Cute romanian chic videos - KH style

[Asher]

To be clear and not disingenuous, Ben, Darwin spoke of 'disabled people' only in the context of people with genetic flaws that would be carried on to subsequent generations.

If Darwin had his way, people like this would not reproduce: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1214609/

Note that in that G&M article, pro-life demonstrators are responsible for this retarded girl having a retarded child she had while being a prostitute, which the grandparents now must dedicate their life to.

[Ben Kenobi]

To be clear and not disingenuous, Ben, Darwin spoke of 'disabled people' only in the context of people with genetic flaws that would be carried on to subsequent generations.

No, that's inheritable genetic flaws, flaws that could be passed down, which includes my hearing disability among them.

The point being you are assuming that these disabilities always will be passed down, and that's not the case. It's also one of the primary principles of eugenics. If you are trying to convince me, you are doing a terrible job of it.

As for Down's syndrome, it's not always passed down. I'm not sure why you believe it is and why we should engage in eugenics. It's a good thing that prolifers believe that everyone ought to have a chance for life.

[Asher]

No, that's inheritable genetic flaws, flaws that could be passed down, which includes my hearing disability among them.

Yes. That's precisely what I said. What do you mean "no"?

The point being you are assuming that these disabilities always will be passed down, and that's not the case.

I am not assuming, I never said that either.

As for Down's syndrome, it's not always passed down. I'm not sure why you believe it is

I never said it is, you disingenuous retarded douchebag. I was trying to have a civil discussion with you one ****ing time and you've already resorted to your usual bull****.

and why we should engage in eugenics.

I never ****ing said that you disgusting sleazeball.

Get ****ed until you are capable of having a reasonable conversation. I just gave you a shot, against my better judgement, and in return I get you making the claim that I support eugenics and I said Down's syndrome is always passed down.

You're a *****, moreso than I am, because I am honest when I deal with people like you. You, instead, decide to lie, mislead, and be disingenuous without any concept of the offense and disrespect you cause.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes. That's precisely what I said. What do you mean "no"?

You said 'would'. I said 'could'. The point being that they may or may not be passed down. Saying they would be passed down is incorrect.

I never said it is, you disingenuous retarded douchebag. I was trying to have a civil discussion with you one ****ing time and you've already resorted to your usual bull****.

Again, you said:

Darwin spoke of 'disabled people' only in the context of people with genetic flaws that would be carried on to subsequent generations.

Now, if you meant could, then you ought to have clarified such. Else I have to go on what you wrote.

I never ****ing said that you disgusting sleazeball.

It is eugenics.

If Darwin had his way, people like this would not reproduce

Which you could have cribbed from Galton, the father of Eugenics.

[Asher]

Ben, you ****ing slime****.

I had even just CLARIFIED THIS FOR YOU ALREADY but you STILL DO NOT COMPREHEND.

I was EXPLICITLY CLARIFYING WHAT DARWIN'S POSITION ON IT AS YOU WERE BEING UNCLEAR.

I EXPLICITLY MENTIONED THAT THIS WAS DARWIN'S POSITION, I NEVER SAID OR EVEN IMPLIED IT WAS MY OWN.

Get ****ed, you tool.

[Jon Miller]

You guys should probably take a break from eachother.

JM

[Lorizael]

JM, do we have the power to put people on each other's ignore lists?

[Asher]

I think Ben needs a break from this site to coincide with his break from reality.

(Seriously)

Every single post he makes he misrepresents what people say, frequently in a very offensive fashion. He never apologizes for it. He even repeats it after he's corrected.

It shouldn't be tolerated.

Ban him, he contributes nothing.

[Dis]

How the **** did you miss that? I mean it is only the deciding feature which decides if it is a darwin fish or not and it has been that way for 20 years. Are you retarded?

sometimes I just don't look at things closely that don't interest me. But to be honest, I think I've only seen 2 my whole life. I don't think there are a lot of athiests in my city strangely. Religion seems to be alive an well in my city amazingly. though many of them are just fakers I suspect.

[Dis]

That's because you're a homosexual too.

leekspin is the greatest thing to ever grace the internets!!

And everyone who disagrees with your taste in internet fads and women aren't homosexuals. If that's the case, then I'm a homo too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Every single post he makes he misrepresents what people say, frequently in a very offensive fashion. He never apologizes for it. He even repeats it after he's corrected.

How on earth did I misrepresent you? You said these genetic traits would be passed down, which is false. You may have meant could, but I have to go on what you write.

[Asher]

How on earth did I misrepresent you? You said these genetic traits would be passed down, which is false. You may have meant could, but I have to go on what you write.

You stated that I support eugenics. Which is a flat-out lie, slander if you will...

[DaShi]

Darwin argues that it is counterproductive for society to invest money for disabled people when it can direct the same resources to the preservation of fitter individuals. He complains that society has not progressed to the point where they are willing to abandon disabled people, and so we must put up with it until people come to the correct understanding.



It's not my theory, it's Darwin's. He would put it all based on genetics. Disabled people cannot take the front of the line wrt to medical care, they would have to come after someone who is ablebodied.



This is a far better argument. However, the consequence of such a statement would operate in a laissez-faire sense. We cannot intervene to preserve disabled people or anyone for that matter, because it would be promoting unfitness.

The point is that we can intervene because our acts of intervention become a part of the environment. Given that health care is profitable for doctors, there remains a reason for it to exist. Thus, the current environment increases fitness for disabled people.

So I've solved your Darwin dilemma. You can worship me now!

[Dis]

To be clear and not disingenuous, Ben, Darwin spoke of 'disabled people' only in the context of people with genetic flaws that would be carried on to subsequent generations.

If Darwin had his way, people like this would not reproduce: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1214609/

Note that in that G&M article, pro-life demonstrators are responsible for this retarded girl having a retarded child she had while being a prostitute, which the grandparents now must dedicate their life to.

OMFG, that's like the worst article I have ever read. That kind of turned my day bad.

What I really want to ask though is threatening to kill someone really illegal in Canada? Maybe it's illegal in the U.S. too for all I know. I just never heard of that.

[lightblue]

In a pure biological sense anything that impairs fitness at any particular time is an undesirable trait. A hearing or sight deficiency in a wild animal would lead to it being eaten more easily, or being less likely to catch something else to eat, and therefore to have enough energy to reproduce.

In a society though this imperative is not as strong. Just because it is a cause of reduced fitness in "the wild" doesn't mean it is in a Western city (though it will still be in hunter gatherer societies and the like, though to a lesser extent than in solitary animals). Someone like Stephen Hawking would not have survived in a pre-industrial era, now he has made a valuable contribution to society and reproduced. The posts shift in evolution, especially in humans.

In the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, fitness and similar concepts were used to advocate eugenics, racism and fascism. The methods used then, such as the forceable sterilisation programme in Sweden, would not be acceptable now. However if a non-invasive gene therapy solution existed to remove certain impairments from the human gene pool, would we not want to use them? Why would we wish disabilities on our offspring if we could avoid it? The term "designer baby" is loaded with negative connotations, but would it be that abhorrent for parents, or society, to be able to influence the likelyhood of developing genetic diseases (think BRCA1/2 genes etc) in a future generation? I don't think so.

It is debatable whether or not natural selection still has any effect on us humans, and soon it will be within our hands to steer our own evolution.