Brain Candy

At least my lack of empathy was not unusual. Having practiced as a psychotherapist for 35 years, LaBier believes that what he calls empathy deficit disorder (EDD) is rampant among Americans. LaBier says we unlearn whatever empathy skills we've picked up while coming of age in a culture that focuses on acquisition and status more than cooperation and values "moving on" over thoughtful reflection. LaBier is convinced that EDD is at the heart of modernity's most common problems, macro (war) and micro (divorce). As LaBier explains, virtually everyone learns the basics of empathy in childhood (from our parents comforting us when we're in distress), but my father died when I was 4, and afterward my mother had to be very can-do, juggling three jobs, graduate school, and two kids. When I was upset, she never said, "Oh, I'm sorry. It must be hard to have me away so much after losing your dad." Instead, on good days, she'd say, "Why are you crying? Nothing is wrong." And on bad days: "You'd better toughen up because life can get a lot worse." Looking back at my 20-something self, I realize that if, as LaBier says, empathy is "the ability or the willingness to experience the world from someone else's point of view," I wasn't brought up to be able to do that. http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/06...athy/index.html So being strict or assertive, instead of being a natural reaction among a great number of people in certain situations, could be a sign of a disorder? I confused.

Thats my beef with most people in general.

I think smarter people are weary of dogma in all forms. Smarter religious people probably see a much more all encompassing god then a "do this or go to hell" one.

It seems like sexual attractiveness trumps governmental power in this case, if it is true. Freedom: You have the ability to do what you want, including impeed on others ability to do what they want, as they can to you. Hierarchy systems rise up instantly and legal systems hopefully soon after.

.

Its probably going to suck, and is going to remain as faithful to the historical source as Beowulf was, adding soapy bits about how he was just an ordinary nice guy righting a few wrongs. Most movies suck. Historical fiction can and has been done well, there are plenty of things you can do and say artistically with an event or time period.

I think there is bad use and understanding of terms here.

Im not sure I understand how this is a case for socialism... also Socialism as a transition to communism and NATIONAL Socialism as ethnocentrism are completely different animals and hardly two sides of the same coin. If you're talking just about the idea of the government having heavy control on the means of production and distribution of goods then where does that leave the many other possibilities for that idea?

Prince Philip on population. Note the comments made by the reporter: Accuse the man of not following his own advice -probably decades before he realized their could be a problem- and suggest he is looking for radical solutions when he hasn't said anything to that effect, but avoid commenting on whether he is actually right or wrong.

The problem with reefer laws is most people who want to smoke it allready do, and there are a ton of them.. Why not fully legalize so we can at least tax it and try to enforce a minimum age? Right now it is about as useful as a sodomy law.

90% of the time, comparing a group or idea to fascism or nazism means absolutely nothing. But it does provide slogans that make a the group or idea much less appealing at face value. -The "Islamofascist" regimes must be stomped out now! -Conservatives invaded Iraq, nazis invaded countries, they are clearly nazis! -Liberals want more government, fascists had large government, liberals are fascists! Also National Socialists have SOCIALIST right in there name! I mean come on! -Hitler was a vegetarian, etc.

Im starting to see Oleg as a mad prophet living on top of a mountain, periodically descending to spread the holy word while us normals are trying to decipher what he actually means. This would be better, leaves much less room for interpretation and no room for an angry rant being interpreted as hate.

see this previously posted link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...00a7829cb454ccf Keep in mind when I say smart, I mean IQ (which is by no means 100% accurate but its the best thing we got). I dont know why intelligent people are breeding slower now, possibly because alot of them put their careers in front of having and raising children now. I also dont know why dumber people are breeding excessively, maybe because they have so many safety nets. It doesnt really matter, what matters is its going to be a slowly worsening problem. Health is another factor, medicine is a blessing but will also allow diseases and other problems related to genetics to pass on. I think this will be a problem but probably not as big, lets put it as a none issue for now. As far as welfare recipients, I cant find a study that suggests they actually have high IQ's, can you help me? Even if they did, to be on welfare is to suggest that you are, at the present time, having a hard time supporting yourself. How could having a child in such a situation possibly be anything but bad? For anyone including the tax payers?

I like some of their ideas and have been a fan for a while, ruin my life? How? They got interesting ideas and articles there, also I dont sense they are dogmatic about any of it.

Approaching war from a dualistic perpective: "The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ." -Hagee LOL self fullfilling prophecy. When asked in outside of sermons he will give more realistic reasons for this view, but keep in mind this is whats at the heart of it, unless he is a manipulative fraud.

I forgot something else here. Even if such a program was implemented and became hugely successful, we could only assume that along with our breeding habits we most likely bring in our consumption habits, so population problems are reduced but consumption problems multiply. D'oh!

Since smart people appear to breed less, I think these are connected and you cant really talk about one without the other. I dont think the population increasing indefinately is a good idea no matter what IQ you are or background you are from. But at the same time, given that smart people tend to have smart children, if we are going to implement population control it would be a good idea to work from the "ground up". I think he put it fairly well. The transition from rigid definitions of class wasn't a bad idea, but sometimes I think the capitalist system makes people rise to the top who shouldnt be there, and with dishonest intentions once they get there. But I wouldnt claim that earlier societies were immune to this. Also I might have been slightly joking. The arguement is about both things, but I wouldn't personally want a state that simply denied people the right to have children in general... but wouldnt it be allright to limit the amount of children less capable are aloud? Especially if they currently require government assistance? Immigration would probably need to be limited first in our specific case.

Who I am does not matter. I presented a few issues and suggested they are important along with a few possible solutions to them, this is not because i personally stand to gain from them outside of their beneficial effects on society as a whole. I never claimed smart and capable people were incapable of cruelty, but at the same time people increasingly getting dumber within a society would eventually crush and destroy any civilisation. Why? Because they lack capababilities of smarter people to not only take care of themselves, but also tend to be more creative and forward thinking. I am fighting for discussion for rational solutions to problems that do exist. We can argue about specifics, butpopulation is growing to unpresendented levels and more dumb then smart people are breeding. Even though growth rates may decrease, the population will still be rising indefinetly, unless we do something about it or hit a huge disaster. We could have a huge, worldwide education program which would decrease population growth, but that would both be incredibly costly and their is no guarantee that it will be effective or we will be even wanted in most places. Also it does not take into consideration that intelligence stem from genetics as well as environment. Canada specifically would benefit from stricter immigration laws, but just encouraging smarter and healthier people to breed more is a good idea in any situation.

I disagree with most of what he said, but his particular point here is quite good, why not ask for clarification rather then resorting to personal attacks?

Yes, that is why I think IQ and health are the better measures then money. Both of these people got rich from pandering to children and the pop form of country and western, they made important contributions how? I have, stop assuming things before providing good arguements.

I think you are my hero. Keep in mind that this is not so much an issue of destroying the planet, their may be undeniable damage to its ecosystems and natural beauty as developed since the dawn of time, but the planet will remain. It is more a question of human civilisations, and their sustainability, and the quality and joy of life within one.

Thats is fair, but that doesnt make the problems go away. Maybe its just a question of how to approach it?

No it is not, it's practical. It ultimately doesnt matter if people need it or not. If people need it then they should be on it, and also since they are financially in need they definately shouldnt be thinking about having children. But thats just part of it, howabout the billions of dollars that keeps 3rd world countries breeding habits going strong? If they emigrate to here they, as a whole, use more resources and appear to continue to breed at large rates. I realize places like Canada might need them to keep their current population, but maybe our population needs to go down from what it is? Or maybe we need to turn the welfare system on its head and have more insentives for the "best" (healthy, intelligent) among us to outbreed the rest? If you disagree, explain how their is a better way to deal with this problems, or how these problems wont ultimately matter.

Again I could agree with that, but Im pretty sure seeing breeding as a "fundamental right" will eventually be a problem, especially since even without the welfare system they might still be outbreeding us. Though some offspring manage to work their way out of their system, even more are perpetuating it. I think limiting the breeding of welfare recipients to one child-if they are aloud any- would be a good way to reduce the size and need for it, as well as to make people second guess whether they want to go on it.

I would agree they had these rights if they currently didnt depend on handouts. As it stands not only are they mainly dead weight, they are breeding at a faster rate. We could cry about the rights of people worldwide to do what they want while we support them, but if their is currently a problem and it is getting bigger, reality will kick our ass eventually.