-
Senior Member
Array Anti-Humanism Humanism is death disguised as life. When you are a humanist, you think only of humans. You see the world as existing only for human consumption. It is more important to save every life than to produce better beings, in your view. You think any death is a tragedy.
This sort of thinking is antiquated. While it is delusional under any circumstance, it was allowed to flourish because of the wealth of humanity. Now it is obsolete. Since we have polluted our oceans and air, overused land, overpopulated the earth with excess humans, killed off many natural species, destroyed most forests, and paved almost everything else, we are no longer able to be concerned with humans. We are on the verge of destroying our environment and the primary cause is that we're too humanistic to restrict our own numbers.
"You can't do that," they say. "Because everyone has the right to freedom, and to buy whatever they can, and to build a house, and eat whatever they can, and... and..." It's a neverending list of wants. Everyone wants to look like the good guy who tells us all that we can have whatever we want. But that's an illusion, and they know it, but they don't care. They're only thinking about themselves, while they claim to be thinking about others; it makes them feel good to tell us we can have whatever we want, it makes them feel good to "care" about others, to cry over any death, etc.
That behavior has turned humanity into a cancer. Seven billion and no end in sight. Can't eat fish more than once a week because it's toxic with heavy metals. Where did the forests go? Well, we can have a fun drive down the pavement, surrounded by signs advertising cheap consumer goods, and then we can go someplace and buy something. It's this "freedom" that keeps us equal. The logic behind all of this is humanism. Humanism pleases the crowd. It justifies itself as "equality." All of the people out there who cannot do anything useful, and therefore fear someone will tell them what to do, love equality. They are addicted to it. They crowd into spaces, breed out of control, eat all the food, and never think about the consequences. Why? They are mediocre.
Anti-Humanism is a belief system for those who think humans are not the entirety of what we should be considering. We want to live on as a species, and we realize that requires thinning the herd. Problem: conventional morality, aka humanism, is totally opposed to that. Answer: do away with the obsolete morality, and slaughter the 90% of our species who do nothing productive and never will. Breed better humans, and fewer of them, and then some humans live on instead of all of us facing certain death because of the stupidity of the humanists. -
Senior Member
Array  Originally Posted by ReverseLunge Anti-Humanism is a belief system for those who think humans are not the entirety of what we should be considering. We want to live on as a species, and we realize that requires thinning the herd. Problem: conventional morality, aka humanism, is totally opposed to that. Answer: do away with the obsolete morality, and slaughter the 90% of our species who do nothing productive and never will. Breed better humans, and fewer of them, and then some humans live on instead of all of us facing certain death because of the stupidity of the humanists. Hmm. Alot of your comments about 'Humanism' as you define it are justified but your plan to breed "better" humans would be just as subjectively defined as their considerations about what is good for people.
It is certainly true the what is good for one person or one group is NOT necessarily good for humanity at large. However the reverse is also true.
The supportable population of the world is not nearly at its maximum. There is so much untapped productivity in ALREADY CULTIVATED areas of third world countries (not to mention the sea) that without adding any more cultivated land worldwide the planet could support twice the population it has. This productivity is while consumer goods are on the whole incredibly cheap - we produce more than we use (yes food included - the big problem with world hunger it sending the food where it is needed, and getting someone to pay for the shipping once it arrives).
I certainly believe urban sprawl as best demostrated by Columbus, OH and Houston, TX is a plauge and that money poured into expansion of cities should be poured into utilizing the already occupied spaces better. Similarly I believe that restraints on numbers of children produced should be inacted. I mean in theory if every person in the world married someone of the other sex they could have two children and the world population would go down (given that 1.5% of women would be left without mates - unless we want to get kinky).
So while I agree that freedom of self limits the efficiency of the human race there are measures that can be taken other than killing off 90% of people based on some biased judgement system (note: ALL judgement system are inherently biased, that in not a dig at you). "I cannot ensure success, I can only endeavor to deserve it" - Capt. John Paul Jones -
Senior Member
Array *wagner on*
Kill the rabbits!!!! Kill the rabits!!!!
*wagner off* "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. And from this side only! The flight of a half-man, half-bird. Dinosaurs nuzzling their young in pastures where strip malls should be. Cookies on dowels. All those moment, lost in time. Gone, like eggs off a hooker's stomach. Time to die" -Phil Ken Sebben -
Senior Member
Array  Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken! *wagner on*
Kill the rabbits!!!! Kill the rabits!!!!
*wagner off* umm... ...good point... ...? "I cannot ensure success, I can only endeavor to deserve it" - Capt. John Paul Jones -
Senior Member
Array That entire argument is simply absurd.
If you wish to kill off 90% of humans, start with yourself.
Regards,
Feltan -
Senior Member
Array While his(?) solution is clearly absurd his arguements about what he calls humanism are not completely absurd. They are at least debatable.
Outright refusal to debate is a symtom of a closed mind. "I cannot ensure success, I can only endeavor to deserve it" - Capt. John Paul Jones -
 Originally Posted by RoninX Outright refusal to debate is a symtom of a closed mind. while a reluctance to rise to rhetorical nonsense is often a sign of good sense.
After all the very definition of Humanism he uses as the predicate for his arguement is incorrect, or at the very least contrived.
Last edited by keith; 04-30-2006 at 02:43 PM.
au revoir -
Senior Member
Array Take your time. Read carefully. -
Senior Member
Array  Originally Posted by Mr Epee Thank you. Look at the links and faq. It could very well have been authored by RL.
Regards,
Feltan -
Senior Member
Array RL loves to copy someone else's stuff and post it here as if he'd thought of it himself.
Don't feed the trolls. If you feed 'em, they keep coming back. Nothing is more frightening than ignorance in action. -
 Originally Posted by ReverseLunge *copy/paste* fixed! Similar Threads -
By Alain in forum Water Cooler
Replies: 16
Last Post: 09-08-2005, 02:20 PM -
By Dirk Goldgar in forum Rec Sport Fencing
Replies: 0
Last Post: 02-21-2005, 03:28 PM -
By Joshua in forum Rec Sport Fencing
Replies: 0
Last Post: 02-21-2005, 03:28 PM -
By pkt in forum Water Cooler
Replies: 53
Last Post: 04-24-2003, 08:34 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules |