After initial angst, would society benefit if the weak were not supported?

[Cyclone]

Show me evidence that I'm wrong - that's the challenge for you.

 

Or do you think the gene pool willl improve

This has been explained to you several times, but I'll try once more.

 

There is no definition of 'improve' except that which results in a set of genes reproducing more successfully than some other set.

 

if we only let fat/short/thick/deranged/deformed people reproduce?

If one of those traits makes it more likely that the genes will survive and reproduce then in evolutionary terms they're doing better than you.

 

Ask any farmer or dog breeder and they'll put you on the right track

Look at any pedigree breed and it's quite clear that what we consider to be successful isn't entirely natural.

[Cyclone]

Are you offering someone a large bet on something that they haven't even disputed? And which is almost completely irrelevant to the topic...

 

So what if Conrod is quite clever, my IQ puts me amongst the same top 2%, but it doesn't mean that I think like him or agree with him on this topic at all.

 

 

Your IQ does indeed put you in that same top 2%, but I didn't suggest that the forum should be limited.

 

My IQ puts me in the top 0.01% and that scares the crap out of me!

 

Sometimes I'm what yiu might think is 'normal' sometimes I'm what I might think is a 'weirdo'

 

So clever, yet you mess up the quotes.

[I1L2T3]

I note certain forummers claiming to have high IQ's. Ha Ha Ha Ha .........

 

It's the first time I've seen something like it on here. A pathetically poor, fundamentally flawed and ill-informed argument justified as the product of a high IQ and certain posters' brains operating in ways of the rest of us could never appreciate. I'm still chuckling. It was the most desperate of defences.

[mikem8634]

It's the first time I've seen something like it on here. A pathetically poor, fundamentally flawed and ill-informed argument justified as the product of a high IQ and certain posters' brains operating in ways of the rest of us could never appreciate. I'm still chuckling. It was the most desperate of defences.

 

Yep, I was quite surprised... and pretty happy he wasn't trying to defend me.

[Tradescanthia]

It's the first time I've seen something like it on here. A pathetically poor, fundamentally flawed and ill-informed argument justified as the product of a high IQ and certain posters' brains operating in ways of the rest of us could never appreciate. I'm still chuckling. It was the most desperate of defences.

 

They have probably all had full frontal lobotomies at ASDA Pharmacy........only £12...........Buy one, get one free.:hihi:

[Conrod]

"National health care keeps the weak alive, and the welfare state positively encourages the weak to reproduce."

 

First sentance of your OP.

I did indeed say that. Do you understand the difference between that statement and, as you accuse me, "argued for the removal of the NHS and all forms of child related benefits".

 

If I say "seat belts save the lives of bad drivers", does that mean I'm arguing for the removal of seat belts? No.

 

Please have the decency not to make up things and claim I've said hem, there's a good chap

[Halibut]

I did indeed say that. Do you understand the difference between that statement and, as you accuse me, "argued for the removal of the NHS and all forms of child related benefits".

 

If I say "seat belts save the lives of bad drivers", does that mean I'm arguing for the removal of seat belts? No.

 

Please have the decency not to make up things and claim I've said hem, there's a good chap

 

"National health care keeps the weak alive'' You appear to suggest that this is somehow a bad thing.

 

Would you wish it otherwise and if so, how?

Should we

 

a) dismantle the provision of national health care?

b) restrict it those who are wealthy enough to pay for it?

c) only make it available to people you deem worthy to receive it?

 

Or d) none of the above?

[Conrod]

This has been explained to you several times, but I'll try once more.

No, it hasn't. Some people have said I must be wrong because they don't like what I'm saying, but that doesn't mean anybody has come up with an explanation that shows I'm wrong; I'm not.

 

There is no definition of 'improve' except that which results in a set of genes reproducing more successfully than some other set.

Absolutely, we agree on this.

 

And, based on your own bit of common sense here, we can look back on the simple progressions of our human evolution and that of other species, and see that those best suited to survive and reproduce did so based on their strengths. Strength literally to hunt or fight rivals, strength to resist disease, strength to resist climate conditions, or mental strength to plan though a winter and be alive (and keep their offspring alove) through to spring.

 

In simple terms, the strong tend to be successful, the weak to die out, and the species is preserved in this way, usually with a bit of iterative improvement thrown in. Take away those conditions which cause the less strong to fail, and the gene pool no longer benefits from natural selection.

 

We are no longer homo habilis. We evolved, and we'll continue to evolve - but our future won't be helped by having taken out the natural filters which would otherwise make the weak-gened struggle to reproduce.

[Conrod]

"National health care keeps the weak alive'' You appear to suggest that this is somehow a bad thing.

 

Would you wish it otherwise and if so, how?

Should we

 

a) dismantle the provision of national health care?

b) restrict it those who are wealthy enough to pay for it?

c) only make it available to people you deem worthy to receive it?

 

Or d) none of the above?

Mmmmm, choices, choices. I quite like the idea of people having to pay their own way in life, so mandatory health insurance would lean to a bit of a) and b). Then again, your presence on the thread reminds me that c) might be attractive from time to time. Is there an e) All of the above?

 

Then again, check your own words fishy; you have said 'appear'. Appearances can be deceptive. I don't suggest that the NHS is a bad thing, but I do suggest that supporting people to have families when they cannot support themselves, or if they need medical support to be successful in breeding, isn't doing a lot to make future generations healthier.

[Conrod]

My Son is dyslexic, no fault of his own or indeed of ours as his parents. Should he be denied the rights he is entitled to as a human being because some would catergorise him as being thick?

Ah, the old human rights chestnut. Where do you draw the line?

 

If he had a condition that was guaranteed to make his children be horribly ill and live a short life in suffering, should he still have the 'right' to a family?