Făkünamę wrote:I made a suicide pact that comes to term when I'm 50, so I'm not worried.
People try to put us d-down (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Just because we g-g-get around (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Thankfully, although your inherited wealth has allowed you to survive it hasn't persuaded anyone to breed with you and compromise the future of the species.Seth wrote:Why? Please submit your evidence that "caring" for the weaker members of society is "vital" to our success as a species.Blind groper wrote:Human evolution is not based on cut throat Darwinism, anyway. Our success is partly due to technology and partly due to social cooperation. The social side is very important. Social cooperation includes caring for weaker members of the tribe, which is the opposite of cut throat Darwinism. Such caring is vital to our continued success as a species.
I'd say the opposite is true. When you allow the weak to survive and breed, you compromise the Darwinian future of the species.
So what? Dependent adults who do not contribute to those efforts debilitate the entire society by consuming resources without producing any positive benefits.Blind groper wrote:Seth
If you check early human history, or else various human societies in the modern world, you will quickly see that we live in social groups, and our methods of developing food and other goods require social cooperation.
What's "barbaric" about eugenics?You can make a case for eugenics, or for other barbaric practices, as a form of Darwinism.
Indeed. Perhaps more than a little too much however. When a "democratic" society allows the dependent class to outbreed the productive class, eventually the dependent class comes to outnumber the productive class, at which point the dependent class rapes and pillages the productive class to get more goodies without having to work for them and the entire society collapses when the productive class has been driven from productivity to dependence and nobody is producing wealth for the dependent class to expropriate.But that is not the way most of us operate. Most of us care for other people.
This is good, because most people at some stage become sick, or otherwise helpless, and need other people to carry them for a time.
But we're not talking about the temporarily disabled who need temporary assistance, we're talking about the chronically-dependent class of people who have been locked into dependence by government policies intended to keep them beholden to the political party that put them there for their entire existence, which is nothing more nor less than a method of political control to keep the offending political party in power by threatening the livelihoods of the dependent class if they fail to vote properly.When they are healthy again, and strong, they do their share of helping others who need help.
Non sequitur. He's a productive member of society even with his disability, so your analogy is fallacious.Look at someone like Stephen Hawking, who is confined to a wheelchair, and needs waiting on hand and foot just to survive. Yet he is someone who contributes to our species most powerfully. Allowing the helpless to die is not the human way, and it is definitely not the best way.
aspire1670 wrote:Thankfully, although your inherited wealth has allowed you to survive it hasn't persuaded anyone to breed with you and compromise the future of the species.Seth wrote:Why? Please submit your evidence that "caring" for the weaker members of society is "vital" to our success as a species.Blind groper wrote:Human evolution is not based on cut throat Darwinism, anyway. Our success is partly due to technology and partly due to social cooperation. The social side is very important. Social cooperation includes caring for weaker members of the tribe, which is the opposite of cut throat Darwinism. Such caring is vital to our continued success as a species.
I'd say the opposite is true. When you allow the weak to survive and breed, you compromise the Darwinian future of the species.
...or so you believe. The good news is that you know nothing about me or my progeny because that's how I like it.aspire1670 wrote:Thankfully, although your inherited wealth has allowed you to survive it hasn't persuaded anyone to breed with you and compromise the future of the species.Seth wrote:Why? Please submit your evidence that "caring" for the weaker members of society is "vital" to our success as a species.Blind groper wrote:Human evolution is not based on cut throat Darwinism, anyway. Our success is partly due to technology and partly due to social cooperation. The social side is very important. Social cooperation includes caring for weaker members of the tribe, which is the opposite of cut throat Darwinism. Such caring is vital to our continued success as a species.
I'd say the opposite is true. When you allow the weak to survive and breed, you compromise the Darwinian future of the species.
Really? How would you know that? You don't even know who I am.Făkünamę wrote:I know you have no progeny.
No you don't. You're lying.Făkünamę wrote:Actually I do. I pulled some favours when you started talking about killing sheeple.
You hope..Seth wrote:No you don't. You're lying.
No, I'm certain. You can of course PM me and prove your claim, and I'll retract the accusation of lying if you do. But you'll have to show some proof of your claim or be branded a troll and a liar.Făkünamę wrote:You hope..Seth wrote:No you don't. You're lying.
Yeah, I knew you were a liar.Făkünamę wrote:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests
