Plain Talker Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Your assumption that a persons worth to society can be judged solely by physical strength, 'mental resourcefulness' and wealth is of course a total nonsense. The reality behind this message of yours is repellent, implying as it does that those born early should be left to die, that people with disabilities be disregarded, that the poor be left to suffer without aid and that the elderly and infirm are a nuisance we're best without. The Fuhrer would have loved it. Nail on the head, Halibut. Look at Steven Hawking... physically, he would come under the "having no worth" category, but if you took his amazing mental capacity into account, we would be getting rid of an astounding physicist, who has put forward some absolutely jaw-dropping ideas about life, the universe, and everything. My sister's youngest boy has just turned 20. He was badly brain damaged, and he has the capacity of a 2 year old. I have argued on here with one (*chose your expletive from the list*) who declared that, as a result of his brain damage, my nephew was, therefore, a life-unworthy-of-life. This idea is quite contradictory to the amount of love, and joy he brings into our lives. We love him to bits. and would not wish him away for one minute. If Conrod could have introduced, as a system, this idea he propounds, it would be unworkable. Society would be like the machine on the ITV game show "Tipping point" where the "useless" would be pushed over the canyon edge in a manner of speaking. as each person became unemployed/ disabled/ aged, they'd disappear over the chasm. No chance for restoration. How long before there would be no people coming up behind the people going over the edge, to do the work, to care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 that's the sort of rubbish the nazi's, and others, spouted in the 20s and 30s it was wrong then and it's wrong now. the idea that the "strong" has a genetic birthright to breed would be laughable if it wasn't so evil. Evil? Be serious, do you suggest that the evolution of every species has been 'evil'? you can't define "strong" in a genetic sense anyway, and even if you could it could it would change over time as selection pressures varied. the survival of a species needs a big gene pool with lots of variation. anyway, beyond variation to immune response to pandemic type diseases modern society has pretty much eradicates any sort of genetic selection pressure. That's the whole problem, social care and medical advances have removed selection, allowing the weak to procreate rather then protecting the future gene pool by failing to compete against the more healthy/stronger/more resourceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Do you think a farmer keeps his herd healthy by paying the poorest examples of his stock to have the most calves? Your choice of analogy speaks volumes about your mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 So, Conrod - is it fair to suggest that you're advocating a kind of eugenics? Kill the poor, the less than physically perfect, those whose minds you judge inferior to your own? That kind of thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Evil? Be serious, do you suggest that the evolution of every species has been 'evil'? it's not evolution that i'm suggesting is evil That's the whole problem, social care and medical advances have removed selection, allowing the weak to procreate rather then protecting the future gene pool by failing to compete against the more healthy/stronger/more resourceful. that's not the problem, if anything, it has protected the gene pool by ensuring we have retained a wide genetic variety. i think you need to define clearly and unambiguously what and who you mean by the "strong" and "weak" and why you feel they are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Evil? Be serious, do you suggest that the evolution of every species has been 'evil'? That's the whole problem, social care and medical advances have removed selection, allowing the weak to procreate rather then protecting the future gene pool by failing to compete against the more healthy/stronger/more resourceful. Are you going to turf your parents out into the cold tonight, and let them "sink or swim". ? You could end up with a bumper pay day ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Watch the film "Idiocracy". That's what we are doing to ourselves as a species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Another thinly veiled supremacist thread. Maybe it's now "weak" to confuse the word with disadvantaged? In which case conrod by his own admission should go to the left with the kids, old, and infirm. Very true, Connie's excelled himself this time. It reminds me of a heated argument I had with a black nationalist and supremacist a few years ago (they're as big arseholes as the white variety btw), he believed that 'racial supremacy' could be broken down to basic 'fundamentals'-speed, strength and stamina. To illustrate his argument he pointed to the prowess of blacks in the Olympic Games, superiority which isn't replicated in the wider world-his parting words were "if you took the guns away from the white man, the black man would rule the world", perhaps forgetting that necessity is the mother of invention and 'ingenuity' should be added to his list of fundamentals, as Rupert pointed out earlier if he had to pay for his own healthcare he wouldn't go without, he'd find ways to do it, most of us are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 It appears someone doesn't understand what evolution is.It appears that Darwin had a vague idea, and he referred to it as natural selection. Herbert Spencer, not quite accurately, introduced the term 'survival of the fittest' after reading Darwin's ideas. It's not a huge leap of inference to assume non-survival of the weakest - after all, natural selection favours those of a species that are most successful at surviving, procreating and providing for their young against the challenges of life. If we take away the challenges of life and the difficulties that must be overcome to live and provide for the next generation, we take away natural selection - the natural removal of weak genes from the pool. We invite deterioration of our species over a potentially short timescale (in evolutionary terms). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iron sky Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 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? Hilter would came out with such ideas as yourself. kill the Jews,disabled and others deemed unworthie of the greater idea. Yet you seem fit to use a Winston Churchill speech a man who frought agaisnt such ideas and 60 million people dead. Looks like they shouldnt have bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.