Originally Posted by lordlactose

A feel like I am talking to a brick wall. What I say just simply goes over your head and goes miscomprehended and you repeat what you already said which I proved wrong earlier in this thread. Why talk to someone who will never understand.

Originally Posted by Caltex

Your signature explicitly promotes eugenics. First you must realize, survival of the fittest and eugenics are based on completely different principles.

Eugenics is based on the leadership of a country deciding what traits are beneficial and what are not wanted. Eugenics is itself inherently racist, because human nature lends people to prefer those like them to those different. Eugenics always results in ethnic cleansing, rather then actual genetic furthering. Eugenics limits personal choice, and infringes on the rights of those found to be less favorable.

Don't you think the American people are capable of electing leaders that would use non racial restrictions? You use the word always but if you read wikipedias article on Eugenics the only Western country that used racial eugenics was Germany. The united states, Japan, Sweden, australia, canada, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, France and many other Western countries used laws to prevent the mentaly ill and retarded from reproducing. How is that racial? Everybody became close minded because the Nazis used racial Eugenics. Note in my sig it says non racial eugenics.

Survival of the fittest, or Social Darwinism, is the belief that in a pure competition the strong and weak of a population will separate, leaving the weak behind, and the society will self propel itself to a better gene pool. No government intervention, or top group of elites necessary to determine what should be had and what should not.

Socialism, obviously is counter to social Darwinism, the weakest of society will be propped up. But the thing is, Humans unlike the animal kingdom, have developed the emotion of empathy. They do not like to see the suffering of their fellow man. That is the root of socialism, more or less.

Yes stop their children's suffering by not letting them be raised in homes where there is no food by mentally retarded or diseased parents! Imagine if you were raised by a felon who abused you. Then what would you think of eugenics?

You don't get very far advocating the furtherance of evolution by advocating eugenics. Eugenics is man-made manipulation of evolution, and can result in as much devolution as propping up the weakest of society, as it is based more on a collectivist mentality, then one of actual progress.


Besides in 100 years it won't matter anyways. Genetic Engineers will be progressed far enough to create super humans. Like in the movie GATTACA.

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Note to the thread

I've been allowing this "character" to go on posting here because I think that the forum needs a few racists around (one black, one white, maybe one Arab racist too). The stuff about people being inferior and whatnot is just an amusement to me, but this stuff:



Could be considered a very personal insult to people who are actually poor, or have some handicapped people in their household. If there are any such people, just let me know by private message and I will get rid of this character right on the spot.

No wander these forums are dead compared to other ones. The mods ban people for disagreeing, now I know why everyone goes to the other political forums instead.

WEB

Originally Posted by MountainMike

Mother Theresa's life's mission was to serve the disabled and poor as if they were Christ. I suppose you think she was retarded?

Originally Posted by Caltex

Your signature explicitly promotes eugenics. First you must realize, survival of the fittest and eugenics are based on completely different principles.

Eugenics is based on the leadership of a country deciding what traits are beneficial and what are not wanted. Eugenics is itself inherently racist, because human nature lends people to prefer those like them to those different. Eugenics always results in ethnic cleansing, rather then actual genetic furthering. Eugenics limits personal choice, and infringes on the rights of those found to be less favorable.

Survival of the fittest, or Social Darwinism, is the belief that in a pure competition the strong and weak of a population will separate, leaving the weak behind, and the society will self propel itself to a better gene pool. No government intervention, or top group of elites necessary to determine what should be had and what should not.

Socialism, obviously is counter to social Darwinism, the weakest of society will be propped up. But the thing is, Humans unlike the animal kingdom, have developed the emotion of empathy. They do not like to see the suffering of their fellow man. That is the root of socialism, more or less.

You don't get very far advocating the furtherance of evolution by advocating eugenics. Eugenics is man-made manipulation of evolution, and can result in as much devolution as propping up the weakest of society, as it is based more on a collectivist mentality, then one of actual progress.

Besides in 100 years it won't matter anyways. Genetic Engineers will be progressed far enough to create super humans. Like in the movie GATTACA.

Originally Posted by lordlactose

wow hmmm. I have nothing against mentally retarded people or poor people. So don't try and make me out to be a racist when I am not, especially if you have NO evidence that I am.

Let me ask you this would YOU want to be raised in a home where there was no food? Would you want to be raised by mentally retarded parents or suffer from mentally retardation. I obviously like the handicapped more than you because I wan tto ease their suffering.