Summoning is awful....

[1dhunter]

I respected you compfreak and I seriously hope your just kidding but your ideas are a bit offensive... You have literally no clue what your talking about. You may know a lot about science, computers and rs but this is exactly the same way the nazi's started thinking and we know what happened...

 

 

 

Just think for a second about what you said... :shame:

 

I said less intelligent people should adopt instead of reproduce to replicate natural selection. The other alternative is to let all the week and sick die as would be standard had we not evolved medical technology. Which one is more humane?

 

 

 

this is what you said

 

 

Gah. I believe in my plan to save humanity. The 30% of the population with the lowest IQ should be chemically castrated, at no charge, when him or her turns 14, the age when the test can be accurately performed. This will be the equivalent of vacuuming off the proverbial scum from the gene pool, with a good dose of chlorine thrown in. It'll speed up natural selection, and quickly increase our intelligence until within a few dozen generations all humans are operating at a level above what is considered 'genius' to this generation.

 

 

 

 

You didn't say less intelligent people should adopt, you said they should be castrated. You don't think they have the right to get children like you do?(don't know if you got kids btw) Just because your smarter? You know the germans tried it and they failed? You know the intellect of a person is not the intelligence of someones parents combinated? You know a lot of intelligent people (I mean academical, university and stuff) don't have 'superhumanchildren'? You know intelligence is like a circle where being a genius meets being insane?(like a clock where 12h/0h is in fact the same time...) You believe in human rights? You think some superhuman would like to do all your dirty jobs? You know your pointing to a future where the limit to get children would raise and your (love)life would always be a race to pass for your exams? You think such a fear save humanity? You think natural selection has anything to do with this? A lot of this 'less intelligent people' are better prepared to survive this world compared to someone like you? You know a lot of them would be able to survive when your superintelligent people wouldn't? Do you really want some physical exams to create the ultimate human? Your deeply religious (as you said..), would your god accept this?

 

 

 

Got some more questions but I'd like to have some answers at this ones first...

 

 

 

p.s. IMO your post is a perfect example of an adult posting something immature....

[compfreak847]

this is what you said

 

Gee, thanks for proving my point.

 

 

 

You didn't say less intelligent people should adopt, you said they should be castrated.

 

Actually, that's exactly what they said. Nothing wrong with adoption.

 

 

 

You don't think they have the right to get children like you do?(don't know if you got kids btw)

 

I do, and what about the tens of thousands of children who die every day that could be adopted?

 

 

 

You know the intellect of a person is not the intelligence of someones parents combinated?

 

There is sold proof that stuipd parents produce offspring that is, on average, less intelligent then the offspring of smart parents.

 

 

 

You believe in human rights?

 

Yep, that's why no rights violations are taking place.

 

 

 

You think some superhuman would like to do all your dirty jobs?

 

Uhh, where did this come from?

 

 

 

You know your pointing to a future where the limit to get children would raise and your (love)life would always be a race to pass for your exams?

 

No it wouldn't, if I was unintelligent I'd adopt instead. It's that simple.

 

 

 

You think such a fear save humanity?

 

I don't even know what your trying to say. If English isn't your first language, get a friend who knows how to speak it and have them post for you.

 

 

 

You think natural selection has anything to do with this?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

 

 

 

Except we're not killing the unfit or affecting their lives, just substituting their children's genes for someone elses.

 

 

 

A lot of this 'less intelligent people' are better prepared to survive this world compared to someone like you? You know a lot of them would be able to survive when your superintelligent people wouldn't?

 

Not a chance, natural selection has turned us into highly intelligent but less physical capable descendants of our dumber, more physically fit ancestors.

 

 

 

Do you really want some physical exams to create the ultimate human?

 

Did I say that anywhere?

 

 

 

Your deeply religious (as you said..), would your god accept this?

 

Of course. Treating all humans with kindness and compassion, and ensuring the rights of none are violated (as wel as saving millions of unadapted children from death) would be the greatest humanitarian act the world has ever known.

 

 

 

 

Got some more questions but I'd like to have some answers at this ones first...

 

Ready and waiting.

 

 

 

 

p.s. IMO your post is a perfect example of an adult posting something immature....

 

Sorry, but just because someone's opinion is different then yours doesn't mean they are immature. Not that adults can't act immature too.

[Sid Icarus]

No it wouldn't, if I was unintelligent I'd adopt instead. It's that simple.

Would you be intelligent enough to adopt if you were unintelligent? \

[compfreak847]

Would you be intelligent enough to adopt if you were unintelligent? \

 

I don't know many people too stupid to know how to adopt, but those people are welcome to live their lives without children if they so desire.

[Zierro]

None of those quotes demonstrated immaturity, just because someone's poking fun at you in a sarcastic manner doesn't make them immature in the sense of long term consequences and planning\decision making skills.

 

 

 

Are you serious? This isn't immature?

 

 

 

Oh, and if you don't like Zierro, you don't want to miss the fireworks in eatrunearrows wildy thread - we have a 13 page argument in which 95% of the posts are the two of us arguing about the meaning of 3 words. He's officially 'given up', but he's still posting responses. If you like him you better help him out, the argument's dying fast

 

 

 

If you can't accept the fact that flaming and spamming is immature, then... Well, that speaks for itself. You never admit when you're wrong, even when you know you are. And contrary to what you believe, that is actually counterproductive to the debating process.

[compfreak847]

 

Are you serious?

 

Yep

 

This isn't immature?

 

Nope

 

 

 

 

If you can't accept the fact that flaming and spamming is immature, then... Well, that speaks for itself. You never admit when you're wrong, even when you know you are. And contrary to what you believe, that is actually counterproductive to the debating process.

 

That was an add on to another post, therefore it was not spam. Every word of it was true and stated in a non-insulting manner, therefore it was not flaming.

[1dhunter]

this is what you said

 

Gee, thanks for proving my point.

 

 

 

Proving MY point only, first you say they should be castrated later saying they should adopt smarter kids? Well, if they are to dumb to get their own children they wouldn't be the best parents for those smart kids?

 

 

 

You didn't say less intelligent people should adopt, you said they should be castrated.

 

Actually, that's exactly what they said. Nothing wrong with adoption.

 

 

 

See above, stupid parents with smart kids is a good combination....

 

 

 

You don't think they have the right to get children like you do?(don't know if you got kids btw)

 

I do, and what about the tens of thousands of children who die every day that could be adopted?

 

 

 

I've got no idea what your trying to say here.... dieing children could be adapted by parents when they cant get their own kids because of e.g. infertility?

 

 

 

You know the intellect of a person is not the intelligence of someones parents combinated?

 

There is sold proof that stuipd parents produce offspring that is, on average, less intelligent then the offspring of smart parents.

 

 

 

Actually, thats surprisingly incorrect.

 

 

 

You believe in human rights?

 

Yep, that's why no rights violations are taking place.

 

 

 

This is just plain bs. You want me to search for it in a declaration of human rights? That means nothing to you?

 

 

 

You think some superhuman would like to do all your dirty jobs?

 

Uhh, where did this come from?

 

 

 

From what you suggest? Your trying to build a future with 'smarter' persons... (maybe its an idea to read your first post again). All those smart persons won't like to do the simple jobs which still needs to be done..

 

 

 

You know your pointing to a future where the limit to get children would raise and your (love)life would always be a race to pass for your exams?

 

No it wouldn't, if I was unintelligent I'd adopt instead. It's that simple.

 

 

 

It's not that simple. Intelligence isnt a switch. What if your just an average person? Not smart like you but also not really unintelligent? Whould you force such people to adopt instead of getting their 'own' children? What if one of the parents is a smart person and the other is unintelligent?

 

 

 

You think such a fear save humanity?

 

I don't even know what your trying to say. If English isn't your first language, get a friend who knows how to speak it and have them post for you.

 

 

 

English isnt my first language indeed:( (save = saves btw) ad hominems aren't very good arguments....

 

What I meant is: the fear of being not smart enough for getting your own children. Don't forget many couples would like to get children, their own children... (yea, adoption is a good choice if you can't get them.) Maybe that means nothing to you?

 

 

 

You think natural selection has anything to do with this?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

 

 

 

Except we're not killing the unfit or affecting their lives, just substituting their children's genes for someone elses.

 

 

 

I don't have to rad wiki's about natural selection, thats part of my study... Your forcing nature to move in the direction you want, doesnt sound like it has ANYTHING to do with natural selection.

 

 

 

A lot of this 'less intelligent people' are better prepared to survive this world compared to someone like you? You know a lot of them would be able to survive when your superintelligent people wouldn't?

 

Not a chance, natural selection has turned us into highly intelligent but less physical capable descendants of our dumber, more physically fit ancestors.

 

 

 

Not entirely true. We developed but thats not due to natural selection. Are less intelligent people not capable of living a human life?

 

 

 

Do you really want some physical exams to create the ultimate human?

 

Did I say that anywhere?

 

 

 

Nope, you want to create some sort of intelligence selection so I assumed to do the same with another important factor. Isn't physical condition very important to be succesfull in most areas?

 

 

 

Your deeply religious (as you said..), would your god accept this?

 

Of course. Treating all humans with kindness and compassion, and ensuring the rights of none are violated (as wel as saving millions of unadapted children from death) would be the greatest humanitarian act the world has ever known.

 

 

 

I don't think your god (your christian?) would want you to NOT treat humans with kindness and compassion, violate human rights, discriminate, etc... As I told before you DO violate someones rights and I doubt a less intelligent couple would want to adopt children instead of getting their own?

 

 

 

 

Got some more questions but I'd like to have some answers at this ones first...

 

Ready and waiting.

 

 

 

After reading your comments: you really believe this?

 

You ignored the part where I said the nazi's tried it (and failed).

 

 

 

 

p.s. IMO your post is a perfect example of an adult posting something immature....

 

Sorry, but just because someone's opinion is different then yours doesn't mean they are immature. Not that adults can't act immature too.

 

 

 

Offending other people with no reason at all is a perfect example of immature behaviour.

 

 

 

 

 

p.s. I'm gonna get some sleep so it will take a while before I reply:)

[Zierro]

Now you are making the claims that:

 

 

 

1. You did not insult me.

 

2. Your post was on-topic.

 

 

 

When you make claims like these, people naturally start losing their credibility for you.

[compfreak847]

 

Proving MY point only, first you say they should be castrated later saying they should adopt smarter kids? Well, if they are to dumb to get their own children they wouldn't be the best parents for those smart kids?

 

 

 

See above, stupid parents with smart kids is a good combination....

 

 

Not at all, it was simply an add on to the original post. I believe that a person has a right to raise children if he or she wants to, and that right should not be deprived of them.

 

 

 

 

I've got no idea what your trying to say here.... dieing children could be adapted by parents when they cant get their own kids because of e.g. infertility?

 

Yep.

 

 

 

Actually, thats surprisingly incorrect.

 

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... order=page

 

Here's a source. Where's yours?

 

 

 

 

From what you suggest? Your trying to build a future with 'smarter' persons... (maybe its an idea to read your first post again). All those smart persons won't like to do the simple jobs which still needs to be done..

 

Those smarter people ARE us. Just because your in the top 70% of the population doesn't mean you suddenly don't want to take out the garbage.

 

 

 

This is just plain bs. You want me to search for it in a declaration of human rights? That means nothing to you?

 

Sure, find out what part adoption violates. Then compare that with letting them die.

 

 

 

It's not that simple. Intelligence isnt a switch. What if your just an average person? Not smart like you but also not really unintelligent? Whould you force such people to adopt instead of getting their 'own' children? What if one of the parents is a smart person and the other is unintelligent?

 

Your welcome to marry who you want. If your both average intelligence, you'll have children. If your far below average, you'll adopt. That simple.

 

 

 

English isnt my first language indeed:( (save = saves btw) ad hominems aren't very good arguments....

 

What I meant is: the fear of being not smart enough for getting your own children. Don't forget many couples would like to get children, their own children... (yea, adoption is a good choice if you can't get them.) Maybe that means nothing to you?

 

It wasn't an argument against you, it was an argument against your unreadable sentance. Since you seem to have dropped it, I'll respond to this argument instead. Allowing couples to save childrens lives instead of letting them die sounds like a fair idea to me.

 

 

 

I don't have to rad wiki's about natural selection, thats part of my study... Your forcing nature to move in the direction you want, doesnt sound like it has ANYTHING to do with natural selection.

 

I'm not quite sure what radding wikis are, but I'm not forcing nature to move in the direction I want - it's in the direction of more intelligent. Are we smarter then single celled protozoa? If so, then intelligence is the direction we've been moving throughout the course of nature :roll:

 

 

 

Not entirely true. We developed but thats not due to natural selection. Are less intelligent people not capable of living a human life?

 

Nowdays? Nope. Thankfully, my idea doesn't affect that in any way.

 

 

 

Nope, you want to create some sort of intelligence selection so I assumed to do the same with another important factor. Isn't physical condition very important to be succesfull in most areas?

 

Not any more, or we would be below apes on the pecking order.

 

 

 

I don't think your god (your christian?) would want you to NOT treat humans with kindness and compassion, violate human rights, discriminate, etc... As I told before you DO violate someones rights and I doubt a less intelligent couple would want to adopt children instead of getting their own?

 

Yes, christian. Thankfully, I'm covering all three areas at once - by saving dying children via adoption, I'm far outstripping the 'violations' of having parents children be non-hereditary.

 

 

 

 

After reading your comments: you really believe this?

 

You ignored the part where I said the nazi's tried it (and failed).

 

Yeah, I did. Could you quote a source on that? I don't remember adoption being a part of the holocaust.

 

 

 

Offending other people with no reason at all is a perfect example of immature behaviour.

 

I stated the facts. It's his fault if he takes offense to them.

[Alg]

There really is more to talent than intelligence, though. Somebody who isn't good at problem solving, yet is a great mechanic, author, musician, etc. Would still benefit society.

 

 

 

I'm also not sure those are inheritable traits. It sounds almost like this

[compfreak847]

There really is more to talent than intelligence, though. Somebody who isn't good at problem solving, yet is a great mechanic, author, musician, etc. Would still benefit society.

 

 

 

I'm also not sure those are inheritable traits. It sounds almost like this

 

But since we're not removing those people, they are still contributing. And if indeed they won't pass their creative talent down to their children, we wouldn't need to worry about it anyway - you don't hear much about Bach's children.

[Alg]

There really is more to talent than intelligence, though. Somebody who isn't good at problem solving, yet is a great mechanic, author, musician, etc. Would still benefit society.

 

 

 

I'm also not sure those are inheritable traits. It sounds almost like this

 

But since we're not removing those people, they are still contributing. And if indeed they won't pass their creative talent down to their children, we wouldn't need to worry about it anyway - you don't hear much about Bach's children.

 

Nor do you hear much about Einstein's, really.

[compfreak847]

Now you are making the claims that:

 

 

 

1. You did not insult me.

 

I stated the facts without a positive or negative spin. Need I point out the countless times you've tried to flame me?

 

 

2. Your post was on-topic.

 

I was responding to Inushakent. Are you trying to say your numerous posts about how your feelings were hurt are more on topic?

 

When you make claims like these, people naturally start losing their credibility for you.

 

And I care why? So long as I'm right, it really doesn't bother what children one-third my age think of me on an online forum. Follow my arguments and you won't need to worry about credibility. Make up my arguments and you might.

 

 

 

 

Nor do you hear much about Einstein's, really.

 

Nope, exceptional genius is very rarely inherited. But regular intelligence is roughly 3/4ths inherited. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritanc ... telligence

[Bassy]

How does it drain money? Dude, you just gotta' know the rate to train it. I just got level 79 Summoning today, and to celebrate I spent most of the money I've MADE from Summoning on a Dragonfire Shield. Summoning seems to be a great skill in that it MAKES you work for the levels, and it punishes you a lot financially if you try to rush it.

 

 

 

The only real issue I have is the fact that Jagex disfavors the secondary ingredients through prices. I don't think it's right that Polar Kebbit Fur, which you don't even need 2 Hunter levels for, is 2k each because of its use to level 71+ Summoners (which under 40k people have). That's what I call a bias. :shame:

[compfreak847]

The only real issue I have is the fact that Jagex disfavors the secondary ingredients through prices. I don't think it's right that Polar Kebbit Fur, which you don't even need 2 Hunter levels for, is 2k each because of its use to level 71+ Summoners (which under 40k people have). That's what I call a bias. :shame:

 

Jagex doesn't control the prices, we do...

[Nomrombom]

Rofl, how the hell did a topic on summoning turn into an argument about eugenics? Seriously, wtf? But whatever, it's quite interesting to watch people smack other people down, like you guys did to me. :oops: :

[compfreak847]

Rofl, how the hell did a topic on summoning turn into an argument about eugenics? Seriously, wtf? But whatever, it's quite interesting to watch people smack other people down, like you guys did to me. :oops: :

 

Bad first post = quick switch to off topicness

[Ravenkana]

Compfreak, I have come to issue a warning unto thee.

 

 

 

Once, long ago, was a mighty poster. A fount of knowledge, wisdom, and good. He fought trolls, enlightened the ignorant, helped the inexperienced, gave sound advice, and generally gave an even, unbiased opinion on updates or aspects of the game. But then, something... changed. Taint entered the waters of knowledge. At first, it was hardly noticeable. That mighty templar was usually for justice, but was just a bit shorter with people, a bit more snarky in replies. But the decay continued bit by bit. He retained his mighty intellect, but it was warped... almost beyond recognition. In the end, it was not pretty. The last time I heard from him here was to berate the mockers of a gold purchaser who was hacked. The time before, it was him against twenty others, arguing over some petty rule. I have yet to see him since. His name? It may be familiar, and most likely is, but I shall but hint at it. It began with a Q.

 

 

 

So yea, though I may be wrong, I see this same bitterness creeping into you, clinging to you. I give this not as a rebuke, but as a warning: turn back before it is too late. Enlighten for the sake of enlightenment, not for superiority. Keep thine opinions more closely to thyself. Thou shalt not mock others for the sake of cruelty and, above all else, THOU SHALT ADMIT THY FAULTS! For hubris is the greatest of faults...

[1dhunter]

 

Proving MY point only, first you say they should be castrated later saying they should adopt smarter kids? Well, if they are to dumb to get their own children they wouldn't be the best parents for those smart kids?

 

 

 

See above, stupid parents with smart kids is a good combination....

 

 

Not at all, it was simply an add on to the original post. I believe that a person has a right to raise children if he or she wants to, and that right should not be deprived of them.

 

 

 

they do have the right to get their own children AND to raise children.

 

 

 

 

I've got no idea what your trying to say here.... dieing children could be adapted by parents when they cant get their own kids because of e.g. infertility?

 

Yep.

 

 

 

Where do all those children come from? They would die if they wouldn't be adopted? wth :ohnoes: :shock:

 

 

 

A lot of children are adapted every year, not only by smart people but also by less intelligent couples...

 

Actually, thats surprisingly incorrect.

 

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... order=page

 

Here's a source. Where's yours?

 

 

 

couple of examples:

 

albert einstein

 

isaac newton

 

 

 

need more?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From what you suggest? Your trying to build a future with 'smarter' persons... (maybe its an idea to read your first post again). All those smart persons won't like to do the simple jobs which still needs to be done..

 

Those smarter people ARE us. Just because your in the top 70% of the population doesn't mean you suddenly don't want to take out the garbage.

 

 

 

Your plan was to stop that 'garbage' from getting children in order to make sure mankind's stupidity. That means you want to decrease the amount of unintelligent person being born every year. This is just another way of taking out 'garbage'. Using the word 'garbage' is not appropriate...

 

 

 

This is just plain bs. You want me to search for it in a declaration of human rights? That means nothing to you?

 

Sure, find out what part adoption violates. Then compare that with letting them die.

 

 

 

Adoption doesn't violate any laws. The restriction of not being allowed to get your own children does violate laws. Solid proof: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.htm Read article 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 16.

 

 

 

It's not that simple. Intelligence isnt a switch. What if your just an average person? Not smart like you but also not really unintelligent? Whould you force such people to adopt instead of getting their 'own' children? What if one of the parents is a smart person and the other is unintelligent?

 

Your welcome to marry who you want. If your both average intelligence, you'll have children. If your far below average, you'll adopt. That simple.

 

 

 

What is the limit for this getting children? There will be a huge amount of persons around that limit? Don't you think they will be afraid of not being allowed to get their own children?

 

 

 

English isnt my first language indeed:( (save = saves btw) ad hominems aren't very good arguments....

 

What I meant is: the fear of being not smart enough for getting your own children. Don't forget many couples would like to get children, their own children... (yea, adoption is a good choice if you can't get them.) Maybe that means nothing to you?

 

 

 

It wasn't an argument against you, it was an argument against your unreadable sentance. Since you seem to have dropped it, I'll respond to this argument instead. Allowing couples to save childrens lives instead of letting them die sounds like a fair idea to me.

 

 

 

I don't have to rad wiki's about natural selection, thats part of my study... Your forcing nature to move in the direction you want, doesnt sound like it has ANYTHING to do with natural selection.

 

I'm not quite sure what radding wikis are, but I'm not forcing nature to move in the direction I want - it's in the direction of more intelligent. Are we smarter then single celled protozoa? If so, then intelligence is the direction we've been moving throughout the course of nature :roll:

 

 

 

I'm not that sure if that's the direction if you can't read my sentences if there's a 1 letter typo? Your only smarter then a single celled protozoa? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Not bigger, stronger, being able to do a lot of stuff which the protozoa can't do?

 

 

 

 

 

Not entirely true. We developed but thats not due to natural selection. Are less intelligent people not capable of living a human life?

 

Nowdays? Nope. Thankfully, my idea doesn't affect that in any way.

 

 

 

It does, that's the whole point of natural selection which you said you wanted to stimulate....

 

 

 

Nope, you want to create some sort of intelligence selection so I assumed to do the same with another important factor. Isn't physical condition very important to be succesfull in most areas?

 

 

 

Not any more, or we would be below apes on the pecking order.

 

 

 

I don't think your god (your christian?) would want you to NOT treat humans with kindness and compassion, violate human rights, discriminate, etc... As I told before you DO violate someones rights and I doubt a less intelligent couple would want to adopt children instead of getting their own?

 

 

 

Yes, christian. Thankfully, I'm covering all three areas at once - by saving dying children via adoption, I'm far outstripping the 'violations' of having parents children be non-hereditary.

 

 

 

The dying children argument again :ohnoes: :thumbdown: Preventing unintelligent from getting children won't save many children from death... #-o

 

 

 

 

After reading your comments: you really believe this?

 

You ignored the part where I said the nazi's tried it (and failed).

 

 

 

Yeah, I did. Could you quote a source on that? I don't remember adoption being a part of the holocaust.

 

 

 

It's not really a part of the attack on pearl harbor either... Adoption has sure as **** nothing to do with the holocaust.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics read and learn from history...

 

 

 

Offending other people with no reason at all is a perfect example of immature behaviour.

 

I stated the facts. It's his fault if he takes offense to them.

 

 

 

This is the final proof of your immaturity...

[pureprayer]

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=788470

[compfreak847]

 

 

 

they do have the right to get their own children AND to raise children.

 

By costing the lives of millions of other children? I don't think so.

 

 

 

 

couple of examples:

 

albert einstein

 

isaac newton

 

 

 

need more?

 

Yeah, perhaps one that's actually relevant to the discussion. This proves what about hereditary? :roll:

 

 

 

Your plan was to stop that 'garbage' from getting children in order to make sure mankind's stupidity. That means you want to decrease the amount of unintelligent person being born every year. This is just another way of taking out 'garbage'. Using the word 'garbage' is not appropriate...

 

I'm talking about the physical task of taking out the garbage -.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adoption doesn't violate any laws. The restriction of not being allowed to get your own children does violate laws. Solid proof: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.htm Read article 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 16.

 

"404 error - page not found". Brilliant source.

 

 

 

I'm not that sure if that's the direction if you can't read my sentences if there's a 1 letter typo? Your only smarter then a single celled protozoa? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I didn't notice a 1 letter typo, I saw a completely unreadable sentence. Grammar was invented for a reason, learn it :roll:

 

 

 

Not bigger, stronger, being able to do a lot of stuff which the protozoa can't do?

 

Last I checked, we were moving away from big, strong apes into slender, intelligent human beings. Are you stronger then an ape, or smarter? =D>

 

 

 

 

The dying children argument again :ohnoes: :thumbdown: Preventing unintelligent from getting children won't save many children from death... #-o

 

Nope, but adopting millions of otherwise dying children will.

 

 

 

It's not really a part of the attack on pearl harbor either... Adoption has sure as **** nothing to do with the holocaust.

 

Then why did you bring it up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics read and learn from history...

 

So the Nazis deemed some people 'unfit to live'? This has precisely what to do with your argument?

 

 

 

 

This is the final proof of your immaturity...

 

Sorry, but disagreeing with you (and having the facts to back it up) isn't immaturity. Come up with a new insult and stop parroting that endlessly every time your argument fails. =D>

[compfreak847]

Compfreak, I have come to issue a warning unto thee.

 

 

 

Once, long ago, was a mighty poster. A fount of knowledge, wisdom, and good. He fought trolls, enlightened the ignorant, helped the inexperienced, gave sound advice, and generally gave an even, unbiased opinion on updates or aspects of the game. But then, something... changed. Taint entered the waters of knowledge. At first, it was hardly noticeable. That mighty templar was usually for justice, but was just a bit shorter with people, a bit more snarky in replies. But the decay continued bit by bit. He retained his mighty intellect, but it was warped... almost beyond recognition. In the end, it was not pretty. The last time I heard from him here was to berate the mockers of a gold purchaser who was hacked. The time before, it was him against twenty others, arguing over some petty rule. I have yet to see him since. His name? It may be familiar, and most likely is, but I shall but hint at it. It began with a Q.

 

 

 

So yea, though I may be wrong, I see this same bitterness creeping into you, clinging to you. I give this not as a rebuke, but as a warning: turn back before it is too late. Enlighten for the sake of enlightenment, not for superiority. Keep thine opinions more closely to thyself. Thou shalt not mock others for the sake of cruelty and, above all else, THOU SHALT ADMIT THY FAULTS! For hubris is the greatest of faults...

 

Qe...

 

 

 

You know, that's actually pretty relevant :o

 

 

 

I'll give that some thought, it's a good point...

[1dhunter]

 

 

 

they do have the right to get their own children AND to raise children.

 

By costing the lives of millions of other children? I don't think so.

 

 

 

 

 

Same failing argument again, the costs of other childrens lives? :wall:

 

 

 

 

couple of examples:

 

albert einstein

 

isaac newton

 

need more?

 

Yeah, perhaps one that's actually relevant to the discussion. This proves what about hereditary? :roll:

 

 

 

just a few examples to show that less intelligent parents don't always getr smart kids...

 

 

 

Your plan was to stop that 'garbage' from getting children in order to make sure mankind's stupidity. That means you want to decrease the amount of unintelligent person being born every year. This is just another way of taking out 'garbage'. Using the word 'garbage' is not appropriate...

 

I'm talking about the physical task of taking out the garbage -.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adoption doesn't violate any laws. The restriction of not being allowed to get your own children does violate laws. Solid proof: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.htm Read article 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 16.

 

"404 error - page not found". Brilliant source.

 

 

 

Ok, its the UN's declaration of the human rights. Your idea is violating 6 articles (25%)....

 

 

 

I'm not that sure if that's the direction if you can't read my sentences if there's a 1 letter typo? Your only smarter then a single celled protozoa? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I didn't notice a 1 letter typo, I saw a completely unreadable sentence. Grammar was invented for a reason, learn it :roll:

 

 

 

Yea sure, still waiting for some arguments from your side... They'll come when you stop pointing to grammar etc?

 

 

 

Not bigger, stronger, being able to do a lot of stuff which the protozoa can't do?

 

Last I checked, we were moving away from big, strong apes into slender, intelligent human beings. Are you stronger then an ape, or smarter? =D>

 

 

 

Your as strong as a protozoa? Im smarter then most apes and stronger then some species.... \ The size of humans is growing for at least 2000 years.... Romans used to be around 1,5m.

 

 

 

 

The dying children argument again :ohnoes: :thumbdown: Preventing unintelligent from getting children won't save many children from death... #-o

 

Nope, but adopting millions of otherwise dying children will. Where do all those kids come from suddeny?

 

 

 

It's not really a part of the attack on pearl harbor either... Adoption has sure as **** nothing to do with the holocaust.

 

Then why did you bring it up?

 

 

 

You did :wall:

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics read and learn from history...

 

So the Nazis deemed some people 'unfit to live'? This has precisely what to do with your argument?

 

 

 

They thought about mankind in exactly the same way like you do. They divided humans in lesser or better persons. Your saying the exact same thing. They tried to make the race of mankind smarter (and blond), you want to do the same (in another way yea, the nazi's started 'peaceful' to).

 

 

 

 

This is the final proof of your immaturity...

 

Sorry, but disagreeing with you (and having the facts to back it up) isn't immaturity. Come up with a new insult and stop parroting that endlessly every time your argument fails. =D>

 

 

 

I'm the one bringing arguments... The only argument you used is saving millions by adopting.

[1dhunter]

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... order=page

 

Here's a source. Where's yours?

 

 

 

 

 

That's not reallly relevant to what your saying. In fact it got nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion? Relation of maternal intelligence and schooling to offspring nutritional intake... wtf? I'm not talking about nutrition intake compared to intelligence and schooling of the mothers...

[JacTise69]

Time for my two cents,

 

 

 

First of all I'm not even going to dignify the OP with a response because it was so stupid, especially the mathematically challenged line...

 

 

 

Secondly, if you want to sterilize the population from being stupid by forcing chemical castration on the stupid people I suggest that you go to a different country to do it. One that doesn't pride itself on Freedom...

 

 

 

Also there are many different ways to contribute to society other than by being intelligent. There are many cases in history where extremely smart people have done terrible things. Such as the 9/11 attacks...they were not planned by idiots, it was extremely well thought out and for the most part well executed, it was also one of the most terrible things to happen to this country (I'm from the U.S.A.) in a long time.