Professor admits he is an evolutionary loser

I find it interesting that the psychology professor’s logic is basically sound but somehow decides to become an evolutionary loser anyway:

You may call it foolish, but I for one will not get a gun. I will remain an evolutionary loser and a mentally deficient member of gun world, hoping that we will have the courage to become truly civilized and turn the tables on those who would lead us down their dark path.

Those in academia are frequently accused of living in an idealized world with only an occasional glimpse into the real world. This would appear to be a prime example of a professor who willfully ignores reality.

It should come as no surprise that Bernard Starr, Ph.D, is professor emeritus at City University of New York (Brooklyn College).

13 thoughts on “Professor admits he is an evolutionary loser

  1. Is it too much to ask that he does not procreate? I bet the hardcore Darwinists will love this, as it helps their case, survival of the fittest and all that.

  2. Coming from a country where people live happily without any guns at all I must say that your blog provides great entertainment!

    I will most certainly come back here regularly for more – thank you – keep it up!!

  3. I abolutely support the right of stupid people to make stupid decisions, so long as noone else is harmed.

  4. Better then that, let’s publish his address…

    And James, I wonder just what world you think you are living in, because I WILL GARRANTEE that your masters in the one you actually are living in DO in fact have guns.

  5. He flashed open his jacket showing an assault weapon.

    Since the antis have successfully diluted that formerly simply inaccurate term into total hysterical meaninglessness, that sentence conveys no useful information beyond “you should be paralyzed with fear like I was”. What did the perp have? An AK or AR? I suppose not, since a rifle is a little difficult to conceal under a jacket. For all we know from that statement, it could have been a Taurus Judge…

    Or maybe his wedding tackle was hanging out.

  6. I hate to toot my own horn, but I put some time into debunking this silly claim because it offends my sense as a history major to pervert the past.
    http://armaborealis.blogspot.com/2011/02/darwin-and-guns.html

    Summary: Darwin regularly carried a defensive sidearm, Darwin often carried a rifle, and Darwin’s expedition relied on superior firepower to impress and intimidate the native populations. I don’t know what his ghost is packing but when he was alive Darwin certainly was knowledgeable about and chose to use firearms.

  7. Does he also hope to evolve past the need to own a screwdriver? It would make as much sense.

  8. “Where does Charles Darwin fit into this scenario? His survival of the fittest theory…”

    Anybody who uses “Darwin” and “survival of the fittest” in conjunction with one another has displayed their ignorance of evolutionary biology as thoroughly as if they’d written “I don’t know piss-all about evolutionary biology” across their forehead in Sharpie.

    When a college dropout in flyover country has to explain this to an NYC university professor, it should be an indication of how far along the slippery slope we’ve come.

  9. Oh James from the UK, the one that Kevin Baker tried to engage at the Smallest Minority…

    have fun with your increased crime rates!

  10. To James, I would add: what country do you live in, that does not have “any guns at all”? Last I checked, England (sic, I’m sorry, Formerly Great Britain) has hundreds of thousands of illegal guns. And I don’t know how many guns the military or the police own–except that, if I remember correctly, in the last few years, guns have become mandatory for certain cops who didn’t have to carry guns before.

    Come back when your country gets rid of all these guns before bragging about how happy you are to be in a country “without any guns at all”!

    As for the United States–here’s proof that a country can live happily with access to millions of guns! Unless, of course, you live in Chicago, New York City, or Washington DC, where guns are practically banned, yet gun violence–and all violence, for that matter–is through the roof.

  11. Now that I’ve read the article, I’d have to say that it makes some sense, but it irks me in certain ways, too. Allow me to list them:

    — How the heck does he expect us to counter-act violent people? Give in to their demands? This only feeds “the beast” we call “Violence and Bullying”.

    — An “assault weapon” hidden in a jacket? Why is it that I have the feeling that the “assault weapon” is just a semi-automatic pistol? Or that this professor would call any gun, down to a single-shot flintlock pistol, an “assault weapon”?

    — When used to terrorize, knives are deadly assault weapons, too. And despite Formerly Great Britain’s efforts, it would be relatively easy to add a point to a “pointless” knife.

    — This professor really thinks we have the power to keep guns out of the “wrong” hands. (He doesn’t say what hands are “right”, but I have a sneaky suspicions that “right” is “police and military”–but by saying “wrong” he can give the illusion that he means “anyone who is responsible with a gun”.) Does he have any idea how easy it is to make a gun, or to smuggle previously-made guns? As I was surprised to learn from the book “Zips, Pipes, and Pens”, prison is filled with guns, and regular cell searches are necessary to clear them out. Most of these are improvised “zip guns”, but searches typically turn out “normal” guns smuggled from the outside world, and sometimes even “normal” guns made in the prison itself. If we can’t keep guns out of prisons, what makes this professor think we could keep guns out of the “wrong hands” in the real world?

    So, yes, I think this professor is evolutionarily inferior–not genetically, because genes don’t control our thoughts–but he is, memetically, which is especially sad, because he has control over his thoughts. Since memes live independently of bodies, though, it is up to reasonable to kill it off–and I’d like to think we’re well on our way to doing so :-).

Comments are closed.