I'll take that as: can't be bothered to answer.

The question was obviously pitched a little too high for you Rick. I understand, it's late and you're an old man. Maybe you should just put your jim-jams on, tuck yourself in and pray to the Creator that the world will still be here tomorrow.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Cranius wrote:If they only become Elite because of a genetic predisposition to hoard an accumulate wealth?

Who are 'they' and what qualifies one as an elite?

You tell me...I don't believe they exist. You do, you answer it.

I mean, here you say:

Rick Rueben wrote: I think that feudalist capitalism propels sociopaths to positions of power, and with feudalist capitalism on a new centuries-long winning streak, sociopaths dominate the controller class. When you factor in the incestuous bloodlines of the arch creeps who have passed power down from generation to generation, you can well imagine that we are facing off against a super breed of sociopaths verging on the level of the monsters from Alien. These devils are anti-human.

So that's the genetic element defined there. Bloodlines...satanism...so forth. Implying some sort of genetic determination of 'evil' and power.

But on other threads you seem to say that free choice is the main factor of consideration, when judging the moral(immoral) actions of an individual: the laziness of homeless, or the lifestyle choices of the drug-addicted. You even go as far as saying we should outlaw greed...I presume that is genetically determined, too.

You seem to be stuck in some sort of quandary there. You seem confused, is all.

Rick Reuben wrote:Would I discuss airplane engines with someone who doesn't believe that mechanized flight is possible and that pilots don't exist?

You could always condescend to if it didn't sully your integrity too much.

Glad to see Clocker Bob has completely flamed out. I think the more interesting conversation in the thread was between Earwicker and Gramsci. Unfortunately that broke down into name calling. But I had a couple of responses.

As I read it, Gramsci's argument against agnosticism is that, look, you're not agnostic about bigfoot, you're not agnostic about Thor, so why give special treatment to God? This agnostic agrees. I'm agnostic about God; I'm agnostic about Thor; I'm agnostic about bigfoot; to paraphrase Dawkins, I'm agnostic about God to the same extent that I'm agnostic with respect to fairies at the bottom of the garden. I don't believe in any of these things, but I leave open the possibility for all of them.

But there's another response, which goes to the very nature of the thing in question. I think you could argue that inherent in the concept of God is the notion of a transcendent being. I think it's a lot easier to say "If there were a bigfoot we would have seen it" than "If there were a god we would have seen it." So I'd be more agnostic about a god than about a bigfoot. Likewise I'd be more agnostic about a fairy than about a bigfoot, and more agnostic about a bigfoot than about a mile-tall bigfoot. The better something is supposed to be at evading detection, the less we can consider absence of evidence as evidence of absence. In the case of a being who is or may be literally completely undetectable, we can't consider absence of evidence as evidence at all.

This doesn't make me any less of an atheist. I don't need evidence to disbelieve; I need it to believe. In the absence of evidence, I can't claim to know, but I can refuse to believe.

Earwicker mentioned scientific theories about a universal consciousness or something like that. That's very interesting. To the extent that (1) such an entity can be observed, (2) testable predictions can be made about such an entity, (3) such an entity can be seen to conform to natural laws, (4) etc., this belongs within the realm of science. But as I said above, I think that inherent in the concept of God is transcendence. If a being or entity is found that conforms to natural laws and behaves more or less predictably, why call it "God"? In that case, is it God or is it just an animal we can name "God"?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Glad to see Clocker Bob has completely flamed out.

Van Pelt's brain flaming out

Bob, you claimed that you leave open the possibility that Angels/Demons mated with humans creating a hybrid that now control the world. If you can't see that nut job stuff like this totally undermines you as a credible person... well, I don't know what to say.

Are you here to convince us of your arguments - some on economics are very good points - or just ear-bash people that slightly disagree with you on anything?

Rick Reuben wrote:

big dave wrote:Therefore the possibility that someone's racial/family genetics makes them more predisposed to crime is inescapably racist.

Why? Can someone's bloodline make them more likely to have sickle cell anemia? Or Grave's disease? Glaucoma? Clogged arteries? What about sociopathy? There's no chance that sociopathic tendencies are concentrated in genes? You've heard of hereditary heart conditions, right? Passed on from parents.

I just heard that someone saved a bunch of the racehorse Barbaro's sperm. They're going to sell it. I wonder who would buy it? Whoever heard of a racehorse's speed being passed on to his descendents genetically? It's preposterous, according to Gramsci and big_troll.

You obviously don't understand genetics. What you are basically talking about is the equivalent of phrenology; pseudo-scientific babble to defend racist beliefs.

To suggest that personality traits are dependent on "bloodlines" and family "genetics" is to use sophistry and pseudo-science to defend illogical and indefensible positions. To cap it off, you start to draw analogies between crime (along with politics you disapprove of) and disease. Next stop, Hitlerville.

You have been quite hilarious in this thread since I made my last post. Keep it up.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Gramsci wrote:Bob, you claimed that you leave open the possibility that Angels/Demons mated with humans creating a hybrid that now control the world. If you can't see that nut job stuff like this totally undermines you as a credible person... well, I don't know what to say.

You are now claiming to have the full history of the earth in your possession, all the way back to the dawn of time? Your arrogance and your ignorance are always competing for dominance in your head, aren't they? Anyway, I don't know either way if other civilizations interfered with earth's at some point ( or even if our ecosystem was not planted by outsiders like a garden ), but looking up into the vast universe makes me not rule it out. You should try accepting that the humans of earth might not be the most advanced species in the universe. That humble realization will open up a world of possibilities to your rigid mind.

Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait ... you're open to your elites being the distant relatives of angels & demons, but you rejected my 'ghosts cause global waming' theory off-hand? I'm insulted.

Damn ... and if you can inherit antisocial personality disorders, somebody who actually was descended from a demon might well be a real cunt!

I guess they'd be slightly pissed if their lineage made them a prick, but didn't actually leave them with any magic powers.