I would point out that by denying people people like me Sortocracy, you impose a clear and present danger in the form of a pandemic since your PUBLIC POLICY prevents people like me from excluding vectors from our communities, as was successfully done during the 1918 pandemic in a south Pacific island.
You can go on all you want about Nazis or whatever, but the bottom line is this: You are making it so that only the wealthy or politically powerful are permitted to form their own communities free from existential threats -- real or perceived. You are a moral monster. On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:09 PM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:56 PM WriterOfMinds <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> @James: >> If the one thing that puffs you up with pride is your own humility, then >> you're not humble. If the one thing that makes you consider your race >> superior is its general disdain for the idea of racial superiority, then >> you don't disdain the idea of racial superiority. Nice try. You can climb >> up as many meta-levels as you want, and it won't help you move the line >> between virtue and offense -- but it will, perhaps, help you obscure the >> issue and deceive the unwary. >> > > HA! If I were trying to "deceive" people would I be a "self-admitted > 'white supremacist'"? Get real. I'm merely pointing out the harsh reality > that people differ in their _beliefs_ about the ir/relevance of genes to > society including "morality" and that this is essentially, hence > inescapably, _religious_ in nature. > > "My race is superior in this one tiny dimension, and it's good that we >> treat other races as equals in every other dimension" still reduces to "my >> race is superior" ... with all the arrogance that such a position implies. >> >> I also get the impression that this is not a merely academic opinion with >> you. You do wish it could affect public policy in some way. Brrrrr. >> > > No, it's not merely academic... it is _religious_ as is your _opinion_ of > me and my beliefs. The difference between us is that _you_ insist on > imposing your beliefs on _me_ whereas I've been FOR DECADES consistent in > my promotion of what I've more recently promoted under the neologism: > Sortocracy -- Sorting Proponents of Social Theories Into Governments That > Test Them. Violation of this is what is leading to on the order of 100M > deaths in the US alone in what I call "Reformation II" and it is people > like _you_ that are in violation. > > Sortocracy's particular aphoristic expression of my _meta_ "supremacist" > belief has two sides to it: Scientific and Ethical. > > The scientific side should be so obvious to you that I don't consider it > worth discussing with you. Look up "experimental controls" and "causality". > > The _ethical_ side quite simply boils down to a single word: "Informed > Consent" > > This does have political ramifications such as "Ending Imprisonment’s > Slavery With Border Enforcement > <http://sortocracy.org/ending-imprisonments-slavery-with-border-enforcement/> > ". > > For the record, I'll copy that short article below: > > Capitalism is in a political deadlock with liberal democracy’s tyranny of > the majority limited only by vague laundry list of selectively enforced > “human rights”. > > Breaking this deadlock requires empirically grounding the social sciences > by sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them: > Sortocracy. > > This means that the current model of “human rights” must be replaced with > a single, well defined, right to vote with your feet. This right to vote > with your feet necessarily implies three material rights: > > 1. The material right to land. > 2. The material right to transportation. > 3. The material right to border enforcement. > > #1 is obvious since you can’t put your social theory into practice without > land. #2 is also obvious as people who cannot practically relocate cannot > vote with their feet. > > #3 _should_ be obvious but, due to the moral zeitgeist, it is not. > Incarceration rates, particularly in the US, show us that there are two, > fundamentally opposed, kinds of borders: Those that keep people out and > those that keep people in. Of the two, the kind that keeps people in is > least compatible with the right to vote with your feet. Even the US’s 13th > Amendment to the Constitution has provision for involuntary servitude: Slavery > for those imprisoned > <http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/prisoners-arent-protected-against-slavery.html>. > We see a prison-industrial complex arising at the interface of government > and capitalism to exploit this loophole in the 13th Amendment. The moral > zeitgeist’s mandate is “let people in”. What is not admitted is this > *necessarily* entails walls that keep people from leaving who are found > to be “criminal” by the admitting society. > > > The moral zeitgeist has to reconcile its moral outrage at imprisonment > with its moral outrage at border controls. The only realistic answer to > this is absolute enforcement of free emigration combined with absolute > tolerance of restrictive immigration. > > But it is nice to know what sort of people I'm dealing with. >> >> @Matt: >> There's a world of difference between having a subconscious bias that you >> can't help and may not even be aware of, and deliberately advocating for >> racist ideas. What's happening around here at the moment is definitely the >> latter. And I agree that it's off-topic. >> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* >> / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + >> participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery >> options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink >> <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T234cfbcefa1d1d24-Mcec2245b2b5a03d32c437870> >> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T234cfbcefa1d1d24-Md591fe557d846831c78054f9 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
