Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-6 Poor

About VenusPrincess

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The industrial revolution resulted in a massive increase of automation, and when combined with the exponential growth of technological progress which has taken place since then it has resulted in many forms of menial labor being made obsolete. Consider the following premise - relative to the past, a greater percentage of the population today is unable to make economically useful contributions to society, since the menial labor which they would have been capable of has been automated. Assuming that the premise is true, then this problem will only get worse. Automation and technologica
  2. No, recognizing the state's natural right to pursue it's interests that involve harvesting your productivity along with the investment it has made in you should compel you to serve the state out of gratitude for all it has given you. By killing yourself you display such ingratitude for all you have been given by the state, and it is not your natural right to behave in such an ungrateful way. Wrong. It is your natural right to exist, and the state has no natural right to display such ingratitude by discarding you after you have served it so dutifully.
  3. It's seen as bad in a modern context, but in the past religion played an important role as a means of controlling people. Making an example out of people who were disobedient was necessary to maintain that control. Today we have other means of doing that, so traditional religion as we know it is no longer necessary.
  4. No, since it is a matter of morality rather than law, I am referring to natural rights, not legal ones.
  5. It is wrong. By killing yourself you are robbing the state of your future productivity after it has already invested many resources into you. You do not have a right to damage the state's investment.
  6. If you're talking about the thread where I claimed that the intelligence of a biological organism is determined by its neurological system then that is not eugenic. I can claim that automobiles with a V8 engine can go faster than those with a V6 engine, and there is no implication that I believe automobiles with V6 engines should be destroyed.
  7. If you believed something was true, but also knew that others would be demoralized and angry at you for sharing that truth, should you stay quiet or lie about it instead?
  8. I am claiming that the greatest barrier to equal opportunity in education in 21st century Western countries are morphological differences in the neurological system. There are plenty of people in our fine universities, unfortunately most of them are morons and will contribute little to human knowledge. It's not because they didn't eat enough broccoli growing up, and it's not because an evil force is preventing them from reading their books. It's because they don't have the neuroanatomy to succeed. By the way, I think something like 50% of kids today attend some sort of institute of higher educ
  9. No offense but you should work on your reading comprehension. My post suggests that neurons found in people with type I (N370S homozygote) Gaucher's disease would possibly have an increased number of axonal branches and a corresponding increase in the length of the axon plexus. I used the Ashkenazim as an example since they have a reputation for high academic achievement.
  10. It sounds to me like you are ignoring the possibility altogether, in other words you are potentially rejecting reality because you don't like it. How can you deny the relationship between the morphology of an organism's neurological system and success? From the Wikipedia page on Gaucher's disease: From A regulatory role for sphingolipids in neuronal growth. Inhibition of sphingolipid synthesis and degradation have opposite effects on axonal branching: Again from the Wikipedia page on Gaucher's disease: I'm sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but welcome to the b
  11. You have implicitly decided. It seems like many "progressives" have decided that morphological differences related to skin color and skull structure, i.e. the outward physical indicators of race, supersede all other others when ensuring equal opportunity. Your focus on outward morphological differences is wrong headed. The morphological differences which are responsible for differences in achievement are most likely found within the neurological system. If those differences are passed down in conjunction with and therefore correlated with outward morphological differences then the problem
  12. If people do not behave in the same way it is because there is a morphological difference between them. That is the fundamental source of inequality. It's also impossible to fix, and there is no reason to either. Should we alter the genetics of the potato so that it will have the same morphology as a dog? Why? Why should organisms be equal? To what end? Give up on this childish dream of equality and accept reality.
  13. We are in the age of incompetence. Our politicians and scientists are incompetent.
  14. Thanks. After doing extensive research I have come to the conclusion that there is no hard evidence that the putative COVID-19 virus exists.
  15. Most scientists today are Asian since white kids aren't smart enough to outcompete them for spots in grad school.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.