I1L2T3 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 And you'll be claiming you're not a drama queen with a bit of a penchant for exaggeration. I'm just saying that we're damaging our gene pool by supporting the ability of the weak (in terms of their ability to survive and reproduce without state support) to contribute to future generations. The rest is what you make up in your own mind, I suggest nothing. That doesn't mean people are genetically weak though. As others have pointed out people from poor backgrounds often achieve very highly given the right support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 Laughable. Perhaps because you are pretending to be interested in this discussion you've started and those posts 72 and 73 counter your point of view with expert testimony from independent 3rd parties?Oh come on, a 1902 view and Dawkins? You're up there with iron sky. He's not answered, but are you available for kids' parties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 So, what would happen to 'the weak' in your ideal scenario? You can't just leave them thieving & begging from 'strong' types like you can you? Would you include jews, gypsies & homosexuals, or is it just the poor & disabled? How long would it take to breed your master race? Calm down. You're reading way more into this than is necessary. Have a cup of tea and think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 That doesn't mean people are genetically weak though. As others have pointed out people from poor backgrounds often achieve very highly given the right support.Agreed, most billionaires staretd with nothing (society provides ample opportunity for the talented), but many, many people whose lack of wit and drive would relegate them to a short life in a natural world are preserved by the nanny state. That just seems wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Oh come on, a 1902 view and Dawkins? You're up there with iron sky. He's not answered, but are you available for kids' parties? Which view are you dismissing out of hand? Kroptokin, or Dawkins. Both are reputable, some would say that Dawkins is a modern day Darwin. I thought the quotes were thought provoking and I'm surprised that you have responded in such a way to a very positive contribution to your half-baked thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Agreed, most billionaires staretd with nothing (society provides ample opportunity for the talented), but many, many people whose lack of wit and drive would relegate them to a short life in a natural world are preserved by the nanny state. That just seems wrong. Maybe something that isn't clear to you is that living at the bottom of society is actually quite tough. People in that situation most likely will have decent survival and coping skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 Which view are you dismissing out of hand? Kroptokin, or Dawkins. Both are reputable, some would say that Dawkins is a modern day Darwin. I thought the quotes were thought provoking and I'm surprised that you have responded in such a way to a very positive contribution to your half-baked thread. All a matter of opinion, if the thread's half-baked, how can such responses be anything other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 All a matter of opinion, if the thread's half-baked, how can such responses be anything other? The responses were from a well regarded scientific publication and an excellent scientist. So why get abusive to the poster who drew them to your attention? You clearly have a lot to learn about Evolutionary Biology. You could do a lot worse than read a bit of Dawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 Maybe something that isn't clear to you is that living at the bottom of society is actually quite tough. People in that situation most likely will have decent survival and coping skills.I wouldn't contest that, some will strive to succeed, elevate themselves and do deservedly well (and good for them), but others without the grey matter to cook a tin of beans will be supported in ways artificial to nature and able to reproduce. That doesn't contribute to the species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 The responses were from a well regarded scientific publication and an excellent scientist. So why get abusive to the poster who drew them to your attention? You clearly have a lot to learn about Evolutionary Biology. You could do a lot worse than read a bit of Dawkins I'm sorry, I've missed something here - where was I abusive? And, perhaps I just don't have much to deny about evolutionary biology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.