A time traveler from the usenet days is here to visit old and poorly formed arguments upon us i see.
i will after i finish this 6000 line (80 column) arpanet missive about how jcl on the system 370 is the future, and how vax/vms is dragging society into decline
I think we need to bring back eugenics. If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized. Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.
I think we need to bring back eugenics. If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized. Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.
I dunno. Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness?
I think we need to bring back eugenics. If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized. Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.
I dunno. Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness?
It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy.
eugenics is the long way around. fascism is much easier: you can let them babble all they want about all ideas being equal right before the rope tightens, permanently refuting their arguments
I think we need to bring back eugenics. If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized. Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.
I dunno. Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness?
It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy.
No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time? I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.
nobody wants to breed with italians
I think we need to bring back eugenics. If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized. Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.
I dunno. Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness?
It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy.
No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time? I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.
That's an interesting idea but scientists today care more a lot about ethical issues than they used to. It's pretty hard just to get approval for testing relatively harmless drugs on human subjects.
Also, humans have long life cycles therefore it'd be pretty hard for a scientist to prove his eugenic theories during his lifetime.
I saw plenty more exceptions in the hot girl threadhigh five
I think we need to bring back eugenics. If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized. Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.
I dunno. Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness?
It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy.
No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time? I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.
That's an interesting idea but scientists today care more a lot about ethical issues than they used to. It's pretty hard just to get approval for testing relatively harmless drugs on human subjects.
Also, humans have long life cycles therefore it'd be pretty hard for a scientist to prove his eugenic theories during his lifetime.
Well, if there were some sort of difference mentally, wouldn't there be some sort of physiological evidence for it that could be discovered? It's sad to say that this is as potentially a valid field as any, but there's no one eloquent enough to be able to start research without being branded as a racist or something. Maybe when society is a little more mature. Or maybe the genome will turn up something. Political correctness sucks.
demi does, but just the bigger guys, so i don't think that counts
exception that proves the rule, dude
guido.gif
I think we need to bring back eugenics. If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized. Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.
I dunno. Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness?
It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy.
No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time? I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.
That's an interesting idea but scientists today care more a lot about ethical issues than they used to. It's pretty hard just to get approval for testing relatively harmless drugs on human subjects.
Also, humans have long life cycles therefore it'd be pretty hard for a scientist to prove his eugenic theories during his lifetime.
Well, if there were some sort of difference mentally, wouldn't there be some sort of physiological evidence for it that could be discovered? It's sad to say that this is as potentially a valid field as any, but there's no one eloquent enough to be able to start research without being branded as a racist or something. Maybe when society is a little more mature. Or maybe the genome will turn up something. Political correctness sucks.
Well, you'd also have to rule out other factors that might affect IQ development. It's a pretty hard experiment to do considering you can't treat humans like lab rats and humans do many unpredictable things.
I think we need to bring back eugenics. If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized. Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.
I dunno. Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness?
It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy.
No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time? I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.
That's an interesting idea but scientists today care more a lot about ethical issues than they used to. It's pretty hard just to get approval for testing relatively harmless drugs on human subjects.
Also, humans have long life cycles therefore it'd be pretty hard for a scientist to prove his eugenic theories during his lifetime.
Well, if there were some sort of difference mentally, wouldn't there be some sort of physiological evidence for it that could be discovered? It's sad to say that this is as potentially a valid field as any, but there's no one eloquent enough to be able to start research without being branded as a racist or something. Maybe when society is a little more mature. Or maybe the genome will turn up something. Political correctness sucks.
Well, you'd also have to rule out other factors that might affect IQ development. It's a pretty hard experiment to do considering you can't treat humans like lab rats and humans do many unpredictable things.
I think under the right conservative reign, we'd be able to use federal prisoners and lifers as lab rats. I think with the right carrot in front of their noses, they'd be willing to offer themselves up for such research. This, of course, rules out studying the developmental angle, and being felons, there'd have to be allowances made for them not being "normal" people, but it would be a starting point, and once any solid, promising evidence was found, i think doors for research might open elsewhere.
exception that proves the rule, dude
guido.gif
You know, I always wondered about that phrase. If something has an exception, then technically, wouldn't it not be a rule? /randomderail
I think we need to bring back eugenics. If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized. Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.
I dunno. Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness?
It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy.
No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time? I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.
That's an interesting idea but scientists today care more a lot about ethical issues than they used to. It's pretty hard just to get approval for testing relatively harmless drugs on human subjects.
Also, humans have long life cycles therefore it'd be pretty hard for a scientist to prove his eugenic theories during his lifetime.
Well, if there were some sort of difference mentally, wouldn't there be some sort of physiological evidence for it that could be discovered? It's sad to say that this is as potentially a valid field as any, but there's no one eloquent enough to be able to start research without being branded as a racist or something. Maybe when society is a little more mature. Or maybe the genome will turn up something. Political correctness sucks.
Well, you'd also have to rule out other factors that might affect IQ development. It's a pretty hard experiment to do considering you can't treat humans like lab rats and humans do many unpredictable things.
I think under the right conservative reign, we'd be able to use federal prisoners and lifers as lab rats. I think with the right carrot in front of their noses, they'd be willing to offer themselves up for such research. This, of course, rules out studying the developmental angle, and being felons, there'd have to be allowances made for them not being "normal" people, but it would be a starting point, and once any solid, promising evidence was found, i think doors for research might open elsewhere.
Genetically, it'd also be pretty hard to explain the significance of your experiments. Did the "dumb" genes (actually alleles) come from the father, mother or is it a recombination of both, etc?
I don't think modern scientists would accept the sorta theory you have, unless it's backed up by biochemical evidence.
Let's replace the parties.
It's funny how creationists and evolutionists are the same. Both groups are extremely arrogant and think they have it ALL figured out, belittle anyone else's beliefs, and have an unhealthy obsession with arguing. THEY'RE THE SAME
And? Should we become agnostic? Should we withhold judgment. Should we shrug our shoulders and say "both groups make compelling arguments"?
A middle of the road position may seem more reasonable, but it's not.
Quotei will after i finish this 6000 line (80 column) arpanet missive about how jcl on the system 370 is the future, and how vax/vms is dragging society into decline
i managed to recreate Jetpac and manic miner using JUST DCL on dec/vax mainframe.
can i do the same with JCL? can i fuck! because JCL is fucking horrible and the fact i have had to use it for 8 years in this job and 1 year in another job annoys the shit out of me after 4 years uni/4 years VAXing.
oh vax - i could get you to do anything...
JCL DIE DIE DIE.QuoteIt kind of annoys me when a higher power is ruled out, when literally, we can't even observe 97% of the universe made up of dark matter/energy that supposedly moves galaxies.
we can't see it !
we don't understand it!
it's so complex
then that MUST show some sort of god!
here, we have this book too! :O
we can't observe -expected- scientific results , theres a big gap to "oh wait, but there was this creator who just made all of it. No sorry, no proof. Did i mention this book we have?"
There's simply not enough information, or knowledge capability of our pitiful little organism to make assumptions like that.
I can breed the christianity out of christians. Just give me a gallon of PCP sprayed onto a bale of hay and the tender loins of Mabel from What's Happening. Eugenics will make all right in the world.I actually laughed out loud at this :bow
It's amazing that someone who belongs to the Catholic "bring us your boys" church can throw around the arrogant elitist label. smh.
QuoteThere's simply not enough information, or knowledge capability of our pitiful little organism to make assumptions like that.
so you're an agnostic
or a disingenuous believer looking for a rhetorical escape hatch
QuoteMy problem is what authority is there to device a solid argument on it when there are those gaps? It's kinda like turning on the TV to a basketball game for 5 seconds, not seeing the score. Turning it off for an hour, turning it back on for another 5 seconds. OK, now make your argument to which team won based off that. There's simply not enough information, or knowledge capability of our pitiful little organism to make assumptions like that. That sure doesn't keep certain people from being arrogant about it though.
... and christians aren't?
they have the least evidence of ANYONE yet they are pointing the finger and asking for -more- evidence from everyone else!
that's the HEIGHT of arrogance!
Christians in this analogy don't even see the game
their claim is "well, i hear there was this game of something on some channel - no one recorded it and we have no evidence , just hearsay... and what evidence do you have as to who won?"
More lions, less christians please.
so you don't have an opinion and are therefore agnostic. why do you need to be a catholic then?
QuoteBecause I would like to know more information to have an opinion on something makes me arrogant? WTF? Christianity doesn't have anything to do with that, BTW. And isn't this the same argument thats been going on the past several years with the Iraq War? "Let's not be arrogant here, Iraq has WMD's, no need to wait for evidence. Fuck em, lets invade that shit."
you need an opinion based on facts and info to make up your mind about the other side? Why not apply that to christianity? :baffle.
no , this is not the same as Iraq at all - that's just using a completely unrelated analogy to try and pain doubt on something there is actual -evidence- for. Do not mix SCIENCE with POLITICS.
note : i was raised a roman catholic, in a strong irish catholic family. I was left to my own devices to figure all this out, but having a good education and a grounding in science makes believing in the Catholic God very very unlikely. I'm open to the idea of some sort of supreme conciousness or whatever, but MANMADE attempts to put this into some sort of packagable religion are, quite frankly, laughable.
Can you give me any evidence to the contrary as to why catholicism shouldn't be laughed out of existance?
and if you mention morality collapsing if there is no ultimate punishment, i will reach through the internet and shit on your face.QuoteWell, a good part of it is on faith. Maybe I don't have a darn reason or proof to believe this way, but I think there's probably an afterlife for those who look for it. More than that, I think the Bible is a pretty good book on parables with meanings on just about everything. Not that I go to it often and read it, but there's some pretty good lessons in it.
pretty good lessons != there is a god.
i am but a simple man who lives for the small things
how did this line religion survive years of persecution?
Not like there are other organized religions with equally extensive pasts still present in the contemporary world or anything
QuoteThe in's and out's of it are interesting how so many ancient religions are around, and supernatural events documented in each, whether you believe them or not.
why did these supernatural events stop occuring after we got out of that weird "what one person writes is fact" time? anyone have any ideas?!
i am but a simple man who lives for the small things
So you're saying god has a small cock.
I can respect that.
how did this line religion survive years of persecution?
Not like there are other organized religions with equally extensive pasts still present in the contemporary world or anything
Didn't say there weren't. Maybe its being helped along by ET's who just want to fuck with people or a higher power that is doing it all over and there's just different paths. Who knows? Just saying, some people tend to sound like you write a book and suddenly have a longterm religion. The in's and out's of it are interesting how so many ancient religions are around, and supernatural events documented in each, whether you believe them or not.
QuoteMaybe these beliefs came out of thin air and everyone just started to believe and they did.
if you do some research, you'll find that almost all the belief systems/stories presented in the bible are derived from even older sources and other stories.
the bible and the religion is pretty much a culmination of a whole history of stories and teachings passed down for multiple generation, most of which are fundamentally simple pointers to being a good person.
That doesn't make the teachings of the bible wrong - i fundamentally believe that the teachings are all sound, however, i don't see how or why attaching a God to these is necessary - at all. The notion presented usually in this case is there is nothing forcing someone to be "good" if there is no divine punishment - i believe this to be a completely empty argument.QuoteAs for Jesus, maybe its one big joke - maybe the guy was just killed and that was it. But I find it odd that during those teams there were tons of revolutionary messianic sects, and *this* one just happened to survive. Why would the disciples go spread this after the leader died? Yet, how did this line religion survive years of persecution? I doubt "Laughter" is going to push the Christian religion out of existence when years of persecution from the Roman Empire and other hierarchies couldn't.
it survived and prospered simply because it did or there were controlling factors. You mention christianity, but what is your thoughts on Islam - it's survived longer than christianity and has billions of followers. Who is right? Them or you? there are overlaps of course , but they aren't strictly compatible. Indian gods have been around for similar sorts of times too - why did they survive? what are your thoughts on them?
Christianity can survive as long as it wants, as long as it doesn't interfere with the SCIENTIFIC progress of mankind, then go for it. The second it does, you can all go fuck yourselves.