a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:45:05 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote:


"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
m...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...



I doubt it. There are a lot of celebrity lesbians and I haven't heard of
any one of them actually giving birth. They always seem to acquire
"their" children by adoption.


And that has nothing to do with gay marriage causing a population
decline. (not sure that a decline would be a bad thing.)

Of course. Irrelevant to the quoted comment.

A bigger and more important problem is that the more intelligent people
practice some form of birth control. Many of the less intelligent do not.

Absolutely, that is the greater problem by far.

Yes. And when there exists a policy of stealing money from the rich
(successful) and giving it to the poor (unsuccessful) the average
intelligence of the human race deteriorates as a result. The unsuccessful
just have more children, and the successful, fewer.....

If you try to measure survival and evolutionary success in dollars you are
sadly mistaken. For starters, intelligence and wisdom are in no way equated
with financial wealth. Money just begets more money, with or without you.
The trait of greed, the only way to attain more material gain than another
human, is an anathema to survival of the species. The greedy person's only
goal is survival of themselves, not survival of the species as a whole. The
greedy do the utmost harm to everyone else's environment because only their
financial wealth matters to them. They cannot even think nor reason beyond
that concept. They often have to be forced by laws and punishment or
threats of punishment to try to make them even consider the lives of other
humans. They're not concerned with anyone's survival past their own
life-span. The person who disburses their material gains amongst all
equally are interested in survival of humanity, not survival of just
themselves. Nor will they make decisions to harm the survival of others nor
their environment just to gain financially. If you use financial gain as a
yardstick for evolutionary success there will eventually be only one person
left on the planet, whoever is the most greedy. Even your own comments
proving that your desire for financial gain doesn't equal evolutionary
success.

Peter wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message

I doubt it. There are a lot of celebrity lesbians and I haven't heard of
any one of them actually giving birth. They always seem to acquire "their"
children by adoption.


And that has nothing to do with gay marriage causing a population decline.
(not sure that a decline would be a bad thing.)
A bigger and more important problem is that the more intelligent people
practice some form of birth control. Many of the less intelligent do not.

NOT "less intelligent". Less educated.

Big difference.

--
Ray Fischer

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...



I doubt it. There are a lot of celebrity lesbians and I haven't heard
of any one of them actually giving birth. They always seem to acquire
"their" children by adoption.


And that has nothing to do with gay marriage causing a population
decline. (not sure that a decline would be a bad thing.)

Of course. Irrelevant to the quoted comment.

A bigger and more important problem is that the more intelligent people
practice some form of birth control. Many of the less intelligent do
not.

Absolutely, that is the greater problem by far.

Yes. And when there exists a policy of stealing money from the rich
(successful) and giving it to the poor (unsuccessful) the average
intelligence of the human race deteriorates as a result. The unsuccessful
just have more children, and the successful, fewer.....


Poor Billy, doesn't realize that money success
Except by certain standards where contentment doesn't exit.

--
Peter

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message

I doubt it. There are a lot of celebrity lesbians and I haven't heard of
any one of them actually giving birth. They always seem to acquire
"their"
children by adoption.


And that has nothing to do with gay marriage causing a population decline.
(not sure that a decline would be a bad thing.)
A bigger and more important problem is that the more intelligent people
practice some form of birth control. Many of the less intelligent do not.

NOT "less intelligent". Less educated.

Big difference.



Educated can also mean indoctrinated. I stand by my choice of words.

--
Peter

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Neil
Harrington writes
A bigger and more important problem is that the more intelligent
people
practice some form of birth control. Many of the less intelligent do
not.

Absolutely, that is the greater problem by far.

However most of the Gays do seem to be of higher intelligence.
Certainly in the computing world.

To someone who feels an obligation to be politically correct in all
thoughts, words and deeds, I'm not surprised it should seem so.

In the real world I have never noticed a correlation one way or the
other. I will say that one or two of the most mind-numbingly stupid
people I've ever known happened to be homosexual, but I still wouldn't
take that as having any real significance as to correlation.


I think you will find a high correlation between openly gay people and
those in the arts. I have no statistics. It may also be that the climate
in the art world allows gay people to be more open about it.

Yes, I agree with you on both counts. But being active in the arts does not
correlate with high intelligence as far as I'm aware. There are, of course,
several different measures of intelligence (or perhaps more accurately,
different kinds of intelligence).

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...



I doubt it. There are a lot of celebrity lesbians and I haven't heard
of any one of them actually giving birth. They always seem to acquire
"their" children by adoption.


And that has nothing to do with gay marriage causing a population
decline. (not sure that a decline would be a bad thing.)

Of course. Irrelevant to the quoted comment.

A bigger and more important problem is that the more intelligent people
practice some form of birth control. Many of the less intelligent do
not.

Absolutely, that is the greater problem by far.

Yes. And when there exists a policy of stealing money from the rich
(successful) and giving it to the poor (unsuccessful) the average
intelligence of the human race deteriorates as a result. The unsuccessful
just have more children, and the successful, fewer.....

Quite so.

"Mark L" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:45:05 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
om...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...



I doubt it. There are a lot of celebrity lesbians and I haven't heard
of
any one of them actually giving birth. They always seem to acquire
"their" children by adoption.


And that has nothing to do with gay marriage causing a population
decline. (not sure that a decline would be a bad thing.)

Of course. Irrelevant to the quoted comment.

A bigger and more important problem is that the more intelligent people
practice some form of birth control. Many of the less intelligent do
not.

Absolutely, that is the greater problem by far.

Yes. And when there exists a policy of stealing money from the rich
(successful) and giving it to the poor (unsuccessful) the average
intelligence of the human race deteriorates as a result. The unsuccessful
just have more children, and the successful, fewer.....

If you try to measure survival and evolutionary success in dollars you are
sadly mistaken.

Fine. Now go explain that to Obama, carefully pointing out to him that his
central goal of "spreading the wealth around" (i.e., taking it away from
those who have worked, saved and invested to gain it and distributing it to
those who prefer to sit on their asses, watch TV and wait for the welfare
check) really is not going to bring "success" to the recipients after all.

For starters, intelligence and wisdom are in no way equated
with financial wealth. Money just begets more money, with or without you.
The trait of greed, the only way to attain more material gain than another
human, is an anathema to survival of the species. The greedy person's only
goal is survival of themselves, not survival of the species as a whole.
The
greedy do the utmost harm to everyone else's environment because only
their
financial wealth matters to them. They cannot even think nor reason beyond
that concept. They often have to be forced by laws and punishment or
threats of punishment to try to make them even consider the lives of other

sanctimonious and repetitious blah blah blah interrupted at this point

Are you talking about the capitalists who created all this wealth in the
first place? The people who worked hard, and invented useful things, and
started businesses, often failing time after time but never quitting, many
of them still never succeeding and dying broke, but others eventually
building the great corporations which have made the U.S. by far the
wealthiest nation on the planet?

Is that who you're talking about?

"Mark L" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:45:05 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote:

Yes. And when there exists a policy of stealing money from the rich
(successful) and giving it to the poor (unsuccessful) the average
intelligence of the human race deteriorates as a result. The unsuccessful
just have more children, and the successful, fewer.....

If you try to measure survival and evolutionary success in dollars you are
sadly mistaken. For starters, intelligence and wisdom are in no way equated
with financial wealth. Money just begets more money, with or without you.
The trait of greed, the only way to attain more material gain than another
human, is an anathema to survival of the species. The greedy person's only
goal is survival of themselves, not survival of the species as a whole. The
greedy do the utmost harm to everyone else's environment because only their
financial wealth matters to them. They cannot even think nor reason beyond
that concept. They often have to be forced by laws and punishment or
threats of punishment to try to make them even consider the lives of other
humans. They're not concerned with anyone's survival past their own
life-span. The person who disburses their material gains amongst all
equally are interested in survival of humanity, not survival of just
themselves. Nor will they make decisions to harm the survival of others nor
their environment just to gain financially. If you use financial gain as a
yardstick for evolutionary success there will eventually be only one person
left on the planet, whoever is the most greedy. Even your own comments
proving that your desire for financial gain doesn't equal evolutionary
success.

Great post! (I respond not only to thank you for it, but so that
I will include it among all the posts preserved on my web site...;-)
--David Ruether
www.donferrario.com/ruether

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...


If you try to measure survival and evolutionary success in dollars you
are
sadly mistaken.

Fine. Now go explain that to Obama, carefully pointing out to him that his
central goal of "spreading the wealth around" (i.e., taking it away from
those who have worked, saved and invested to gain it and distributing it
to those who prefer to sit on their asses, watch TV and wait for the
welfare check) really is not going to bring "success" to the recipients
after all.

Learn from the banana republics. Learn from the communist revolution.
When society has two classes, haves and have nots, those of us who have
money tend to get more and more. Eventually the poor will rebel and we will
have chaos. Henry Ford has the right ides. He paid his workers sufficient
wages so they could afford to buy his cars.
Likewise, for industry to be successful in the long term, people have to
have enough money to afford the products, both essential and non=essential.
--
Peter

On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:41:17 -0400, "David Ruether"
wrote:


"Mark L" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:45:05 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote:

Yes. And when there exists a policy of stealing money from the rich
(successful) and giving it to the poor (unsuccessful) the average
intelligence of the human race deteriorates as a result. The unsuccessful
just have more children, and the successful, fewer.....

If you try to measure survival and evolutionary success in dollars you are
sadly mistaken. For starters, intelligence and wisdom are in no way equated
with financial wealth. Money just begets more money, with or without you.
The trait of greed, the only way to attain more material gain than another
human, is an anathema to survival of the species. The greedy person's only
goal is survival of themselves, not survival of the species as a whole. The
greedy do the utmost harm to everyone else's environment because only their
financial wealth matters to them. They cannot even think nor reason beyond
that concept. They often have to be forced by laws and punishment or
threats of punishment to try to make them even consider the lives of other
humans. They're not concerned with anyone's survival past their own
life-span. The person who disburses their material gains amongst all
equally are interested in survival of humanity, not survival of just
themselves. Nor will they make decisions to harm the survival of others nor
their environment just to gain financially. If you use financial gain as a
yardstick for evolutionary success there will eventually be only one person
left on the planet, whoever is the most greedy. Even your own comments
proving that your desire for financial gain doesn't equal evolutionary
success.

Great post! (I respond not only to thank you for it, but so that
I will include it among all the posts preserved on my web site...;-)
--David Ruether
www.donferrario.com/ruether



You will find an excellent micro-example of this playing out in the popular
TV show called "Survivor". If there was no monetary reward you would see a
very very different game being played. The most intelligent, wise, and
strongest would be the most valued members. I've lived in just such a
community for three years during the 70's. Living off the land on a remote
South Pacific island with approximately 50 to 100 others. Money had
absolutely no value to any of us there. I could play the TV game-show of
"Survivor" for a year while standing on my head, it would be an enjoyable
way to live, but I would not win their game. Instead (in the capitalists'
game of "Survivor") the most intelligent, wise, and strongest are very
often voted off first because they are a threat to the less intelligent,
less wise, but greedy. Eventually only the most self-serving, manipulative,
and deceitful ones are left. (Does this remind you of any faction of your
own present society? Most call it "the government".) In a capitalist
promoting society you are getting a clear and frightening glimpse of the
evolutionary future of humanity being played out. "As is the fractal part,
so goes the fractal whole."