I1L2T3 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 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. It's not that people don't like what you're saying. They just know you're wrong. Why has been explained to you repeatedly. It's really more a case of you don't like what other people are saying. In a nutshell your whole premise for identifying the weak is completely flawed. You are basing it on a snapshot in the evolutionary timeline and using a tiny slice of humanity to try and drive your point. You haven't convinced anybody. Nobody has agreed with you. Your only support has been from somebody trying to explain how your brain doesn't work properly. Give up man. Give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share Posted November 3, 2012 It's not that people don't like what you're saying. They just know you're wrong. Why has been explained to you repeatedly. It's really more a case of you don't like what other people are saying. In a nutshell your whole premise for identifying the weak is completely flawed. You are basing it on a snapshot in the evolutionary timeline and using a tiny slice of humanity to try and drive your point. You haven't convinced anybody. Nobody has agreed with you. Your only support has been from somebody trying to explain how your brain doesn't work properly. Give up man. Give up. How is my premise of identifying the weak flawed? Do you disagree that human natural selection has been largely dependant on factors like: "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"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 National health care keeps the weak alive, and the welfare state positively encourages the weak to reproduce. In today's society, the weak more than the strong are helped to survive and procreate. Are we destroying ourselves as a species by reversing evolution? Well done old chap, one of the best wind up threads we've had on here for ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 How is my premise of identifying the weak flawed? Do you disagree that human natural selection has been largely dependant on factors like: "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"? I'm curious as to how you intend to realise your brave new world. It's all very easy, in theory (even if you don't actually understand the basic premises of evolution), to posit these ideas; but without some kind of rational, pragmatic and realistic plan to implement them, it's just so much Randian wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share Posted November 3, 2012 I'm curious as how you intend to realise your brave new world. It's all very easy, in theory (even if you don't actually understand the basic premises of evolution), to posit these ideas; but without some kind of rational, pragmatic and realistic plan to implement them, it's just so much Randian wishful thinking.There is that I suppose. How would you fix it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Well done old chap, one of the best wind up threads we've had on here for ages. Exactly! I would just like to know why anyone would choose to do it. Now THAT would be interesting. It would also take courage and honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 How is my premise of identifying the weak flawed? Do you disagree that human natural selection has been largely dependant on factors like: "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"? How do you know that given the opportunity to test themselves in a more challenging environment the people you regard as weak would not do better than you? They may be stronger physically and more mentally equipped to survive in adveristy having faced challenges that people like yourself do not face daily. The point is you don't know. There is no scientific evidence to prove your case that a welfare state causes what you regard as negative changes in evolution. If you're feeling at a loose end when you retire why not approach a university and posit it as a research subject for a PhD? Until you find other research or do your own research to prove your point you're up against numerous academic papers that run directly counter to your theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share Posted November 3, 2012 How do you know that given the opportunity to test themselves in a more challenging environment the people you regard as weak would not do better than you? They may be stronger physically and more mentally equipped to survive in adveristy having faced challenges that people like yourself do not face daily. The point is you don't know. There is no scientific evidence to prove your case that a welfare state causes what you regard as negative changes in evolution. If you're feeling at a loose end when you retire why not approach a university and posit it as a research subject for a PhD? Until you find other research or do your own research to prove your point you're up against numerous academic papers that run directly counter to your theories. Which papers are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 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. I'm not sure that Rupert was attempting to defend Conrod TBH... He might have been trying to explain how Conrod came up with his, let's be charitable, odd ideas, but I don't read it as a defence per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Ok another attempt. CONROD DOES NOT CARE ABOUT EVIDENCE HE ENJOYS RILING LIBERAL THINKERS INTO A FRENZY He might believe what he says, he might not, it really doesn't matter. Please see post 2. Did I shout loudly enough this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.