Randall & [chat]kirk (Deceased)

Chanus · November 2011

Thanatos wrote:

Styrofoam Sammich wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

Chanus wrote:

Ludious wrote:

stupid people hold the majority because "smart" people hate kids.

This was a large part of the basis for arguments in favor of eugenics and forced sterilization.

I think eugenics largely gets an unfairly bad rap. Nobody should be forced to be sterilized, but we should absolutely be encouraging people who carry genes with severe developmental disabilities not to have children.

I can see no way in which this might go horribly.

I'm not saying it couldn't go horribly, but there are ways in which personal property can go horribly, too; does that mean we shouldn't have personal property, either?

Weeeeeellllll....

electricitylikesme · November 2011

Abdhyius wrote:

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

There is no point to having children. We just do.

that's just entirely 100% not true and definitely not how evolution works at all.

No. That is exactly how evolution works. We don't have children because it's "the right thing to do." We have children because if we didn't we'd be extinct. That's the entire reason.

"We just do" is not the reason. Like I said: we have children to propagate our own genes.

Why on earth did you even protest against that? That's a really odd thing to think is weird.

Because you said it like propagating your genes was somehow important.

It is until the Dollhouse finishes the remote imprint device. Then I'll just propagate my mind a 50ft radius at a time.

... I have said too much.

Abdhyius · November 2011

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

There is no point to having children. We just do.

that's just entirely 100% not true and definitely not how evolution works at all.

No. That is exactly how evolution works. We don't have children because it's "the right thing to do." We have children because if we didn't we'd be extinct. That's the entire reason.

"We just do" is not the reason. Like I said: we have children to propagate our own genes.

Why on earth did you even protest against that? That's a really odd thing to think is weird.

Because you said it like propagating your genes was somehow important.

But it is. That's what evolution is all about

Evolutionarily speaking it is the only thing that matters.

why should we care about evolution? We're smart, now. We can think about things like this.

Dread Pirate Arbuthnot · November 2011

Kitten is now stretched out on my bed happily farting the most foul fucking farts I have ever smelled in my entire life.

Thanatos · November 2011

spool32 wrote:

Ludious wrote:

Than is literally just a mirror-universe villain.

He has an underwater lair off the coast of Washington.

God, I wish; that would be so awesome.

Or one in the heart of Mount Rainier.

tyrannus · November 2011

obviously the next stage of human evolution is human augmentation

Echo · November 2011

Abdhyius wrote:

Daxon wrote:

Feral wrote:

Honestly, I'm pro-choice, but I generally see the only reasonable choices as being zero, one, and maybe two.

That's not sustainable though. Valid choices have to be 0, 1, 2 and 3. Need to work in that 2.1/woman average.

It is because it's not for the entire planet.

On that note, the other day I read that Hans Rosling showed that reducing child mortality curbs population growth.

Feral · November 2011

Wow, I deal with work for 30 minutes and I get strawmanned three or four times. Good show, guys.

Thomamelas · November 2011

Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote:

Kitten is now stretched out on my bed happily farting the most foul fucking farts I have ever smelled in my entire life.

It's rude to blame the cat for those.

Daxon · November 2011

Abdhyius wrote:

when you say "it wouldn't work, at all" are you sure you mean it wouldn't work at all

a 100% of genetic diseases is not caused by new mutations.

A certain percentage of every single genetic disease will be caused by new mutations.

It wouldn't work in the slightest bit, there's will always be a section of the population with a genetic disease.

Ludious · November 2011

Dark_Side wrote:

Ludious wrote:

[chat] never gets dumber than when talking about children

Man, you are trying reaaaaaallly hard to nail yourself to that child rearing cross. Why don't you go enjoy your damn kids and leave the neck beardy bitter kid haters to their own devices.

The Duggars bring up interesting questions in regards to how many children are necessary, how many are irresponsible, or if we should be having any at all given then current size of the human race. And as the race continues to grow, these questions are only going to get asked more and more. And it's ok to debate that without people going into histrionics about "how dare you say my 3rd child is wasteful!"

but that's exactly what people are saying. -they- said it. not me.

Elendil · November 2011

I'm not so narcissistic as to believe my genes must be perpetuated for the good of the species

there I said it

21stCentury · November 2011

Thanatos wrote:

spool32 wrote:

Ludious wrote:

Than is literally just a mirror-universe villain.

He has an underwater lair off the coast of Washington.

God, I wish; that would be so awesome.

Or one in the heart of Mount Rainier.

Yeah, I'm betting your lair looks more like Dr Horrible's...

Do you have a henchman yet? I could probably do it.

Abdhyius · November 2011

Styrofoam Sammich wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

21stCentury wrote:

Eugenics are complicated. I mean, in theory, with a proper implementation of a eugenics program, couldn't we eradicate certain hereditary diseases?

I mean, yeah, I'm not naive, I know it's just going to end up being used against people for stupid racist or socio-economic reasons, but in theory... could it work?

all it takes is genetic testing for everyone and liberal abortion laws.

Yup after the Mutation Prohibition of 1964 all new genetic mutation stopped.

Yeah, because the only measure of success is "eradicating absolutely all genetic disorders"

I'm just saying that if you let everyone both know what hereditary diseases they have, and let people abort children with those disorders you get less of it

the ethics of it can be debated of course.

Chanus · November 2011

Elendil wrote:

I'm not so narcissistic to believe my genes must be perpetuated for the good of the species

there I said it

Thank goodness.

:bz

skippydumptruck · November 2011

my fetus is the size of a lime today!

Sarksus · November 2011

Regina Fong wrote:

People are so stupid. This dude in my bio class was asking if there is a treatment for zygotes that are the product of either a sperm or egg which divided its chromosomes unequally.

Right after the teacher got done explaining that this is a fatal defect that almost always results in a spontaneous abortion.

And when it doesn't?

Well that's where retards come from.

So, is there a treatment for that? What do you think, kid. Seriously.

That is brave of him to keep looking for a cure like that. I hope they find one for him.

emnmnme · November 2011

Chanus wrote:

So, Bil Keane of Family Circus fame died today.

"Who killed Bil Keane?"

*the Not Me ghost runs by*

Daxon · November 2011

Abdhyius wrote:

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

There is no point to having children. We just do.

that's just entirely 100% not true and definitely not how evolution works at all.

No. That is exactly how evolution works. We don't have children because it's "the right thing to do." We have children because if we didn't we'd be extinct. That's the entire reason.

"We just do" is not the reason. Like I said: we have children to propagate our own genes.

Why on earth did you even protest against that? That's a really odd thing to think is weird.

Because you said it like propagating your genes was somehow important.

But it is. That's what evolution is all about

Evolutionarily speaking it is the only thing that matters.

why should we care about evolution? We're smart, now. We can think about things like this.

Well if you think the propagation of ideas and the workings of your society is more important than the continued survival of your population group then more power to you.

21stCentury · November 2011

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

when you say "it wouldn't work, at all" are you sure you mean it wouldn't work at all

a 100% of genetic diseases is not caused by new mutations.

A certain percentage of every single genetic disease will be caused by new mutations.

It wouldn't work in the slightest bit, there's will always be a section of the population with a genetic disease.

I dunno, I'm guessing eugenics could reduce that % since <100% of genetic diseases are new.

Echo · November 2011

Child mortality is rapidly declining in Tanzania, thanks in part to aid programs that have improved public health and provided access to family planning. Hans and Gapminder World also reveal the surprising relationship between child mortality and population growth – that as fewer children die, families actually get smaller.

http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Topics/Development/Hans-Rosling-Good-News-in-Tanzania

Chanus · November 2011

emnmnme wrote:

Chanus wrote:

So, Bil Keane of Family Circus fame died today.

"Who killed Bil Keane?"

*the Not Me ghost runs by*

Ahahahaha

Mazzyx · November 2011

21stCentury wrote:

Eugenics are complicated. I mean, in theory, with a proper implementation of a eugenics program, couldn't we eradicate certain hereditary diseases?

I mean, yeah, I'm not naive, I know it's just going to end up being used against people for stupid racist or socio-economic reasons, but in theory... could it work?

Lets see outside our knowledge of what causes some genetic diseases is really really minimal. Carriers can go on for generations before you meet with another carrier thus have the disease show up. Some genetic diseases when as a carrier are positive(looking at you sickle cell). Basically if we had a perfect knowledge of what causes diseases in genetics and were able to predict with perfect accuracy it may work.

But then there is also the problem of just because X person will be born with a lazy eye does that mean they will be a burden on society? I mean does Stephen Hawking having no real functioning body make him a negative on our society as a whole?

Also what is considered a disease? Are we wiping out people who have a higher chance of having depression or just those with a high chance of Lou Gehrig's Disease? So even with perfect knowledge, no eugenics does not create a net positive for human civilization.

Thomamelas · November 2011

skippydumptruck wrote:

my fetus is the size of a lime today!

That's a pretty good sized baby hedgehog. He's gonna be a bigun.

electricitylikesme · November 2011

It's interesting to think that something like ~5% of all the entities you would ever define as homo sapien, that have ever lived, are presently alive today.

Daxon · November 2011

Ludious wrote:

Dark_Side wrote:

Ludious wrote:

[chat] never gets dumber than when talking about children

Man, you are trying reaaaaaallly hard to nail yourself to that child rearing cross. Why don't you go enjoy your damn kids and leave the neck beardy bitter kid haters to their own devices.

The Duggars bring up interesting questions in regards to how many children are necessary, how many are irresponsible, or if we should be having any at all given then current size of the human race. And as the race continues to grow, these questions are only going to get asked more and more. And it's ok to debate that without people going into histrionics about "how dare you say my 3rd child is wasteful!"

but that's exactly what people are saying. -they- said it. not me.

Not everyone said it, Lud. I didn't say that.

Styrofoam Sammich · November 2011

Thanatos wrote:

Styrofoam Sammich wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

Chanus wrote:

Ludious wrote:

stupid people hold the majority because "smart" people hate kids.

This was a large part of the basis for arguments in favor of eugenics and forced sterilization.

I think eugenics largely gets an unfairly bad rap. Nobody should be forced to be sterilized, but we should absolutely be encouraging people who carry genes with severe developmental disabilities not to have children.

I can see no way in which this might go horribly.

I'm not saying it couldn't go horribly, but there are ways in which personal property can go horribly, too; does that mean we shouldn't have personal property, either?

Are we equating personal property with government encouraged abortions now?

Abdhyius · November 2011

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

when you say "it wouldn't work, at all" are you sure you mean it wouldn't work at all

a 100% of genetic diseases is not caused by new mutations.

A certain percentage of every single genetic disease will be caused by new mutations.

It wouldn't work in the slightest bit, there's will always be a section of the population with a genetic disease.

that's not what "in the slightest bit" means at all!

Would it reduce the occurence of genetic disorders Y/N? If Y, then it would work to some degree. If N then it wouldn't work at all

Organichu · November 2011

i'm sure we all do some things that other [chat]ters consider assholish

chill y'all

Chanus · November 2011

skippydumptruck wrote:

my fetus is the size of a lime today!

If the uterus is the size of a coconut, I feel a song coming on!

Dark_Side · November 2011

Elendil wrote:

I'm not so narcissistic as to believe my genes must be perpetuated for the good of the species

there I said it

It's basically your sole job as a human being. Where things get interesting is how many children do you need to perpetuate that.

Chanus · November 2011

Organichu wrote:

i'm sure we all do some things that other [chat]ters consider assholish

chill y'all

I don't.

I'm a fucking saint.

Sarksus · November 2011

It is real fucking important my genes get out there. I'm gonna donate them to a 1% sperm bank so they cross up with some scientists and models

Abdhyius · November 2011

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

Daxon wrote:

Abdhyius wrote:

There is no point to having children. We just do.

that's just entirely 100% not true and definitely not how evolution works at all.

No. That is exactly how evolution works. We don't have children because it's "the right thing to do." We have children because if we didn't we'd be extinct. That's the entire reason.

"We just do" is not the reason. Like I said: we have children to propagate our own genes.

Why on earth did you even protest against that? That's a really odd thing to think is weird.

Because you said it like propagating your genes was somehow important.

But it is. That's what evolution is all about

Evolutionarily speaking it is the only thing that matters.

why should we care about evolution? We're smart, now. We can think about things like this.

Well if you think the propagation of ideas and the workings of your society is more important than the continued survival of your population group then more power to you.

I do, and you should to, because you're not just any animal you're the smartest one on the planet.

If I had a choice to spread scandinavian social-democracy to the entire world or to spread scandinavian genes to the entire world the choice is obvious

21stCentury · November 2011

Never.

Don't get me down, Bruce.

BeNarwhal · November 2011

On topic:

I intend to have exactly 2 children. They will be adorable, and will annoy those who do not have children of their own.

Off topic:

[chat], I'm about to spend the next couple hours whipping up some simple desserts. Shall I document the process in pictures to illustrate how easy it is to have delicious desserts in your face?

electricitylikesme · November 2011

Sarksus wrote:

It is real fucking important my genes get out there. I'm gonna donate them to a 1% sperm bank so they cross up with some scientists and models

Break into the sperm bank and replace all the storage with yours.

Dark_Side · November 2011

Daxon wrote:

Ludious wrote:

Dark_Side wrote:

Ludious wrote:

[chat] never gets dumber than when talking about children

Man, you are trying reaaaaaallly hard to nail yourself to that child rearing cross. Why don't you go enjoy your damn kids and leave the neck beardy bitter kid haters to their own devices.

The Duggars bring up interesting questions in regards to how many children are necessary, how many are irresponsible, or if we should be having any at all given then current size of the human race. And as the race continues to grow, these questions are only going to get asked more and more. And it's ok to debate that without people going into histrionics about "how dare you say my 3rd child is wasteful!"

but that's exactly what people are saying. -they- said it. not me.

Not everyone said it, Lud. I didn't say that.

No one did, a few made generalized points he decided to take personal because he's quite clearly looking to pick a fight over it.

matt has a problem · November 2011

Chanus wrote:

Organichu wrote:

i'm sure we all do some things that other [chat]ters consider assholish

chill y'all

I don't.

I'm a fucking saint.

Man I'm tired, I read that as "I'm a fucking giant" four times. It made no sense at all.

Bogart · November 2011

I can't believe you said we should murder children live on TV, Feral.

You monster.

Penny Arcade

Randall & [chat]kirk (Deceased)

Posts