Re: Replacing babies (was Re: PROPOSAL: Alt.terriorism.american)

Bryant (
7 May 1995 11:04:58 -0600

In article <>,
Michael Bauser <> wrote:

> (Mike Chapman) writes:
>>Maybe you can help me clear this up - why is it *particularly* shocking
>>that children are killed? Sure, they're quite innocent, but surely
>>that's outweighed by their inherent low value and ease of

The Republic, right now, is going to be wondering if the same is not true
about yourself.

>>The loss of a mate is far greater than the loss of
>>a baby, as far as I can see.

1. Why, then, all the fuss about dead babies at Waco?
2. Mates are unrelated and can be replaced. Children are the conduits of
one's genes into future generations. If you were correct, and
morality could be derived from genetic relatedness ratios, your argument
would still be dead wrong. As it stands, you're arguing the naturalistic
fallacy, and treading dangerously close to Social Darwinism.
Regardless of "ease of replacement" arguments, innocent people died.
That causes pain to their loved ones, as even the most ardent militiaman

>Great. Now you're trying to add a little sociobiology into your normal
>"survival of the fittest" / "might makes right" / "winner takes all" ?

He is *not* presenting a sociobiological argument. Sociobiology is the
study of the evolutionary basis for animal behavior. No moral implications
or positions have ever been argued or supported by sociobiological
research, because scientific "are's" have no direct translation into
moral "ought's"... His argument smacks of Social Darwinism, a quite
different creature.

>5) Finally, this is the United States, not a colony of lab mice, you
>gun-obsessed moron. Nobody in their right mind (according to cultural
>standards, of course, which you're probably planning to overthrow
>anyway), measures their grief in terms of replacement value. Real
>people actually have feelings that aren't based on some bad
>semi-Darwinian pseudoscience they found on the back page of the
>Aryan Times. Now fuck off and stop trying to minimize other people's
>tragedies. You're becoming tedious.

Well said.

>Chapman's answer:
>>The response to terrorism is to find out why the terrorists are angry
>>and see if any comrpomises can be made.

Bullshit. They can organize and vote, like the rest of us. If they can
reason enough voters into agreeing with them, then they're a force to be
reckoned with. Offensive action against fellow citizens is absolutely
unforgivable. Protecting one's home is one thing; I don't blame the boy
at Ruby Ridge for shooting at the strangers who opened fire on him. The
hell with them. But defending one's self is a hell of a different game
than murdering children, you son of a bitch.