www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote: All well and good, but htat doesn't address my point - how do legislate primal, archetypal behavioral motivations? Besides, half the problem is that someone gets to decide. There are members of my family who died very early because someone in Poland in 1940 decided that Jews weren't beneficial to the populace of the land that Germany had conquered.

Sorry you don't think it addresses your point but I think it does. We just have a different opinion on it. No one is talking murder.

You wouldn't. I lost my job in May of 2007, and didn't find work again until the winter. I suppose my daughter should have been taken away?

If you read what I said then you'd know I never said anything about taking already born children away. Birth control for government assistance. Once you got your job you'd be able to have more kids. The children you have would still be yours. Tsuk could argue that he wouldn't be around if that was the case since that might have postponed his being born. That's a philosophical question though on if he'd be here today or not.

My personal opinion is that sterilization is murder. It is preventing a human from having the right to exist. I dont give a damn if they are stupid or moronic, that doesn't mean they cant exist. If they are criminals, fine. But they are punished AFTER the crime. Prove to me that you can genetically tell a criminal as a child. If you cant, they have a right to live UNTIL they commit the crime.

The 'abortion' thread should be back in this one I think since we weren't talking about abortion at all.

Monroe wrote:If you read what I said then you'd know I never said anything about taking already born children away.

I know you didn't. But the next guy might. The best way to stop the slide down that slippery slope is to never stand on the slope at all.

Mikey wrote:

Monroe wrote:If you read what I said then you'd know I never said anything about taking already born children away.

I know you didn't. But the next guy might. The best way to stop the slide down that slippery slope is to never stand on the slope at all.

There's a lot of things that have a danger of being turned into a dangerous slope. It could happen sure, but the alternative is over population and the eventual collapse of our ability to sustain ourselves. And the stupidification of humanity.

In which case, natural - not artificial - pressures would once again kick in. The determining process should be "natural selection," not "some guy's selection."

Mikey wrote:In which case, natural - not artificial - pressures would once again kick in.

Those pressures you refer to would be the deaths of huge swaves of living people to protect the rights of not even the unborn but the unmade. Any bacteria if you give plenty of food will continue to exceed at an exponential rate until that food is cut or the waste levels get too high and that bacteria crashes horribly quick killing the majority of it. I'd like to think that we're more intelligent than a single celled organism.

Monroe wrote:Those pressures you refer to would be the deaths of huge swaves of living people to protect the rights of not even the unborn but the unmade.

No. Perhaps you mean it would protect the lives of those unborn and unmade; but the rights it would protect are those of everyone alive.

Monroe wrote:Any bacteria if you give plenty of food will continue to exceed at an exponential rate until that food is cut or the waste levels get too high and that bacteria crashes horribly quick killing the majority of it. I'd like to think that we're more intelligent than a single celled organism.

Well, pick a position. On one hand you rail against the way we have as a species outraced or avoided natural selection; and on the other you say that we should have evolved past the need for natural selection. Why should the same forces that shape all of the rest of nature not apply to us?

I, for one, wish natural selection were more prevalent in our society.

Mikey wrote:
Well, pick a position. On one hand you rail against the way we have as a species outraced or avoided natural selection; and on the other you say that we should have evolved past the need for natural selection. Why should the same forces that shape all of the rest of nature not apply to us?

Its the same position. I probably should have added after I'd like to think... but we all know that won't happen without government intervention.

In which case, natural - not artificial - pressures would once again kick in. The determining process should be "natural selection," not "some guy's selection."

I'd like to point out that this still wouldn't bring about natural selection. It'd bring about wealth selection. The rich would survive, due solely to the fact that they have the money to purchase whatever scarce resources they desire, while poorer but perhaps smarter and fitter people would fall victim to starvation and illness. You'd end up with a small population of rich idiots with no clue how to go about things.

Reliant121 wrote:I admit that I am not fully aware of the Eugenics conventions, but I believe I would have been "eliminated".

I think we need idiots. Entertainment.

And I'd be out of a job if there weren't any!

Rochey wrote:

In which case, natural - not artificial - pressures would once again kick in. The determining process should be "natural selection," not "some guy's selection."

I'd like to point out that this still wouldn't bring about natural selection. It'd bring about wealth selection. The rich would survive, due solely to the fact that they have the money to purchase whatever scarce resources they desire, while poorer but perhaps smarter and fitter people would fall victim to starvation and illness. You'd end up with a small population of rich idiots with no clue how to go about things.

How is that different from the fact that the raven with the most shiny objects gets to mate more?

Mikey wrote:

Rochey wrote:

In which case, natural - not artificial - pressures would once again kick in. The determining process should be "natural selection," not "some guy's selection."

I'd like to point out that this still wouldn't bring about natural selection. It'd bring about wealth selection. The rich would survive, due solely to the fact that they have the money to purchase whatever scarce resources they desire, while poorer but perhaps smarter and fitter people would fall victim to starvation and illness. You'd end up with a small population of rich idiots with no clue how to go about things.

How is that different from the fact that the raven with the most shiny objects gets to mate more?

Uzume got really pissed off at me once for stating that women are like ravens; they fixate on shiny objects.