Eugenicist Takes Hostage at Discovery Channel, Issues Anti-human Manifesto

[WaltM]

Can we put this thread back on the rails. I think Walt has done a fine job of keeping the conversation away from the following point.

“Save the Planet; Kill the People”
Posted by Butler Shaffer on September 1, 2010 10:47 PM

James J. Lee, the Al Gore inspired environmentalist who undertook a destructive assault on the Discovery Channel building, will be quickly dropped down the “memory hole” as a political embarrassment. The anti-life implications of this secular religion were revealed in his brief manifesto urging television programming to “save the planet,” by showing “how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children” who, in his words, “are pollution.” As we are seeing with the established order’s responses to Wikileaks, the power structure cannot abide revelations to the public of the details of its various schemes. Mr. Lee must be forgotten.

On the other hand, had this man been a cousin of the treasurer of the Mud Flats, Kansas, Tea Party, we would never hear the end of the reporting on this event!

No, FrankRep copied Alex Jones' article, which accused Lee of being a eugenicist, and I made it clear eugenicists are NOT Malthusian, and Lee was not a eugenicist.

 

[WaltM]

This is bullshit. Minorities in America are reproducing at way greater rates than whites. Not only that, there's what 300 million people here? Over a billion in China and India. A middle class family having 2-3 kids is hardly destroying the planet.

it's not destroying the planet, you can't destroy a planet, but you can hurt a habitat and make living conditions less desireable for humans, and animals.

 

[WaltM]

All that said, I have nothing against people voluntarily deciding not to reproduce, and I think it would be great if smarter couples started cranking out more babies. Heck, the latter is what evolutionary competition is all about!

Again, not if socialists and people like you can help it.

You've expressed how its wrong to judge and wrong to select, so idiocracy can't be prevent the way you're enabling liberals and socialists from pushing "all are equal" down our gene pool.

 

[pcosmar]

Bringing the closet eugenicists out of the woodwork.

At least this accomplished something.

 

[WaltM]

Viruses as a collective are far more complex (I was referring to them as a whole not individual viruses).

How did you arrive at such a conclusion?

They completely defy everything we understand and know about life on this planet.

No, they don't. They follow the laws of chemistry and physics, like all objects do, and they depend on what we know about biology to function. They are not considered living organisms, that's about the only thing about they different than cells.

Prions are weird, but they too, are not known to defy any mechanism of life.

They don't constitute a cell, this is correct, however the definition of cell as the basis of all living organisms was developed in 1838. Viruses weren't discovered until over 50 years later.

So are you saying viruses should be considered cells?

Including viruses as cells really doesn't change the facts of what it is and isn't.

At the time cell theory was developed, every organism we were aware existed was comprised of either a single cell or multiple cells. Unfortunately, it's my opinion that scientists got a bit lazy at this point simply declaired them not alive.

That's because you're ignorant.

Scientists refine theories and definitions as information becomes available. That's why we've gotten rid of Linneaen taxonomy (for evolution purposes), and today we use DNA homology (and in favor of cladistics).

Of course, the problem with this is that "alive" is simply a term humans invented, that is where you're mistaken.

It might be a term invented, but it is not entirely subjective and arbitrary without basis.

Cells are alive when they can function, and dead when they are not. Viruses cannot die the same way as cells, they can be disabled or dormant, and they cannot self replicate (an essential function of cells and living).

We decided that life is defined by a cell and not just a protein coat (cells vs. viruses). Just like "hot" and "cold", in reality no such thing exists.

Protein coat, and missing much more.

Now you're just playing semantics, you might as well say there's no such thing as man and woman.

Besides, if we're just a series of chemical reactions, are we alive in the truest definition of the word.

playing word games? knock yourself out.

Now, why are viruses as a collective more complex. The can either possess a DNA or RNA based geneome that can either be single stranded or double stranded.

You're confusing diversity and variation as complexity.

No where in nature are RNA genomes found.

So viruses came from God or outer space?

Also, their genomes can either be linear or segmented. Again, this doesn't really occur in "living organisms". One of the most unqiue organisms of all are the retroviruses that synthesize DNA from RNA. This is a complete reversal of what we assumed was the "central dogma" of biology.

Central dogma of molecular biology was formed from the perspective of the cell.

Retroviruses DEPEND ON CELLS TO SYNTHESIZE DNA OR RNA!

So they do NOT violate central dogma, this is not just tautology, it's the fact viruses work within cells and are completely slaves of cells to replicate.

Sorry for the geeky rant, but I wanted to explain my position.

I still don't see your point.
(what does your little knowledge of cells and viruses have to do with eugenics?)

 

[WaltM]

Bringing the closet eugenicists out of the woodwork.

At least this accomplished something.

I was never closet, you just had to ask.

If I wasn't a eugenicist, why wouldn't I be a socialist?

 

[chudrockz]

I was never closet, you just had to ask.

If I wasn't a eugenicist, why wouldn't I be a socialist?

Not going to comment on your preferred social policy, other than that I find it horrific. Also, I'm glad Ron Paul doesn't share your views. That'd be a deal-breaker for me, and I could never support him.

Gotta watch those odd sentences with double negatives and such. Did you seriously just insinuate that everyone who is NOT a eugenicist is a socialist?!

 

[Tend yer biscuits.]

The sayings of Lee

Save the froggies!


... and (of course) the squirrels.

 

[Tend yer biscuits.]

 

[WaltM]

Not going to comment on your preferred social policy, other than that I find it horrific. Also, I'm glad Ron Paul doesn't share your views. That'd be a deal-breaker for me, and I could never support him.

Gotta watch those odd sentences with double negatives and such. Did you seriously just insinuate that everyone who is NOT a eugenicist is a socialist?!

More specifically, anybody who doesn't believe some people need to be left alone, starved dead, and instead, all people are equally entitled to life, society should prop up people even if they can't feed themselves, is socialist.

 

[WaltM]

Never forget that "conspiracy theorists" are not one homogeneous group.

correct, and they can't all be right.

The stories jump around precisely because everyone has their own narrative. Of course, a few (like the JBS) do try to tie in everything under the sun and call it "cultural Marxism." ...for that matter, the powers that be are not one homogeneous group, either.

Indeed, which is why I'd appreciate it if people can say what's wrong with depopulation, eugenics, socialism and gays, ON THEIR OWN MERIT rather than by associations to other people.

There are obviously different factions, but they're united on the most basic goal of centralized hegemonic control of everyone and everything (the perennial lowbrow goal of countless rulers).

no, they're not united.

I don't think they have common enemies either, they just think they do, because all they're good at is lumping and blaming.

 

[James Madison]

More specifically, anybody who doesn't believe some people need to be left alone, starved dead, and instead, all people are equally entitled to life, society should prop up people even if they can't feed themselves, is socialist.

Guess you won't care when no one's there to help you.

 

[James Madison]

How did you arrive at such a conclusion?




No, they don't. They follow the laws of chemistry and physics, like all objects do, and they depend on what we know about biology to function. They are not considered living organisms, that's about the only thing about they different than cells.

Prions are weird, but they too, are not known to defy any mechanism of life.



So are you saying viruses should be considered cells?

Including viruses as cells really doesn't change the facts of what it is and isn't.



That's because you're ignorant.

Scientists refine theories and definitions as information becomes available. That's why we've gotten rid of Linneaen taxonomy (for evolution purposes), and today we use DNA homology (and in favor of cladistics).




It might be a term invented, but it is not entirely subjective and arbitrary without basis.

Cells are alive when they can function, and dead when they are not. Viruses cannot die the same way as cells, they can be disabled or dormant, and they cannot self replicate (an essential function of cells and living).




Protein coat, and missing much more.

Now you're just playing semantics, you might as well say there's no such thing as man and woman.



playing word games? knock yourself out.



You're confusing diversity and variation as complexity.



So viruses came from God or outer space?



Central dogma of molecular biology was formed from the perspective of the cell.

Retroviruses DEPEND ON CELLS TO SYNTHESIZE DNA OR RNA!

So they do NOT violate central dogma, this is not just tautology, it's the fact viruses work within cells and are completely slaves of cells to replicate.



I still don't see your point.
(what does your little knowledge of cells and viruses have to do with eugenics?)

Wow. Where to began with this mess. First of all, I see that you removed from my post the points I made on why they are so complex and diverse as a group of organisms. That's classy.
And if you'll also notice, I don't for moment claim that viruses should be considered cells. They do not possess a cellular membrane, nor are they capable of autonomous reproduction. My concern is we're not being scientifically honest about how we define life. Viruses still have a genome and more importantly have an innate desire to replication. Actually, that's ALL they do is replicate. I'm not challenging cell theory in a general sense, but in the case that life doesn't have to be cell-based. This sounds more like human arrogance than anything (since we're obviously composed of cells). Seems like you can't figure that out one out.
lol. You sound like a 19th century scientist defending spontaneous generation. Why don't you toss aside some of you're teachings and actually think for one. That's what being a scientist is all about: thinking outside the norm and challenging the beliefs of your day.
"Knock yourself out"? Would you like to do the honors?
Actually, retroviruses (like HIV) transcribe DNA from RNA using reverse transcriptase which they possess inside their protein coat.

Thank God you've decided not to pass on your genes.

 

[WaltM]

Guess you won't care when no one's there to help you.

just because I wish people helped me doesn't mean I believe I have a right to be helped.

I wish people gave me money for nothing in return too, so what?

 

[James Madison]

just because I wish people helped me doesn't mean I believe I have a right to be helped.

I wish people gave me money for nothing in return too, so what?

You help people because it's the right thing to do not because you expect anything in return.

 

[WaltM]

Wow. Where to began with this mess. First of all, I see that you removed from my post the points I made on why they are so complex and diverse as a group of organisms. That's classy.
And if you'll also notice, I don't for moment claim that viruses should be considered cells.

But you said cell theory should be discarded just because it can't include viruses as life.

They do not possess a cellular membrane, nor are they capable of autonomous reproduction. My concern is we're not being scientifically honest about how we define life.

Why not?

Why is it more honest to define a virus as life?

Viruses still have a genome and more importantly have an innate desire to replication.

Desire to reproduce? You made that up.

Actually, that's ALL they do is replicate. I'm not challenging cell theory in a general sense, but in the case that life doesn't have to be cell-based.

Even if you do do that, what does that change but semantics?

This sounds more like human arrogance than anything (since we're obviously composed of cells). Seems like you can't figure that out one out.

No, you can't. You're just nitpicking on words.

Humans are monkeys, by the way.

lol. You sound like a 19th century scientist defending spontaneous generation. Why don't you toss aside some of you're teachings and actually think for one.

No, that's you.

That's what being a scientist is all about: thinking outside the norm and challenging the beliefs of your day.

I can tell you're not one.

"Knock yourself out"? Would you like to do the honors?
Actually, retroviruses (like HIV) transcribe DNA from RNA using reverse transcriptase which they possess inside their protein coat.

but they still depend on hosts to transcribe and persist.

Thank God you've decided not to pass on your genes.

whatever.

 

[WaltM]

You help people because it's the right thing to do not because you expect anything in return.

so keep hating yourself for not doing enough.

I chose not to.

 

[James Madison]

But you said cell theory should be discarded just because it can't include viruses as life.

Why not?

Why is it more honest to define a virus as life?

Desire to reproduce? You made that up.

Even if you do do that, what does that change but semantics?

No, you can't. You're just nitpicking on words.

Humans are monkeys, by the way.

No, that's you.

I can tell you're not one.

but they still depend on hosts to transcribe and persist.

whatever.

Not really. You'll notice that my only beef with cell theory is that it tells us that living organisms must be comprised of cells exclusively.
I suppose it's not that important. I debating ideas and clearly you don't possess the ability to understand them.
Humans are, in fact, not monkeys as they belong to separate genera. Using this logic dogs are cats.
I love how you claim to know things about me when I've never actually told anything about me personally. Then again, that's typical of you.

By the way, if you consider children and other humans to be a burden, then doesn't that make you a burden also? If you really believed in your opinions you'd step up to the plate. Oh, that's right you don't have the balls. You want all of us to die instead.

 

[Kludge]

You help people because it's the right thing to do not because you expect anything in return.

I'm not sure about this. I help people because I expect the act can indirectly be helpful in the future, even if I don't know how - I think it's good to be in good favor. I don't expect anything in return, but I consciously factor how helpful the person could potentially be in considering whether or not I should stick my neck out for them.

Edit: Beyond that, dishonor has to be factored in. I'd be frustrated if I had to keep repressing a story where I let a paraplegic roll into a river, and I'd be considered (rightfully so) an asshole if I ever let it slip.

 

[WaltM]

Not really. You'll notice that my only beef with cell theory is that it tells us that living organisms must be comprised of cells exclusively.
I suppose it's not that important. I debating ideas and clearly you don't possess the ability to understand them.

From other things you said, I can say the same for you.

Humans are, in fact, not monkeys as they belong to separate genera. Using this logic dogs are cats.

Like I thought, you seriously know nothing about biodiversity.

I love how you claim to know things about me when I've never actually told anything about me personally. Then again, that's typical of you.

You've told me that you think humans are distant to monkeys as cats are to dogs.

By the way, if you consider children and other humans to be a burden, then doesn't that make you a burden also? If you really believed in your opinions you'd step up to the plate. Oh, that's right you don't have the balls. You want all of us to die instead.

I don't believe ALL humans are burden, or else I'd be Malthusian.