5 ms·

Bad idea. The world needs to see what kind of a lunatic he is. The world needs to know his arguments in order to repeal.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
The world needs to know his arguments in order to repeal or accept them. He seems to be a nut, but that doesn't mean his ideas are wrong.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > but that doesn't mean his ideas are wrong. Agreed, but after reading a bit of it (I downloaded a file with MD5 of 9e72e26916c20481a1f6e4781fd4d505) I can spare you the pain. It's crap. Still, his actions make it necessary to repeal all of his arguments and assumptions.
  - diolpah 15y ago
    "Still, his actions make it necessary to repeal all of his arguments and assumptions." Really? James Watson and William Shockley both said very unpopular things about race. Shockley advocated a policy of sterilizing lower class black people. Should we repeal all use and knowledge of DNA and semiconductors? Even if Shockley started killing black people as stage one eugenics, his actions would have absolutely no impact on his ideas. None.
    - j_r_ 15y ago
      Yes, but there is no train of thought from semiconductors to stupid ideas about eugenics. There _is_ one from anti-socialist rhetoric to killing members of a left party.
      - jerf 15y ago
        "Yes, but there is no train of thought from semiconductors to stupid ideas about eugenics." You badly underestimate the perverse creativity of a paranoid schizophrenic. I've never seen that one but I've certainly seen things every bit as crazy. (I have a bit of a soft spot for paranoid schizophrenic rantings; it's like outsider art for philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art)
        rbanffy 15y ago
        Maybe we miss the point here. You can't argue the science behind transistors is correct (or, at least, the engineering) but you can show how bad things end up when we start recommending eugenics. The central idea of eugenics - that we can control our evolution the way we did with dogs or cattle - is not inherently flawed, but I wouldn't trust the evolution of our species to its current members. Before we think about building a better mankind, we need a better mankind.
        yummyfajitas 15y ago
        ...but you can show how bad things end up when we start recommending eugenics. This is a perfect example of why it's bad to reject an idea simply because it has unpleasant proponents. If we rejected eugenics based on unpleasant associations, thousands of Ashkenazi Jewish children would have died a horrible death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease#Screening_success_with_Ashkenazi_Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease#Scree...
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      Good point. I have failed to find many points that do not involve racism and violence, but if you can find anything good in those 1500+ pages, please, share.
savramescu 15y ago
I don't need to know his arguments. His actions speak louder than any of his words. I actually like their idea. If he bombed because he wanted people to read it, then by tainting any copy Anonymous can make sure that he has failed.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

The world needs to know his arguments in order to repeal or accept them. He seems to be a nut, but that doesn't mean his ideas are wrong.

rbanffy 15y ago
> but that doesn't mean his ideas are wrong. Agreed, but after reading a bit of it (I downloaded a file with MD5 of 9e72e26916c20481a1f6e4781fd4d505) I can spare you the pain. It's crap. Still, his actions make it necessary to repeal all of his arguments and assumptions.
- diolpah 15y ago
  "Still, his actions make it necessary to repeal all of his arguments and assumptions." Really? James Watson and William Shockley both said very unpopular things about race. Shockley advocated a policy of sterilizing lower class black people. Should we repeal all use and knowledge of DNA and semiconductors? Even if Shockley started killing black people as stage one eugenics, his actions would have absolutely no impact on his ideas. None.
  - j_r_ 15y ago
    Yes, but there is no train of thought from semiconductors to stupid ideas about eugenics. There _is_ one from anti-socialist rhetoric to killing members of a left party.
    - jerf 15y ago
      "Yes, but there is no train of thought from semiconductors to stupid ideas about eugenics." You badly underestimate the perverse creativity of a paranoid schizophrenic. I've never seen that one but I've certainly seen things every bit as crazy. (I have a bit of a soft spot for paranoid schizophrenic rantings; it's like outsider art for philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art)
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        Maybe we miss the point here. You can't argue the science behind transistors is correct (or, at least, the engineering) but you can show how bad things end up when we start recommending eugenics. The central idea of eugenics - that we can control our evolution the way we did with dogs or cattle - is not inherently flawed, but I wouldn't trust the evolution of our species to its current members. Before we think about building a better mankind, we need a better mankind.
        yummyfajitas 15y ago
        ...but you can show how bad things end up when we start recommending eugenics. This is a perfect example of why it's bad to reject an idea simply because it has unpleasant proponents. If we rejected eugenics based on unpleasant associations, thousands of Ashkenazi Jewish children would have died a horrible death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease#Screening_success_with_Ashkenazi_Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease#Scree...
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    Good point. I have failed to find many points that do not involve racism and violence, but if you can find anything good in those 1500+ pages, please, share.

savramescu 15y ago

I don't need to know his arguments. His actions speak louder than any of his words. I actually like their idea. If he bombed because he wanted people to read it, then by tainting any copy Anonymous can make sure that he has failed.