Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
the facts!? ho, that is the most biased peice of rubbish I'v ever heard, but you know, i know you don't think like a machine, I know your just full of it, so prattle on
Biased? How so? If one person can survive when another cannot one is very clearly of more use to the species as a whole.
That's not biased thats perpetuation of the species. Which is the big picture.
I guess it might be biased against the illadapted but thats about it.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Biased? How so? If one person can survive when another cannot one is very clearly of more use to the species as a whole.That's not biased thats perpetuation of the species. Which is the big picture.
not true though. a person may die because they are weak physically,but extremely useful mentally.
Originally posted by Battlehammer
not true though. a person may die because they are weak physically,but extremely useful mentally.
Sufficient intellect can help one to compensate for physical short comings. And if their intelligence was of no use in survival they have failed to evolve in a truly benifical way.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Biased? How so? If one person can survive when another cannot one is very clearly of more use to the species as a whole.That's not biased thats perpetuation of the species. Which is the big picture.
I guess it might be biased against the illadapted but thats about it.
to move forward as a species, we must learn to take care of the dubbed weak, other wise, we'll be in the same rut we've been in the last 20 thousand years. And though the black panther part has done terrible things, BH, their original guidelines aren't all that bad, now if the party actually followed them...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sufficient intellect can help one to compensate for physical short comings. And if their intelligence was of no use in survival they have failed to evolve in a truly benifical way.
.............tell that to stephen hawlkins.
With out other helps some one with extreme intelligence could die that in the end would have benifitted the world greater then that of some one who did not need the same aid.
honestly if you trully view the world such as this I pitty you.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosAre you kidding me? It's not a fact that allowing those weaker to die is beneficial to society. Infact those "weker" might be providing vluable goods or services. Where as the serial killer who is not passing on their genes if they keep killing everyone. So they don't even benefit humans as a species.
I never said that I practice that. I'm actually a quite helpful person. I'm just giving you the facts.
Your pitiful satire of my arguments fails, and it fails hard. 👇
Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
to move forward as a species, we must learn to take care of the dubbed weak, other wise, we'll be in the same rut we've been in the last 20 thousand years. And though the black panther part has done terrible things, BH, their original guidelines aren't all that bad, now if the party actually followed them...
Actually helping one another is the reason that humanity stagnates. We don't really evolve anymore because of our tech and society compensating for weaknesses that would normally be bred out.
Originally posted by Battlehammer
.............tell that to stephen hawlkins.With out other helps some one with extreme intelligence could die that in the end would have benifitted the world greater then that of some one who did not need the same aid.
honestly if you trully view the world such as this I pitty you.
it's as if he's a machine taking survival of the fittest to it's actual namesake and by your tone, your making it seem as if your superior to those that believe that it's a necessity to help the "weak" people, rather than those who would take a life, cause like it or not, morality is sacred, and short, no one has the justifiable means to take someone else's, by any reason.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Are you kidding me? It's not a fact that allowing those weaker to die is beneficial to society. Infact those "weker" might be providing vluable goods or services. Where as the serial killer who is not passing on their genes if they keep killing everyone. So they don't even benefit humans as a species.Your pitiful satire of my arguments fails, and it fails hard. 👇
Those weaker also end up putting their genes into the gene pool which does weaken the species. If a serial killer doesn't reproduce thats not my fault.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIncorrect. By killing those who provide goods and services to the society you make survival of the species as a whole alittle bit more difficult.
Biased? How so? If one person can survive when another cannot one is very clearly of more use to the species as a whole.
Your satire fails hard. 👇
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosHow is the speicies perpetuated if the "fitest" are not mentally fit to reproduce?
That's not biased thats perpetuation of the species. Which is the big picture.[/]b
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIt's biased against logic actually.
[B]I guess it might be biased against the illadapted but thats about it.
I see through your ruse. you fail.
Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
it's as if he's a machine taking survival of the fittest to it's actual namesake and by your tone, your making it seem as if your superior to those that believe that it's a necessity to help the "weak" people, rather than those who would take a life, cause like it or not, morality is sacred, and short, no one has the justifiable means to take someone else's, by any reason.
...........what..............are you talking to me or him?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those weaker also end up putting their genes into the gene pool which does weaken the species. If a serial killer doesn't reproduce thats not my fault.
It's remarkable that you think like this, but there's always a reason for someone to think...unemotionally....i won't prod for details, but to think so machine-like must have had some background for you to lose such a sense of morality.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIncorrect. While certain aspects of the weaker individual might not be as good as other genes, they will still be providing genes that would also serve to help difuse the dna so as to prevent inbreeding. Your satire still fails.
Those weaker also end up putting their genes into the gene pool which does weaken the species.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIf the "stronger" of the species does not reproduce then they have done nothing for the perpetuation of the species.
If a serial killer doesn't reproduce thats not my fault.
That was a "fact" you were trying to throw out in satire of my arguments.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Incorrect. By killing those who provide goods and services to the society you make survival of the species as a whole alittle bit more difficult.
Making life hard is what leads to evolution 😐
Originally posted by Creshosk
How is the speicies perpetuated if the "fitest" are not mentally fit to reproduce?
When did I say that the fittest shouldn't reproduce?