Miscellany:Drake and Cathartes exchange

From ChildWiki, the children's liberation encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Drake and Cathartes exchange, from 10 January 2014 to present, began with ChildWiki user Leucosticte's sharing with incarcerated pansexual feminist child liberationist anarcho-communist philosopher Vlad Draconis "Drake" PenDragon pro-eugenics ChildWiki user Cathartes' comments concerning execution, and escalated quickly.

Messages, responses and replies[edit]

Cathartes message[edit]

CorrLinks should not be used in this case, being as all of the communication through that system is read by the government, and this is sensitive information that we're talking about. Do you know if snail mail letters to and/or from Drake are also read by the government? In any case, I would never put my return address on a letter to Drake in prison, so I think it is best to use you as a go-between.

For unknown reason, the interview article that you linked to will not load. However, I read about Drake's pedosexual history. I therefore presume that his number #1 child-related issue, which is yours as well, is legalizing adult-child sexual interactions. I should therefore give you a fair disclaimer, that the psychological eugenic stuff that I wrote about would have a relatively small effect on that particular issue, being as sexual interactions with adult men is very low on, or absent from, most children's priority lists, despite self-delusions to the contrary. -So keep that in mind as I continue: Since you mentioned the use of the death penalty in particular, there is the possibility of using the death penalty extensively upon people who perpetrate crimes that are characterized by dominance assertion, being as dominance assertion is the main innate psychological trait that underlies adult supremacism. Crimes of the dominance-assertion type include, but are not necessarily limited to, crimes of jealous mate-possessiveness (which includes murder, mayhem, battery, and property damage), child abuse in response to disobedience or 'disrespect', prison anal rape, and threats / assault / battery / mayhem / murder for various dominance-related reasons. Physical school bullying is also a similar dominance assertion behavior, but it is not considered a crime because the perpetrators are not adults, but perhaps that can be changed in the future. But none of such negative-eugenic execution policies can be put into practice in the first place without extensive positive-eugenic breeding over time, which I mentioned in the article 'necessary psychological traits'. Cathartes (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2014 (PST)

Drake response[edit]

Hmm. Interesting. I wonder, what about the possibility that a good majority of the behaviors he describes do NOT have a genetic component? As in, they are socially transmitted, learned behaviors, without genetic traits which relate to them? I mean, I can see how jealousness has a genetic aspect, but taking jealousy to the level of physical violence is something that I think is learned by the society's conditioning to perpetuate monogamous relationships for a sex-restricted populace. And school bullying, again, certainly does have a genetic component, as bullying is viewed in almost every primate species, to some extent, but then, is that something that CAN be bred out? And as for genetic eugenics, if someone commits a crime and faces the death penalty, that doesn't have a eugenic effect unless all his offspring are also subject to the same sanctions, right?

While I agree with most of what he's saying, I find an inherent contradiction between being in favor or self-determination and of killing, execution, and eugenics by death. Also, he's failing to consider that jealousy is innate in ALL human beings, as is dominance, as is carelessness. The behaviors which are opposite to them are learned. That's called civilizing: LEARNING to cooperate. Follow our evolution backwards and you'll see those negative behaviors to the extreme. Natural evolution did not favor humility or objectivity. What he's trying to do is undo nature. Now, I'm cool with that to some extent, but his solution is to use dominance over the dominant to cure dominance. There's a problem with that, logically. Also, if you execute EVERYONE who has those inborn genes, you'll be killing EVERYONE. You're never gonna find a human being who doesn't have the genetic predisposition to be dominant or subjective. Those of us who do not behave that way do so because of our PHENOTYPES, NOT our GENOTYPES. It's about our life's experiences, how we lived, and how we've interpreted those experiences, uncounsciously.

And again, eugenics is a means of eliminating negative traits through reproduction. He's failed to answer the question of what to do if the person being executed has already reproduced. There's a big difference between a TRAIT and a STATE. States, we can fix by NOT teaching our children and our World to embrace them, and by teaching them TO transcend them. Traits we can only attempt to fix by exerting dominance over them, and then only submissive genes, and genes which do not exist in SOME portion of the population. Those negative traits he's mentioning do not count as traits that are absent from parts of the population. EVERYONE has them. It's whether they've been embraced or transcended.

EVERYONE has the genes which code for those behavioral potentialities. Whether or not that person exhibits them, or to what extent, is determined by nurture, not nature. Also, he seems to subscribe to the theory that EVERY single aspect of human life has some evolutionary purpose. I disagree. Severely. There are many aspects of human behavior that have NOTHING to do with evolution. The are WHOLLY social, NOT natural.

Cathartes reply[edit]

Being as I myself have innate humility, innate objectivity, innate conscientiousness, innate absence of dominance, etc., and have never had to learn or 'transcend' any psychological trait, then according to Drake, I do not exist. But whatever; he can willfully blind himself all he wants. I have no desire to convince him of something that his innate psychology prevents him from being willing to see. The opposite of 'objectivity', in this psychological context, is not 'subjectivity', but rather it is 'antagonistic aggression', just as the psychological opposite of humility is dominant aggression.
I notice that Drake has displayed the typical innate libellous antagonistic-aggressive behavior of falsely portraying objectivity as dominant aggression, in "his solution is to use dominance over the dominant to cure dominance. There's a problem with that, logically.". I support the eugenic elimination of antagonistic aggression from the gene pool just as I support the eugenic elimination of dominant aggression from the gene pool, especially since the two types of aggression are to some extent socially symbiotic.
-Oh yeah, not to mention the extremely libellous false portrayal that I advocate executing everyone; such extreme antagonistic-aggressive libel is itself sufficiently aggressive to warrant that Drake be summarily executed out of the gene pool. Few people perpetrate such extreme libel.
As for people who are executed that have already reproduced: Dominance-assertion behavior is expressed throughout a person's life, so there's really no necessity to wait until a person gets older in order to have a reason to execute them, or at least sterilize them. But when such a law is hypothetically implemented, there will of course be people of all ages who are subject to execution, including older people who have offspring. It's not a problem, because those offspring can then be executed or sterilized at a young age if they have inherited the alleles of dominance-assertion behavior and therefore display said behavior. Cathartes (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2014 (PST)

Drake response[edit]

Wow, dude. So much for taking care not to become a monster. When the abyss stared back at this dude, it filled him to the brim. He's insane. So, anyone who tries to understand his reasonings, or questions his statements, must have innate psychological faults that require execution to cure the population of? Jesus. He's hitler. And Catholicism. Don't you dare question. "Don't you dare tell me that there are flaws in my logic. My logic is flawless, and if you can't see that, you should be executed." That's LITERALLY what he's saying. And as for him being the exception to the rule of human genetics, ALL HUMANS ARE BORN WITH THE GENETIC INFORMATION THAT THEIR GENETIC ANCESTORS HAD, INCLUDING THE JEALOUS, POSSESSIVE, AGGRESSIVE, DOMINANT, OF OUR PRIMATE FOREFATHERS. To presume that he does not is not only the EXACT OPPOSITE of humility (I'm special, I'm different, I'm above all the others because I was born with genetics that separate me from them), it's also assuming that the reason for the lack of these characteristics in himself is genetic, and not enviromental. Perhaps he does lack these traits, but that's not a genetic lack; he was just raised in a way that was conducive to produce people without such negative traits. Unless he's got the human genome mapped out far beyond what human science currently stands at, he can't assume to understand his entire genetic code, and what information is coded in it and what's not, as it relates to his PERSONALITY, which is, afterall, what we're talking about.

The bottom line is that this man who totes humility and absence of dominance, is saying that we should execute everyone who is born differently from the way he sees himself as, including innocent people and children of people who are genetically different from how he sees himself. All while his opinion of himself is inherently flawed. His reasoning is almost IDENTICAL to Adolf's, in his decision to begin executing the jews. It doesn't matter if they're young or old, if they've done anything wrong YET or not. They have jew DNA. They should be expunged. Wow. I sincerely hope that this dude never has children to pervert in the way that he's become perverted. Because if he's trained other people to become as dominant, elitist, and aggressive as he is, the world is in trouble. Innocent people will be harmed.

So, because I don't agree with him and his views without question, I lack objectivity?

This from the man who believes that he has humility, and can see the implicit value in other people, but wants to kill everyone who doesn't agree with him. THAT must be why he's so NOT dominant or aggressive, right?

The man is insane, AND a hypocrite. He has no compassion or empathy. He is guilty of everything that he's accusing others of being worthy of execution for, and worse, he doesn't even se it in himself, because he's NOT capable of objectivity. If he was, he'd be able, and willing, to see the flaws in his reasoning, and he'd be forced to admit that his views contradict one another. His death chants and slippery-slope rationalizations epitomize aggressive, dominant, subjective reasoning. And he shows carelessness in that he's not willing to put forth the time or effort to find or fix the holes in his reasoning, or take care to posit philosophies that are free of flaw, before he starts proclaiming that the way to fix the world from the damage caused by people taking freedom from others is to take other's lives. What a fucking moron. This guy makes me brain hurt.

He's basically saying that the best way to fix the lack of freedom in the world is to kill everyone who doesn't agree with him. Yeah, THAT makes sense.

That's the problem with people like that: they don't SEE the logical conclusion of their arguments. Not to mention, my "extreme libel" that he claims I'm guilty of was simply pointing out the flaw in his reasoning. And for being willing to point out the flaw in his reasoning, he says I should be executed. Yeah, that's the BEST way to increase self-determination in this world, as long as everyone's self-determination leads to them obeying and agreeing with him in everything he preaches. This is a guy who obviously doesn't understand much about genetic evolution, or evolutionary anthropology, trying to justify killing people by blaming genes for people bullying him. He's Hitler, dude. Hitler. There's no other comparison that is more accurate. There's a problem that he has with what people do. The problem MUST be genetic. The answer is genocide of all people who aren't what HE thinks people should be. And, you know what, it's ok to kill their children too. He's Hitler. Just without the charisma or strategy necessary to take over a country and make war.

Memes are what I was referring to. But memes propagate themselves without necessarily propagating the genes, or even the lives of their host. The meme of heroin addiction, for example, kills its host inevitably, and doesn't do anything to increase the hosts likelihood of reproduction, but the meme itself is oftentimes propagated by using the host to expose others to the pleasurable sensations created by the meme, hence propagating itself. Genes are more symbiotic, memes are more viral (though no necessarily parasitic. ).

There IS a natural selection for memes as well, yes; but there is more importantly a cultural selection, which may or may not have anything to do with reproduction of the individuals. So, for a meme to propagate itself, it needn't have any effect of increasing the likelihood of the host reproducing.

There's a REALLY good book you should read that goes into this kinda stuff, quite a bit. It's called The Moral Landscape. It was reviewed once in Skeptic (the monthly column in Scientific American written by Michael Shermer). I don't remember the authors name offhand. I'll have it for you tonight though. 'Til then.

Cathartes reply[edit]

WOW. So many textbook sociopathic disruptive libel behaviors by Drake. Let's see if I can list them all...
Let's see, his general behaviors include stating the polar opposite of the truth about a person, projecting his own bad traits onto another person, and personalization libel.
Here are the details, which list the numerous instances of those general innate truth-disrupting behaviors, as well as others:
1. Projecting his own willful insanity (which he demonstrates over and over again in his diatribe) onto me (he has made this particular projection twice).
2. Reductio-ad-Hitlerum libel against an objective eugenic genetic determinist (he has stated this at least three times). (Notably, I am opposed to all of Hitler's tyrannical policies. And the particular psychological eugenic policy that I support, which Drake compares to Hitler's, is one which Hitler himself did not support, and would never have supported, since it would have led to Hitler himself and many other nazis being sterilized.)
3. Stating the polar opposite of the truth by equating an anti-authoritarian socially-libertarian atheist materialist (i.e. me) with Catholicism.
4. Deceptively calling 'willful disruption of truth' 'questioning'.
5. Libellously claiming that I had claimed that I am 'genetically special', which I had not.
6. Stating the opposite of the truth, that belief in genetic determinism is due to egotism, when in fact it requires humility to accept that one is who one is as a result of one's genes
7. Libellously claiming that I support executing people who are "different from myself" or "don't agree with everything I preach" etcetera, when in fact I support sterilizing or executing only people who are libellous truth-disruptors (such as Drake) or other dominant/antagonistic aggressors. Such 'personalization libel' (falsely portraying an objective reason as a trivial reason that is relative to the person) is one of the hallmark symptoms of antagonistic-aggressive sociopaths. It is one of the most extreme forms of libel possible, and it is the one that Drake uses most often in his diatribe.
8. Using a logical fallacy by claiming that a person must understand the entire genetic code in order to understand some things about innate psychology.
9. Using a logical fallacy by equating 'specific psychological traits' with 'jews' or race in general (which consists of a broad and diverse pool of traits).
10. simultaneously stating the opposite of the truth and projecting his own 'perversion' (i.e. his desire to blind himself) onto myself- a person who is notable for one's exceptional lack of perversion (because I desire and enjoy seeing the truth clearly, and truth is power)
11. Displaying the hallmark antagonistic-aggressive behavior of libellously calling objectivity dominance yet again, and using that libel to in turn libellously accuse me of hypocrisy.
12. Libellously calling my desire to eliminate libellous aggression 'aggression', thus projecting his own behavior onto me.
13. Libellously stating the opposite of the truth- that I, a person who epitomizes empathy, have no empathy. Indeed, I have great empathy for all of those innocent people and animals who are victimized by dominant aggression and antagonistic aggression (including the authoritarian tyranny and collectivist tyranny that respectively derive from them) and the callous lack of empathy, as is proven by my support for the psychological eugenic policies that are necessary to prevent all of said victimization. In strong contrast to that is Drake, who wants to disrupt those necessary policies by grossly falsely portraying them and their proponents, so as to perpetuate all of such evils. Talk about a monster.
14. Libellously projecting his own willful incapability of objectivity onto me, which also constitutes stating the opposite of the truth about a person, being as I have long demonstrated exceptional objectivity. And Drake has done so because I do not embrace self-blinding collectivistic delusions (which blur one's ability to see the deep distinctions between individuals) like he does.
15. Libellously stating the polar opposite of the truth, by saying that I, a person who has demonstrated great intelligence and insight, am a moron.
16. Stating the polar opposite of the truth by saying that I, a person who has demonstrated a good understanding of evolution, do not understand much about evolution.
17. Perpetrating personalization libel again, by stating that I support the lethal elimination of the dominant-aggressive bullying genes because "I want to kill people who bully me". (By the way, no one bullies me IRL; I haven't been a minor for ages. I am motivated by empathy and principle.).
18. Libellously stating that I would indiscriminantly kill the children of pathological aggressors, when in fact I had stated, in clear contrast to that, that I would only execute or sterilize those particular children who inherited the aggression alleles and display aggressive behavior. Not every child inherits the aggression alleles from their parents.

-So, it looks like Drake has displayed just about every possible aggressive truth-disrupting libel behavior imaginable. I'm impressed by the thoroughness of the symptoms he's displayed; it's as if he's gone through the entire checklist of possible types of such behavior.

I find it funny how Drake says "I sincerely hope that this dude never has children", being as I have six children as it is (do you really think that I don't practice what I teach?). It's also funny how Drake claims that he is an environmental determinist, yet he says that he does not want me to reproduce, despite the fact that one can teach one's beliefs and knowledge to adopted children, pupils, friends, and strangers who read one's writings, just as much as to one's biological children. Talk about hypocrisy. Apparently, deep down, Drake is actually a genetic determinist just like I am.

Anyway, I take back my recommendation that Drake be executed out of the gene pool. Quick, humane, prophylactic execution is actually very merciful compared to some other possible punishments. There is more to improving society than simply removing pathological libellous aggressors like Drake from the gene pool; there is also the purpose of administering justice upon such people, for the sake of creating copious quantities of justice so as to counteract the unjust disruptive aggression that they have perpetrated.

So, in light of Drake's numerous extremely libellous truth-disrupting statements, the appropriate punishment for him is not to be quickly and humanely executed, but rather to be subject to quadruple amputation, insertion of a direct feeding tube into his stomach, and intermittent waterboarding for the remainder of his life. What that will do is to mix powerful sensations of suffering with Drake's equally potent innate antagonistic-aggressive truth-disrupting intent, thus yielding a very large amount of justice.

One could then point out that Drake would then hardly be free. But what I support is freedom for innocents. An extremely innately aggressive person such as Drake, who perpetrates numerous acts of antagonistic truth-disrupting libel upon the most truth-seeking people (such as myself), has gravely violated others' freedom from such disruptive libel, and has thus completely forsaken his own freedom.

...And you Nathan, are friends with this serial-libelling sociopath? Ugh. I guess they don't give you much of a selection of possible friends in prison. It's not surprising that you found an antagonistically deceptive one like him- a person who most likely feels the same slimy antagonistic emotion when plunging his penis into a child as he does when he disrupts truth like this. By all means, please do what you said you would do, and cut off communication with him. Cathartes (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2014 (PST)