's reaction to your proposal. As I recall, he has a child who is trapped in a wheelchair bound body, handicapped by some disease (not sure what). He probably doesn't want to refer to his child as a non-human because this child can't communicate thought processes or reasoning (even though we know it's there). Maybe the definitions need to be reworked.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 06, 2000.

>> 1) A CURRENTLY LIVING being who cannot complete a syllogism is not human. This of course completely demolishes your argument. <<

When at first you don't succeed, change the premises and pretend you didn't. But this is all a part of how argument is able to sharpen one's definitions. In this case, though, you are not sharpening them, but narrowing them to exclude troublesome cases.

Also, if you go back and look at my argument (which you think you demolished), you'll see it was multi-part. You chose to address only the part about humans existing prior to 500 BC. You haven't addressed people in comas, people suffering from strokes, young children, and people whose lack of formal education leaves them as little able to cope with a syllogism as anyone who lived before 500 BC.

You got a lot of demolishing left to do, stupid is.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 06, 2000.

Maria, you are quite right in your rcalling that my daughter would flunk the humanity test proposed by stupid is. I will readily admit that this circumstance makes me more sensitive to the dangerous absurdity of his argument.

But I deny that my reluctance to accept the argument has anything to do with my daughter's condition. The argument is simply not acceptable because it is a travesty. Stupid is proposes that someone is not human until they can complete a syllogism, and confidently expects that he can pass this test himself. I have already proved he does not. I found this howlingly ironic.

The root of the problem with stupid is's premise is that it mistakes a sufficient condition for a necessary condition and treats that condition in a logically inappropriate manner. This inevitably leads him into some absurd logical difficulties, some of which I have already pointed out.

My counter-argument was a simple reductio ad absurdum. Only the weakest and most thoughtless arguments tend to fall prey to this counter-argument. It means you have made an elemental mistake from which there is no recovery.

It is said that the first scientific definition of "man" was made by the school of Aristotle. It defined man as a featherless biped. Diogenes the Cynic is said to have gone to the market, bough a plucked chicken at a stall, walked over to the Stoa, plopped the chicken in front of the teacher and said, "Here is your man."

Stupid is's definition of who is human is no improvement.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 06, 2000.

Treat everyone with respect. Then you don't have to worry about the definition.

-- helen (flunked@school.yup), September 06, 2000.

Brian seems so proud of his reductio ad absurdum, but fails to note that I have employed the same technique by pointing out that his argument "proves" the invalidity of IQ tests. If he wishes to present a universal, non-culturally biased test of sapience, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Until then, his word games prove nothing other than that he has the time and inclination to play word games.

-- stupid is (as@stupid.Does), September 06, 2000.

Will the real pseudointellect please raise his/her hand...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), September 06, 2000.

I don't mean to be one of those kind; but members of the genus and species, are human, by definition. If you want a new definition see past literature, the recent pronouncement from Rome on the subject or move to northern Idaho.

Now Anita :^) is a different question.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 06, 2000.

I's looked up all da big woids Stoopid-Is used, an' still he don't make no smidgin' of commin sense as much as dat Brian there he makin'.

I ain't no tellectual, but I's can tell Stoopid-Is prolly pokes his eye in da mornin' wida spoon when he drinkin' his cupa joe.

An unka Bob, I's had to lookit up da big woids of your too. Psoodo-tellectual. Dat be Stoopid awright.

-- (Smarty@wannabe.one), September 06, 2000.

Sorry, but I just looked at the source:

I can now ignore the original question. Brian, give your girl my best.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 06, 2000.

Hey Arnie Simpleton, You should have been neutered before the fact.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), September 07, 2000.