Response and Comments to Amicus and his dislike of all minorities:

[lance gt]

It never ceases to amaze me, the lengths that Pure will go to avoid thinking.

Pure is an admitted Marxist, yet, rather than dismiss his thoughts as merely that, I address the basic issues of a collectivist society and illustrate the repeated demonstrations of the inhumanity of Socialism.

So the Pope shares my position?

So what?

Amicus

I think Pure needs to try to think from the woman's viewpoint and see what they have to decide with their lives

 

[Pure]

ami; lance

ami: So the Pope shares my position?

So what?

pure: more to the point, ami, ayn rand does not.

and note this, lance. Rand says a woman's body is hers. private to her. the state doesn't get to go in there or control it to protect possible *potential* future citizens. she has a basic, personal privacy right. got it?

further, this is a vital part of her LIBERTY; she doesn't have to incubate what she chooses not to; what the Pope, or Ami, or you tell her she has to do to be "responsible" and to uphold the values you think she should have.

your line, lance, is thus highly ironic, indeed hypocritical.

I think Pure needs to try to think from the woman's viewpoint and see what they have to decide with their lives

pure: you NEGATE her decision making, and thus her liberty, in numerous ways, from asking her to obtain hubby's approval, to asking her to prove 'rape' rather than broken condom, in order to have control of her own body. you're an obnoxious meddler in her rights.

as to ami's false summary:
This is not a minority position; it is very mainstream and reflects the basic nature of all humanity who act to protect and preserve life at all levels.

ami neither protects nor 'preserves life at all levels' since he denies women, the actual, walking, working citizens, the furtherers of productive life, the rights of privacy and liberty. that's the bottom line: the rhapsodies to fertilized eggs and 'human life' in the womb are all quite beside the point.

either the individual has rights against the state intrusion [per the Bill of Rights], or the state, in the collective interest, enters and controls the citizens' lives, invading their wombs and curtailing their liberties. ami affirms the latter. (thus he opposes the American and European majority, which affirms the woman's untrammeled rights in the first trimester.)

lance and ami, for their own reasons, which are similar in denigrating women, believe in denying women the basics of an adult citizen's life: privacy and liberty. the mutual admiration in their last posts, attests to this commonality.

 

[matriarch]

I don't understand why you all give hime time and space in your lives?????

Ignore him.

Ignore his deliberately inflammatory posturing. It's all done for dramatic effect and to see just how much of a rise he can get out of as many of you who react, that he can.

Seems to have worked this time. No disrespect to Lizzie who started this thread, I understand breaking points, but let him throw his toys out in someone else's backyard. Mine had enough of him a long time ago.

 

[amicus]

Matriarch in her blind obedience to the feminist creed, as Pure, for different reasons ignore the essential question of the value of life.

Life precedes choice. That baby killed in the womb, without life, has no 'choice' at all, its right to life was violated.

Ayn Rand was wrong. For whatever reason, her objectivity left her when she considered the rights of a child in the womb.

D&C is a violent, brutal and invasive procedure and when used to abort a child for no reason other than 'choice' or convenience, is not morally justifiable and you both know that.

Matriarch's advice to ignore an opposing opinion, one well supported with reason, logic and rationality, is untenable is an objective discussion and should best be aired only among believers who share similar points of view.

No person, male or female has any right whatsoever to take an innocent life and you both know that also as there are cases of the murder of a pregnant mother where the perpetrator is charged with two deaths, that of the mother and the unborn child.

You have no moral, ethical or philosophical ground to stand on and can only bleat your, no doubt, heart felt emotions and nothing else.

I remain:

Amicus

 

[Teloz]

Gonna pop out and murder another doctor Ami?

 

[lance gt]

ami: So the Pope shares my position?

So what?

pure: more to the point, ami, ayn rand does not.

and note this, lance. Rand says a woman's body is hers. private to her. the state doesn't get to go in there or control it to protect possible *potential* future citizens. she has a basic, personal privacy right. got it?

further, this is a vital part of her LIBERTY; she doesn't have to incubate what she chooses not to; what the Pope, or Ami, or you tell her she has to do to be "responsible" and to uphold the values you think she should have.

your line, lance, is thus highly ironic, indeed hypocritical.

I think Pure needs to try to think from the woman's viewpoint and see what they have to decide with their lives

pure: you NEGATE her decision making, and thus her liberty, in numerous ways, from asking her to obtain hubby's approval, to asking her to prove 'rape' rather than broken condom, in order to have control of her own body. you're an obnoxious meddler in her rights.

as to ami's false summary:
This is not a minority position; it is very mainstream and reflects the basic nature of all humanity who act to protect and preserve life at all levels.

ami neither protects nor 'preserves life at all levels' since he denies women, the actual, walking, working citizens, the furtherers of productive life, the rights of privacy and liberty. that's the bottom line: the rhapsodies to fertilized eggs and 'human life' in the womb are all quite beside the point.

either the individual has rights against the state intrusion [per the Bill of Rights], or the state, in the collective interest, enters and controls the citizens' lives, invading their wombs and curtailing their liberties. ami affirms the latter. (thus he opposes the American and European majority, which affirms the woman's untrammeled rights in the first trimester.)

lance and ami, for their own reasons, which are similar in denigrating women, believe in denying women the basics of an adult citizen's life: privacy and liberty. the mutual admiration in their last posts, attests to this commonality.

No one is denying a woman her rights to her body, Pure. She is denying a child its rights. She has the freedom of choice to get pregnant or not to. There are contraceptives for before AND after. In the case of a pregnancy that occurs because of that, she AND the man have to accept the responsibility of it. It comes down to choice, Pure, plain and simple. And Rand is just an opinion maker the way everyone else is. No one gave Ayn Rand the power of God. The moment cells start to divide in the womb, that entity has rights. Maybe if your life was put on the chopping block and had no voice in stopping it, you might see things differently. As it says at the start of the Code, two lives are in question, hers and the one she carries. Who supercedes who?

 

[Teloz]

No one is denying a woman her rights to her body, Pure. She is denying a child its rights. She has the freedom of choice to get pregnant or not to. There are contraceptives for before AND after. In the case of a pregnancy that occurs because of that, she AND the man have to accept the responsibility of it. It comes down to choice, Pure, plain and simple. And Rand is just an opinion maker the way everyone else is. No one gave Ayn Rand the power of God. The moment cells start to divide in the womb, that entity has rights. Maybe if your life was put on the chopping block and had no voice in stopping it, you might see things differently. As it says at the start of the Code, two lives are in question, hers and the one she carries. Who supersedes who?

You start by saying, "No one is denying a woman her rights to her body." then proceed to do just that. Well, I too don't see abortion as a means of contraception, but I don't subscribe to this sort of extremist claptrap!

A woman has the right to decide if she wishes to put her body though the stress and danger of childbirth and contraception is still fallible. The idea that every human foetus has the "right to life" is as ludicrous as saying that everyone has a "right to a job". Hundreds of thousands of foetuses spontaneously abort every year.

A foetus does not become a person until it becomes viable outside the uterus, how can it? Until it is delivered and becomes a baby the foetus is just a parasite, it takes and gives nothing back. The current attitude of saving all lives regardless is purely a product of increasingly effective medical intervention (not to mention increasingly expensive procedures to line the pockets of the doctors) and can often save foetuses that nature would abort, bringing more damaged children into the world.

Put yourself on the front line in Afghanistan Lance and tell that guy from the Taliban you have a "right to life", he'll laugh in your face as he pulls the trigger. Instead of pontificating to, and harassing, a section of our society who have been dominated by men for far too long, try to accept that they have a different outlook to you and always support them whatever their, often difficult and emotional, decision.

 

[lance gt]

You start by saying, "No one is denying a woman her rights to her body." then proceed to do just that. Well, I too don't see abortion as a means of contraception, but I don't subscribe to this sort of extremist claptrap!

A woman has the right to decide if she wishes to put her body though the stress and danger of childbirth and contraception is still fallible. The idea that every human foetus has the "right to life" is as ludicrous as saying that everyone has a "right to a job". Hundreds of thousands of foetuses spontaneously abort every year.

A foetus does not become a person until it becomes viable outside the uterus, how can it? Until it is delivered and becomes a baby the foetus is just a parasite, it takes and gives nothing back. The current attitude of saving all lives regardless is purely a product of increasingly effective medical intervention (not to mention increasingly expensive procedures to line the pockets of the doctors) and can often save foetuses that nature would abort, bringing more damaged children into the world.

Put yourself on the front line in Afghanistan Lance and tell that guy from the Taliban you have a "right to life", he'll laugh in your face as he pulls the trigger. Instead of pontificating to, and harassing, a section of our society who have been dominated by men for far too long, try to accept that they have a different outlook to you and always support them whatever their, often difficult and emotional, decision.

Interesting Teloz, you were a foetus at one time yourself. You got to live. Why shouldn't the others? When did you become more important than them? Because you are here and they aren't. You don't want a baby, you make sure you take precautions, that's why we have them, so women have the right to choose what's best for themselves. They get pregnant, they can't play with someone's life they became responsible for. I wonder, if your mother had a choice back then, would you be here?

 

[Teloz]

Interesting Teloz, you were a foetus at one time yourself. You got to live. Why shouldn't the others? When did you become more important than them? Because you are here and they aren't. You don't want a baby, you make sure you take precautions, that's why we have them, so women have the right to choose what's best for themselves. They get pregnant, they can't play with someone's life they became responsible for. I wonder, if your mother had a choice back then, would you be here?

Luck of the draw Lance, that's all it is, and if I weren't here I wouldn't know about it and wouldn't care. I claim no rights above others and I'm definitely not more important than anyone else. When I knew I didn't want babies any more I did take precautions, I had a vasectomy. How many men would even think about that without whining about "losing their manhood"?

How often does the man take responsibility for contraception anyway? Very rarely is my guess. How often does the man turn his back and walk away the minute he knows the girl is pregnant, even if she wants to keep it? Tell me this isn't a regular occurrence and that all fathers are prepared to take responsibility for babies they've conceived. You can't! Can you tell me honestly that men don't have the right to choose whether they make a woman pregnant? Of course you can't, but you talk as though all women get pregnant by choice!

What about rape? What about incest? What about deliberate deception?

As always, the fundamentalist, pro-life crap you vomit up lays the onus on women and criminalises them, whist the poor, hard done to men go on their merry way and knock up some other poor unfortunate. Fuckwit!

Their bodies, their choice!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Luck of the draw Lance, that's all it is, and if I weren't here I wouldn't know about it and wouldn't care. I claim no rights above others and I'm definitely not more important than anyone else. When I knew I didn't want babies any more I did take precautions, I had a vasectomy. How many men would even think about that without whining about "losing their manhood"?

How often does the man take responsibility for contraception anyway? Very rarely is my guess. How often does the man turn his back and walk away the minute he knows the girl is pregnant, even if she wants to keep it? Tell me this isn't a regular occurrence and that all fathers are prepared to take responsibility for babies they've conceived. You can't! Can you tell me honestly that men don't have the right to choose whether they make a woman pregnant? Of course you can't, but you talk as though all women get pregnant by choice!

What about rape? What about incest? What about deliberate deception?

As always, the fundamentalist, pro-life crap you vomit up lays the onus on women and criminalises them, whist the poor, hard done to men go on their merry way and knock up some other poor unfortunate. Fuckwit!

Their bodies, their choice!

Although I mostly agree with you, I have always heard and read that about the same number of couples use the pill as use condoms. That would mean that the number of men who take responsibility is about the same as the number of women.

My characters almost always use condoms, but those are also to prevent STD's.

ETA: Here is a list of methods used by percentages of users:
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/contraception_which.htm

 

[LaRocha]

What's the point of talking about abortion in the 'I hate Amicus Thread'?

I hate Amicus because he sucks at real life, internet life, and if he was part of the Second Life community, I know he'd suck at that life too.

Edit: His poems are sh*t too.

 

[DeeZire]

...I hate Amicus because he sucks at real life, internet life, and if he was part of the Second Life community, I know he'd suck at that life too....

On the flipside, is there anyone at LIT better at pontificating? Revisionist history also seems to be a strong suit.

I gave up on him a while ago, but do occaisionally respond to him when one of his meandering screeds is visible because it was quoted by another poster.

I wonder if his bluster could be harnessed as an energy source? That would be an ironic turn of events.

 

[amicus]

You folks should feel special...over the years, a dozen or so different emails recommending other forums have sought my participation as those forums are so one way left wing bleeding heart liberals that have total agreement that they turn into the social network gossip site exemplified by the Sr71's & stella omega's on this one.

All the left wing on this forum does is attack an opposing philosophy, none exhibits the ability to defend their own putrid altruistic penance to the greater good, the common good, the socialist creed to which they all ascribe.

Left wing liberals in general are emotional disaster zones. They excell at the arts, become our performers and Bohemians but are woefully absent the ability to even recognize reason and rationality and when they try to defend their extreme positions and get wiped, they revert to name calling, character assassination or the big Iggy button and try to convince others to join their attempt to isolate those they cannot confront.

As the newby above, seduced by the left, had the audacity to criticize my poetry just to sneak into the group of 'usual suspects. Such a deal.

Why not join your fellow perverts and sneak over to the story site and one bomb all my stories; you would fit in well with rest of the whiners here.



Amicus

 

[Pure]

ironic

All the left wing on this forum does is attack an opposing philosophy, none exhibits the ability to defend their own putrid altruistic penance to the greater good, the common good,

ami, considering your statism and willingness to sacrifice individual liberties.

you'd dictate to the pregant women, and bring the state apparatus into play if she takes charge of her own body.

once there's sexual intercourse, your alleged concern with the egg requires marching the woman to the police station to pee.

if it's positive, she can start the prescribed diet and report monthly.

if she departs the diet, she's charged with child abuse.

if she's subsequently negative, then without a drs certification of miscarriage, she's charged with murder.

==

ami sacrifices individual liberties to the collective interest, in a dozen ways*: he supports arrest without charges, indefinite detention. he supports "enhanced interrogation", and torture, the classic weapon of state terror against dissidents.

he favors all wars of the US, to date, and the military apparatus entailed. he LOVES big government so long as it's employed abroad with someone else's kids.
==

e.g. all the provisions of the Patriot Act; wiretapping without judicial oversight, etc.

 

[amicus]

One ought show sympathy for the pathetic Pure who, year after year, replays his tired old 8 track recording of opposing individual rights and responsibilities.

Smile and pat the poor fellow on his bald head for his 60's anti war stance and tell him we will protect him as best we can when the barbarians are at the gates.

Like the absent minded professor who scratched his pancake and poured syrup down his back, the 'emo' left falls apart when off stage and in the real world where truth, honor and integrity replaces the 'pretense' of actors on the stage and musicians in the box.

We do appreciate the entertainment value of the left, but 'sillywood' politics are put before the general public, the humor wanes.

We can exist without the entertainment value of the left, but they cannot exist without the productivity of the right...most of them figure that out in their forties and actually get a real job.

Amicus

 

[LaRocha]

As the newby above, seduced by the left, had the audacity to criticize my poetry just to sneak into the group of 'usual suspects. Such a deal.

Why not join your fellow perverts and sneak over to the story site and one bomb all my stories; you would fit in well with rest of the whiners here.



Amicus

"Newby"? I've been a member here longer than you. I've read bits of your stories, I usually can't get far enough in them to vote because they're wank(and not the sort of wank I enjoy.) Haha, you're an internet superstar, you must get paid by the word.

 

[DeeZire]

Originally Posted by amicus
All the left wing on this forum does is attack an opposing philosophy, none exhibits the ability to defend their own putrid altruistic penance to the greater good, the common good,

Ami, my emotionally-challenged friend, we defend our stance on altruism all the time. It's not our fault that you were born without the altruism gene. Trying to justify altruism to you would be like trying to explain color to a blind person.

In light of your mental deficiency, we really should be cutting you some slack, but your inability to assimilate facts sort of ruins any chances of that happening. You see, ignoring facts is voluntary, while missing the point of altruism is a genetic defect.

If you could just admit to your problem, we could help you to overcome your handicap. That's what liberals do - give those who were born into poverty (emotional poverty in your case) a chance at the same brass ring the rest of us find within reach.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Ami, my emotionally-challenged friend, we defend our stance on altruism all the time. It's not our fault that you were born without the altruism gene. Trying to justify altruism to you would be like trying to explain color to a blind person.

In light of your mental deficiency, we really should be cutting you some slack, but your inability to assimilate facts sort of ruins any chances of that happening. You see, ignoring facts is voluntary, while missing the point of altruism is a genetic defect.

If you could just admit to your problem, we could help you to overcome your handicap. That's what liberals do - give those who were born into poverty (emotional poverty in your case) a chance at the same brass ring the rest of us find within reach.

If Literotica were the VMA's, Amicus would be the ego queen Kanye West and the AH would be Taylor Swift.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2009/09/500x_custom_1252962920763_kanyeandtaylor.jpg

 

[amicus]

DeeZire:

"Ami, my emotionally-challenged friend, we defend our stance on altruism all the time..."

~~~

Actually, no, you don't defend your altruism at all, you claim it as a virtue and then preach about it. Only animals in the wild sacrifice the young and the old to predators to preserve the herd; that is the core of your altruism, sacrificing the individual for the group.

You might enjoy what is to follow, maybe even declare it sexism or gender bashing...but there is an outside chance you will instantly recognize the veracity in my observations and learn from them.

I watched several different viewpoints recorded over the years concerning the events that occured on September, 11, 2001, hours and hours of spontaneous film and audio coverage.

I watched the emotions people displayed and what sounds they made as the second airliner plunged into a Tower. Men's faces got tight and hard and angry, women covered their mouths and cried, or screamed.

Another series I watch on the Military Channel of men who fought in world war two, returning to the battlegrounds they fought on and lost buddies at.

Men and women express emotions in totally different manners, even you should be able to observe that, in films or real life. Women go all mooshey over a kitten or a puppy or a fallen sparrow, and tears fall like rain.

Not so men. They choke up and turn away and attempt not to show emotion, at even the worst of circumstances.

I value that difference in the genders for it reflects the basic nature of each sex in an undeniable manner, if only you would look.

The female of the species is better suited and wired, if you will, to be altruistic, self sacrificing, because there entire physical and psychological apparatus is geared towards nurturing an infant; feeding it from their own body after sustaining it in the womb for nine months.

Your altruism gene, just like the purported, 'gay' gene, exists only in the fertile ground of your wishy washy mind of uncertainties.

It is the cold, hard, rational male of the species that produces and protects the helpless gravid female, like it or not, deny it at your peril.

A half century of a feminist led assault on the male of the species is about to come to a fitting end. "Be more sensitive"...like me! says the emancipated female as she glosses her lips.

The result of that has been a generation of emasculated men who doubt their gender so much they often turn to same sex relationships just to be understood and appreciated. Even then, for both perversions, there remains the dom/sub division. Deny that?

Your, 'altruism' gene concept is merely a facade to cover the results of the feminist movement, a blurring of the natural inclinations of both men and women that has led to disaster throughout society.

Now, throw your hissy fit and get over it, as many will read this and gasp as they innately sense the truth and the consequences of your highly prized altruism of sacrifice.

Everything changes and the pendulum has a habit of swinging back the other way. I trust you are prepared to see the entire liberal agenda go down in flames over the next few years.

Back into the closets and the kitchens, ahm, if you recognize that room in your abode.

My good deed for the day...

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

You folks should feel special...over the years, a dozen or so different emails recommending other forums have sought my participation as those forums are so one way left wing bleeding heart liberals that have total agreement that they turn into the social network gossip site exemplified by the Sr71's & stella omega's on this one.

All the left wing on this forum does is attack an opposing philosophy, none exhibits the ability to defend their own putrid altruistic penance to the greater good, the common good, the socialist creed to which they all ascribe.

Left wing liberals in general are emotional disaster zones. They excell at the arts, become our performers and Bohemians but are woefully absent the ability to even recognize reason and rationality and when they try to defend their extreme positions and get wiped, they revert to name calling, character assassination or the big Iggy button and try to convince others to join their attempt to isolate those they cannot confront.

As the newby above, seduced by the left, had the audacity to criticize my poetry just to sneak into the group of 'usual suspects. Such a deal.

Why not join your fellow perverts and sneak over to the story site and one bomb all my stories; you would fit in well with rest of the whiners here.



Amicus

Mon Ami (My Love),
You are spreading your wisdom with a roller not a brush.....You shouldn't give them ideas (like one-bombing your stories - it may not have occurred to them!) that they can't handle....you need to stick the the standard whine about the 50's being over and you couldn't even enjoy it because the hippies came along and spoiled it for ya, et al.......(your stories may have gotten one-bombed by 'grassroots' readers; not the 'astroturf' usual suspects.....the readers have a voice and we authors ignore it at our peril)

 

[Dragonlipz]

DeeZire:

~~~

Actually, no, you don't defend your altruism at all, you claim it as a virtue and then preach about it. Only animals in the wild sacrifice the young and the old to predators to preserve the herd; that is the core of your altruism, sacrificing the individual for the group.

You might enjoy what is to follow, maybe even declare it sexism or gender bashing...but there is an outside chance you will instantly recognize the veracity in my observations and learn from them.

I watched several different viewpoints recorded over the years concerning the events that occured on September, 11, 2001, hours and hours of spontaneous film and audio coverage.

I watched the emotions people displayed and what sounds they made as the second airliner plunged into a Tower. Men's faces got tight and hard and angry, women covered their mouths and cried, or screamed.

Another series I watch on the Military Channel of men who fought in world war two, returning to the battlegrounds they fought on and lost buddies at.

Men and women express emotions in totally different manners, even you should be able to observe that, in films or real life. Women go all mooshey over a kitten or a puppy or a fallen sparrow, and tears fall like rain.

Not so men. They choke up and turn away and attempt not to show emotion, at even the worst of circumstances.

I value that difference in the genders for it reflects the basic nature of each sex in an undeniable manner, if only you would look.

The female of the species is better suited and wired, if you will, to be altruistic, self sacrificing, because there entire physical and psychological apparatus is geared towards nurturing an infant; feeding it from their own body after sustaining it in the womb for nine months.

Your altruism gene, just like the purported, 'gay' gene, exists only in the fertile ground of your wishy washy mind of uncertainties.

It is the cold, hard, rational male of the species that produces and protects the helpless gravid female, like it or not, deny it at your peril.

A half century of a feminist led assault on the male of the species is about to come to a fitting end. "Be more sensitive"...like me! says the emancipated female as she glosses her lips.

The result of that has been a generation of emasculated men who doubt their gender so much they often turn to same sex relationships just to be understood and appreciated. Even then, for both perversions, there remains the dom/sub division. Deny that?

Your, 'altruism' gene concept is merely a facade to cover the results of the feminist movement, a blurring of the natural inclinations of both men and women that has led to disaster throughout society.

Now, throw your hissy fit and get over it, as many will read this and gasp as they innately sense the truth and the consequences of your highly prized altruism of sacrifice.

Everything changes and the pendulum has a habit of swinging back the other way. I trust you are prepared to see the entire liberal agenda go down in flames over the next few years.

Back into the closets and the kitchens, ahm, if you recognize that room in your abode.

My good deed for the day...

Amicus

Now here is an enlightened mind, an example of evolution for us all........

 

[Dragonlipz]

Another series I watch on the Military Channel of men who fought in world war two, returning to the battlegrounds they fought on and lost buddies at.

Men and women express emotions in totally different manners, even you should be able to observe that, in films or real life. Women go all mooshey over a kitten or a puppy or a fallen sparrow, and tears fall like rain.

Not so men. They choke up and turn away and attempt not to show emotion, at even the worst of circumstances.

Amicus:
What a convenience your ignorance is........You obviously have never been in combat nor held one of your brothers in arms as they choked on their own blood and died......
Stick with TV, you withering little prick, it's made for you......

 

[DeeZire]

Ami, my ill-informed friend, it surprises me that you watch the Discovery Channel but are unaware of the altruism gene. What wouldn't surprise me is the image of you quickly changing the channel if such a program were to appear on your screen.

Google has links to the Isreali study. This is an overview, from a different site.

Rescuers during Hurricane Katrina. Passengers on Flight 93 who crashed a plane into a Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11, 2001. Neighbors who hid Jews during the Holocaust. A recent flurry of scientific studies, articles, books and conferences have explored altruism – the quality that inspires people to act selflessly to help others.

Experts from a broad range of disciplines – sociobiology, psychology, theology, philosophy, genetics and biology – are studying questions such as: Why are some people willing to help others even at their own expense? If the urge to help others is universal, as some believe, then why do some feel its pull more strongly than others? Can altruism be promoted or learned, or is it innate? Is there some degree of self-interest involved in any altruistic act?

The findings can help journalists report on the altruistic actions of individuals, whether they take place because of natural disasters, terrorism, crime or in the course everyday life:
• A team of Israeli psychologists recently said that it discovered an "altruism gene." The psychologists found that two-thirds of a group of individuals who displayed selfless behavior had a certain variant of the dopamine receptor gene, which is associated with feelings of pleasure. This corresponds to earlier U.S. studies that found that people who help others often experience a "helper’s high."
• A number of studies have found a correlation between helping others and good health, a sense of well-being and longevity.
• Evolutionary biologists are debating how to explain altruistic behavior in animals and humans. Does acting to benefit others at one’s own expense contradict the theory of natural selection? Some say no, explaining that acting to benefit the group, rather than one’s self, helps the group survive, even though it endangers the individual.
• Scientists are studying whether animals, like people, act altruistically. One study said yes by studying birds who warn the flock of an approaching hawk while drawing unwanted attention to themselves. A recent study from UCLA disagreed, showing that chimpanzees do not act altruistically.

 

[Pure]

ami Only animals in the wild sacrifice the young and the old to predators to preserve the herd; that is the core of your altruism, sacrificing the individual for the group.

lots of hot air; ami sacrifices individuals to the "collective," the herd, the group, at every opportunity:

ami favors sacrificing the young in iraq and aghanistan, for the 'common good'. more than 3000 deaths in iraq, and 800 in afghanistan, mostly younger persons.

he "sacrifices" [dictates to, put in danger] all pregnant women to the common good, enforcing baby production at the risk of life.

 

[amicus]

I am not a scientist, so my terminology will be layman variety at best, but I do watch, with interest, human genome studies and results, DNA research especially along medical lines.

A recent discovery announced just last week concerns a one day 'cure' for breast cancer caught at an early stage that has proven effective on a number of patients and may be introduced to general medicine in the next year or so.

The line of research DeeZire holds in such high esteem, is rooted in behavioral science, a particularly blindered avenue, as the science is Pavlovian in nature, relies upon drug therapy and, most importantly, discounts the cognitive facility of man and the power of the mind.

Like 'Global Warming' science, behaviorial science projects function with a specific goal in mind, such as discovering the homosexuality is inborn, the so called, 'gay gene', or that self sacrifice is a normative condition for some individuals when self survival has served mankind well since his evolution as the, 'rational animal'.

On the tree of knowledge, DeeZire's behavioralist, predetermined, stimuli/response anomaly is a dead end branch with no where to go.

As the global warming psuedo science is meant to pacify the environmentalists, 'gay' genes to accomodate the homosexual community, the 'altruism gene' is pap to the lazy liberals who need to justify their hatred of rational behavior qua cognitive decision making, i.e. thinking.

Altruism is the cowards way to avoid competition in the real world; they merely claim they are too sensitive to the desires of others to pursue their own path in life.

Sad.

Amicus