mikem8634 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I have a sneaking feeling the the OP will return, cherry pick one or two lines from the excellent posts above, respond to just those in isolation and ignore the rest. In the face of overwhelming evidence that his ideas formed a discredited element of social Darwinism/eugenics and that his understanding of evolution is fundamentally flawed he has not once said anything approaching - Oh, I see your point, I may have been wrong. Nor has he provided any evidence to substantiate his declarations. A straight question to the OP - After reading this thread do you now accept that your understanding of evolution was flawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 You ignored everyone who corrected your lack of understanding of evolution.Show me somebody who displays an understanding of evolution that impresses me, and I'll doff my cap to it. Until then, I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 I have a sneaking feeling the the OP will return, cherry pick one or two lines from the excellent posts above, respond to just those in isolation and ignore the rest. In the face of overwhelming evidence that his ideas formed a discredited element of social Darwinism/eugenics and that his understanding of evolution is fundamentally flawed he has not once said anything approaching - Oh, I see your point, I may have been wrong. Nor has he provided any evidence to substantiate his declarations. A straight question to the OP - After reading this thread do you now accept that your understanding of evolution was flawed? Correct. I'll ignore stuff not worth a response, and reply to bits of other posts that interest me. Who has time for more than that? As for excellent posts, where were they? Explain it all to me, tell me where I'm wrong, oh wise one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Show me somebody who displays an understanding of evolution that impresses me, and I'll doff my cap to it. Until then, I think not. Or you could spend some time researching arguments that would support your position. As it is you're basically repeating your original post over and over and have not yet provided any evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Correct. I'll ignore stuff not worth a response, and reply to bits of other posts that interest me. Who has time for more than that? As for excellent posts, where were they? Explain it all to me, tell me where I'm wrong, oh wise one. Tell us why you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 Or you could spend some time researching arguments that would support your position. As it is you're basically repeating your original post over and over and have not yet provided any evidence.Show me evidence that I'm wrong - that's the challenge for you. Or do you think the gene pool willl improve if we only let fat/short/thick/deranged/deformed people reproduce? Ask any farmer or dog breeder and they'll put you on the right track Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Show me evidence that I'm wrong - that's the challenge for you. Or do you think the gene pool willl improve if we only let fat/short/thick/deranged/deformed people reproduce? Ask any farmer or dog breeder and they'll put you on the right track As far as I can see you've argued for the removal of the NHS and all forms of child related benefits. That seems absurd. Had you left the NHS out of it and argued for a transfer of child related benefits to the working poor from the non-working poor then you may have had a deal more agreement. Paying those who can't look after themselves to have children while not assisting those who can just look after themselves but would need help to afford to have kids is patently foolish and isn't helping. But you argued for a blanket removal of assistance from the "weak", which really is rather unpleasant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 As far as I can see you've argued for the removal of the NHS and all forms of child related benefits. . . . Mmmm - show me where I've done that, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Show me evidence that I'm wrong - that's the challenge for you. Or do you think the gene pool willl improve if we only let fat/short/thick/deranged/deformed people reproduce? Ask any farmer or dog breeder and they'll put you on the right track By definition, the gene pool will be diminished, if you exclude the above from breeding. Just one of your many fundamental misunderstandings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Show me evidence that I'm wrong - that's the challenge for you. Or do you think the gene pool willl improve if we only let fat/short/thick/deranged/deformed people reproduce? Ask any farmer or dog breeder and they'll put you on the right track Where did anybody say the people they are the only ones that should reproduce? You don't have any arguments so it looks like you're trying to shift the goal posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.