Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (137031)	9/5/2005 3:35:57 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793879

Mary, I think your scoring system for IQ is inaccurate and you should not mistake glib keyboard skills for intelligence. <There is no way, at this point and time, that you can convince people to trash (or dispose of)what you would call the least admired human beings. > It's mean, but that trashing process has been carried out for eons and women have been enthusiastic in that process. But the trashing process is relatively gentle. It's eugenics in action. Being a guy is a traumatic process, with rejection a common experience, with many a young bloke heartbroken and left forlorn, growing old, or at least a little older, then dying without making it into the breeding programmes, being unable to attract a woman into his care and reproductive plans. Sexual selection, as well as genocide, murder, disease and economic weakness have resulted in a rapid DNA filtering process over just a few thousand years, with humans average DNA content undergoing major changes. I don't need to convince anyone to do trashing. They are enthusiastically doing it and have been and will continue, no matter what. I bet you have done some of it yourself. Thank you for your contribution to improving the human genome. <Perhaps, you may be right. The "intelligent designer" really would like to see only the most gifted and talented people survive. > I didn't write that. Gifted and talented can have many meanings other than some problem solving cognitive functions. For examples, bats have gifts and talents which humans don't. Their flying and ultrasonic navigation are very impressive and nobody has those gifts and talents. Accurately speaking [or writing], all living things which are alive right now are precisely equally talented, gifted [and lucky]. All their ancestors, in an unbroken lineage all the way back to the first spiraling DNA, were successful, for about a billion years, never, not once, dying before going on to reproduce the next generation. That's millions of lifetimes in a row, without a single death breaking the chain. What's the chances of that happening? Billions to one for each existing life. Yet it happened, trillions of times. The laws of large numbers are interesting. The probability of any one of the currently living things being alive is billions to one against. Yet they are all alive. "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkin explains the process. "Common people", when not mollycoddled and suffocated by Big Government, can work out quite a few things for themselves. Of course plenty won't. I'm saying they should think of looking after themselves because they can't trust governments to do much of a job of it. <Even the President of the Unites States could not have imagined such a possibility. > "Even"? Well, I think you are right there. I'm not in the slightest surprised that he could not have imagined such a possibility. I don't think I've seen many, or any, presidents, prime ministers or other ego-driven politicians with much in the way of imagination. You are right: <the world is complex. It is even too complex for a mind like yours. > Strange as it might seem, even with my amazing supersonic bifurcated binary brain, I find some problems intractable. There are even some things about which I know little. Or even nothing. Mqurice PS: I'm kidding. I really do know it all. I'm just being modest. Go on, ask me about something.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (137031)	9/5/2005 5:39:26 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793879

How could common people (without as you would point out with much intelligence) could possibly have foreseen that the hurricane could cause such damage? Even the President of the Unites States could not have imagined such a possibility.>>> I cant get a grasp on the magnitude of that destruction yet, even people who read about it in history books will find it difficult to do so. Consider a house located on miles of nearly level ground. Flooded to the roof line. That is obscene, houses are not supposed to look that way. It is impossible, where would you get enough water to cause that? It should all run off somewhere. It is beyond logic. And there are row upon row of such houses. We need new references. Its not just flooded- its mooted, it has sunk on solid ground. Why did anyone or any factor do it? Whose fault is it , what did we do wrong.? Only one answer is crystal clear . somebody built that house below sea level. And mother nature objected to it. But the cries got out to Washington thousands of miles away- why didn't you FU's save our city? Save us from our own local folly. Sig