The main reason to why I am a rightist is so that there is more evolutionary pressure on people who make bad choices/are unintelligent.

[Arsene]

srs.

 

It's just unacceptable that Shaniqua is making 10 kids just so her child benefits are adding up, its ruining the gene-pool. That's also why I am for example, pro legalization of all drugs, and gay acceptant,...

[Koroviev]

wouldn't being pro peaceful parenting, anti welfare state, and...well anti state be more effective than trying to find some magical state program that will fix the crappy state programs? What if you didn't have to pay for Shaniqua at all?

 

*note: if this was sarcasm apologies I completely missed it

[Romulox]

Check out Stef's Gene Wars series of podcasts.  There are three podcasts about an hour each (numbers 3010, 3019, and 3070).  The series is an introduction to the r/K selection theory, which seeks to explain politics from the perspective of genetics and epigenetics (the impact of environment on the activation of certain genes). 

 

I just finished up the series yesterday and it is truly fascinating stuff.  Long story short, Shaniqua's environment (unlimited state welfare payments, fatherless childhood) triggers certain genes to be activated that will push her towards a reproductive strategy of having as many kids as possible (r-selected), as opposed to a strategy of having few children but investing lots of resources to ensure they are successful in life (K-selected).  Give it a listen and let us know what you think!

[dsayers]

srs.

 

It's just unacceptable that Shaniqua is making 10 kids just so her child benefits are adding up, its ruining the gene-pool. That's also why I am for example, pro legalization of all drugs, and gay acceptant,...

 

If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are. It seems like you are focusing on symptoms rather than the problem. I'd be more interested in WHY somebody having more kids leads to more handouts. It's because there are people who will steal from everybody and incentivize others to reproduce mindlessly. Since this theft or promise of theft came first, I think we've come closer to the root.

 

I think you're doing yourself a large disservice when you say something like "I am for legalization of all drugs." First of all, saying legalization means you're legitimizing the claim that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Secondly, you're legitimizing the superstition that individual opinion alters reality. It doesn't matter if you are for or against people threatening other people with credible violence for this reason or that. Objectively speaking, the initiation of the use of force is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Saying how you think certain self-contradictions are acceptable doesn't change the fact that they're internally inconsistent (and therefore wrong).

[Arsene]

If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are. It seems like you are focusing on symptoms rather than the problem. I'd be more interested in WHY somebody having more kids leads to more handouts. It's because there are people who will steal from everybody and incentivize others to reproduce mindlessly. Since this theft or promise of theft came first, I think we've come closer to the root.

 

I think you're doing yourself a large disservice when you say something like "I am for legalization of all drugs." First of all, saying legalization means you're legitimizing the claim that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Secondly, you're legitimizing the superstition that individual opinion alters reality. It doesn't matter if you are for or against people threatening other people with credible violence for this reason or that. Objectively speaking, the initiation of the use of force is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Saying how you think certain self-contradictions are acceptable doesn't change the fact that they're internally inconsistent (and therefore wrong).

I don't get how I am legitimizing the superstition that individual opinion alters reality. "Saying how you think certain self-contradictions are accaptable". What self-contradictions are you talking about? I have a hard time following you. 

 

Anyway. I'm pretty sure that having a more free and capitalistic society will impose more evolutionary pressure on people who are unintelligent. If drugs would be legalized, the number of heroin addictions might rise, but that group of addictions will be filled with significantly below average IQ people, on the other hand, more intelligent people who are concious enough not to get addicted but want to try it out won't die from the bunk they get. I recognize quite often that in life, that Freedom and Safety have an inverse relationship. Where for the unintelligent it's better to guide them and take away their freedom for their own safety, but for the intelligent who know how to deal with the freedom, certain rules might limit them and decrease their amount of resources and chances of survival. What a socialistic society boils down to is taking away resources from the averagely intelligent to give it to the averagely unintelligent.

 

I recognize that alot of our morals are based on increasing the amount of the gene pool instead of the quality of the gene pool. If you want the humanity to be smarter, living in an enviroment where it's harder for the uninteligent people to procreate will do that. If you want humanity to increase in amount, take away the evolutionary pressure on the unintelligent (by providing them resources from smarter people, and rules) will do that. 

[Romulox]

 

I don't get how I am legitimizing the superstition that individual opinion alters reality. "Saying how you think certain self-contradictions are accaptable". What self-contradictions are you talking about? I have a hard time following you. 

 

I believe the self contradiction that dsayers was referring to is the justification of the state itself; that is, you must sacrifice your property rights in order to protect your property rights.  Another great example of a generally accepted self-contradiction is the Freedom vs. Safety dichotomy that you pointed out in your last post.

 

I recognize quite often that in life, that Freedom and Safety have an inverse relationship.

 

Let's define our terms to make sure we are on the same page, feel free to correct if you disagree:

 

Freedom = the power to make decisions free from the influence of violence

Safety = a condition free from violence or threats of violence

 

Substituting the definitions for the words:

"I recognize quite often in life, that the power to make decisions free from the influence of violence and a condition free from violence or threats of violence have an inverse relationship."

 

 

I recognize that alot of our morals are based on increasing the amount of the gene pool instead of the quality of the gene pool. If you want the humanity to be smarter, living in an enviroment where it's harder for the uninteligent people to procreate will do that. If you want humanity to increase in amount, take away the evolutionary pressure on the unintelligent (by providing them resources from smarter people, and rules) will do that.  

 

If the history of humanity is any indicator, this will likely happen when the system created to provide resources for rapid breeding (the state) collapses.  At this point, the limited-resource environment will cause the rapid breeding genes to turn off and the quality breeding genes to turn on, resulting in a few generations of resourceful (more intelligent) offspring that may start the next great civilization.  Hopefully at some point in the continual rise and fall of civilizations, enough people will adopt non-aggression and peaceful parenting strategies such that the violence required to provide resources to the rapid breeders will never take hold. 

[dsayers]

 

I don't get how I am legitimizing the superstition that individual opinion alters reality. "Saying how you think certain self-contradictions are accaptable". What self-contradictions are you talking about? I have a hard time following you. 

 

In your title and post, you said "I am a rightist" and "I am pro legalization of all drugs." Opinions can be interesting, but they have no bearing on the legitimate problem you put forth: People pumping out children to receive goodies for having them. This is problematic precisely because the goodies they receive were taken from other people, which is a performative contradiction (objective; not an opinion). If I said "I like chocolate ice cream," would I be contributing at all to the problem of people's belief in the State furthering the myth that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories? No. Because I can like theft or I can hate theft, but neither would have any bearing on the fact that theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.

 

I'm explaining this to you because human subjugation is a highly refined craft while rational thought and going against the narrative has largely been selected out of our evolution. If you were to engage a statist in conversation, they would be able to use the fact that you put forth opinions in an objective discussion (as if they were meaningful) against you. It also makes your aim less effective. For example, when addressing what seems to be the issue you wanted to talk about, you expressed ire for "Shaniqua." While her behavior might be reprehensible, it's only possible (and likely only occurs) because there is a mafia that will steal from everybody to incentivize her. Part of the way they get away with this is because some people who lack self-knowledge, but realize something's not right get angry with Shaniqua and not the aggression carried out in the name of the State.

 

For as long as you're focusing on Shaniqua and your wishlist for how institutionalized aggression should be administered, you're of no threat to those enjoying the power of existing in a made-up, super-human moral category.

[webdever]

If drugs would be legalized, the number of heroin addictions might rise, but that group of addictions will be filled with significantly below average IQ people, on the other hand, more intelligent people who are concious enough not to get addicted but want to try it out won't die from the bunk they get.

 

http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797(12)00170-6/abstract

http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2011/10/28/jech-2011-200252.abstract

 

You have it backwards, people with higher IQs are more likely to become addicted to substances. Becoming an addict doesn't take you out of the gene pool either..

[webdever]

Not true. The studies show moderately high IQ people are more likely to try drugs - but far less likely to become addicted and accrue the negative health impact.

 

People at the highest end of the IQ spectrum are less likely to try or become attracted.

 

Low IQ people are far more likley to become addicted if they do try a particular substance.

 

It varies by substance as well.

 

IQ and Level of Alcohol Consumption

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acer.12656/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25702705

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2965044/Binge-drinkers-intelligent-average-Having-low-IQ-causes-people-drink-alcohol-most.html

 

Intelligence and past use of recreational drugs by Daniel R. Wilmoth

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961100119X

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-past-use-of-recreational-drugs.pdf

 

Why Do Smarter, Healthier, and Richer People Drink Moderately?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201011/why-do-smarter-healthier-and-richer-people-drink-moderately

 

Education, alcohol use and abuse among young adults in Britain. (Why Women Drink More)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20452109

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/7549959/Cleverest-women-are-the-heaviest-drinkers.html

http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Alcohol-and-women/Factsheets/Why-are-women-drinking-more.aspx

 

Low emotional intelligence as a predictor of substance-use problems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15237864

 

Intelligence across childhood in relation to illegal drug use in adulthood: 1970 British Cohort Study

Summary: High childhood IQ may increase the risk of illegal drug use in adolescence and adulthood. (Note: Doesn't include cigarettes, which low IQ people use far more than high IQ people.)

jech.bmj.com/content/early/2011/10/28/jech-2011-200252.abstract

 

Childhood mental ability and adult alcohol intake and alcohol problems: the 1970 British cohort study.

Summary: High childhood IQ was related to alcohol problems and higher alcohol intake at 30 years old. (Note: questions pertaining to alcohol intake concerned only the preceding 7-day period, which may not have necessarily provided an indication of typical intake in all cases.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18235070/

 

Intelligence quotient in childhood and the risk of illegal drug use in middle-age

Summary: In this cohort, high childhood IQ was related to illegal drug use  at 30 years old.

http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797%2812%2900170-6/abstract

 

Very interesting, thank you for the information!

 

I still find the research a little bit conflicting. Although the Swedish study and the emotional intelligence study appear to show lower iq correlates with more binge drinking, the two british cohort studies seem to show the opposite (and the 1970 one does point to higher 'problem drinking', the 1958 cohort study mentions they measured both past use and problem use of illegal substances, but I don't think it shows any associations with problem use). 

[Arsene]

 

wouldn't being pro peaceful parenting, anti welfare state, and...well anti state be more effective than trying to find some magical state program that will fix the crappy state programs? What if you didn't have to pay for Shaniqua at all?

 

*note: if this was sarcasm apologies I completely missed it

I thought a rightist would describe someone who is pro-capitalism, anti- welfare state, etc. I am anti-welfare state....

 

Not true. The studies show moderately high IQ people are more likely to try drugs - but far less likely to become addicted and accrue the negative health impact.

 

People at the highest end of the IQ spectrum are less likely to try or become attracted.

 

Low IQ people are far more likley to become addicted if they do try a particular substance.

 

It varies by substance as well.

IQ and Level of Alcohol Consumption
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acer.12656/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25702705
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2965044/Binge-drinkers-intelligent-average-Having-low-IQ-causes-people-drink-alcohol-most.html

Intelligence and past use of recreational drugs by Daniel R. Wilmoth
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961100119X
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-past-use-of-recreational-drugs.pdf

Why Do Smarter, Healthier, and Richer People Drink Moderately?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201011/why-do-smarter-healthier-and-richer-people-drink-moderately

Education, alcohol use and abuse among young adults in Britain. (Why Women Drink More)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20452109
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/7549959/Cleverest-women-are-the-heaviest-drinkers.html
http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Alcohol-and-women/Factsheets/Why-are-women-drinking-more.aspx

Low emotional intelligence as a predictor of substance-use problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15237864

Intelligence across childhood in relation to illegal drug use in adulthood: 1970 British Cohort Study
Summary: High childhood IQ may increase the risk of illegal drug use in adolescence and adulthood. (Note: Doesn't include cigarettes, which low IQ people use far more than high IQ people.)
jech.bmj.com/content/early/2011/10/28/jech-2011-200252.abstract

Childhood mental ability and adult alcohol intake and alcohol problems: the 1970 British cohort study.
Summary: High childhood IQ was related to alcohol problems and higher alcohol intake at 30 years old. (Note: questions pertaining to alcohol intake concerned only the preceding 7-day period, which may not have necessarily provided an indication of typical intake in all cases.)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18235070/

Intelligence quotient in childhood and the risk of illegal drug use in middle-age
Summary: In this cohort, high childhood IQ was related to illegal drug use  at 30 years old.
http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797%2812%2900170-6/abstract

 

This is exactly what I suspected. You give a religious 100IQer heroin and Einstein heroin, who is more likely to fall into addiction? I'm pretty sure that the religious 100IQer will more likely fall into addiction. But on the otherhand are more intelligent people less conforming to the guidance for the mediocre, and much more experimental instead.

Not trying to boast myself or anything, I'm just using myself as an example. I score a 162 on the Raven's Progressive Matrices, I experimented with Amphetamines when I was 14, ketamine at the age of 16, Cocaine at the age of 17, heroin at the age of 18. The only risk there was for me is the acute demage of taking drugs, falling into addiction wasn't something I worried about whatsoever. I knew this before hand, because I would hang out daily with people who smoked, so I also started smoking, this for a couple of months, but when I stopped hanging around with those people, I just quit smoking like I've never smoked before. I never had to battle addictions whatsoever, never had to fight my tendencies, never went over my limits, never took drugs more than once within a 3 month span. So that's how I trusted myself, my friends would warn me before taking my first heroin trip but I was 100% sure that I would not fall into addiction. Meanwhile did I not take drugs in the past 1.5 years, the last drug I took was heroin, which was also my first time. Now I would not want my friends to experiment the same way I did, because I don't believe that they are intelligent enough not to fall into addiction. Most of my friends even fell for cigarettes, the most worthless and stupid thing there is, eventhough I smoked tabak on a daily basis for a month or two, and still smoke it occasionally, I can not imagine how someone would fall into addiction to tabacco, I can't comprehend it, my friends are retards lol.