PocketRocket

Quit throwing things. :lol:

And perhaps it is indeed love. A personal story here......my sister was born VERY prematurely. Not sure exactly by how long, but the doctors told my Mom and Dad (R.I.P. to both) it would be best to leave her out of the incubator and let her pass on naturally. They said she'd likely never see her 5th birthday, may be mentally handicapped, all the bad stuff. My Mom and Dad decided to give her a chance. They kept her in the incubator, did everything they could to keep her alive. My sister today is 54 years old. She has 2 kids of her own, both now adults, both healthy, both wonderful people and hard workers. She has been a registered nurse for over 30 years. It appears that my parents, who made a decision against the doctor's advice, not only saved one little girl, but indirectly contributed to saving others via her participation in the medical trade. Doctors are not always right. They too are only human. Maybe Julianna's parents were simply taking the same chance my folks did, and doing so out of love. Unless you have the ability to look inside their minds, then we cannot discard that possibility.

Possibly because you spent a great deal of time introducing irrelevancies at various points in the thread, however..... ......now that you're getting back to the original point of the thread, which has been a bit unclear since the outset, we can carry on. As to the "miracle", I cannot say as I do not know the mind of God, or his name, nor can I say for certain that He (or She) exists. That said, I definitely stand on the pro-choice side when it comes to abortions. Perhaps if you had spent less time lingering on Juliana's appearance, and omitted some of the "human wreckage", "walking squid", "cephalopod" and other such rhetorical descriptions, showed a bit more compassion for the kid herself, and concentrated more on the issue at hand rather than letting yourself be steered away from the topic, that would not have happened. But again, to get back to the issue, which appears to be your disgust with all things religious. All I can say is some of the highest spiritual achievements have been achieved by religious people in the name of God. Conversely, some of the darkest moments in history, and some of the worst and most barbaric acts have also occurred because of people acting in the name of God. Despite all this, I believe the vast majority of religious folk are good people with good intentions toward their fellow man. Unfortunately, I have to temper that remark by once again bringing up that stuff that the road to hell is paved with....

It is when I'm trying to make it a hypothetical discussion and you're insisting on making it a by-the-panel-rules-debate. Nonetheless, I've said my piece and you've said yours (and said it very intelligently and respectfully, by the way, kudos to you for that), and we've hit a point where we can't seem to agree, so why don't we just call it a truce and leave off for now??? Maybe later on I'll open a thread so you and I can get into this in more depth. Meanwhile, cheers to you.......

Mornin', TB. Moving a little slow as I just started coffee #1, so go easy on me.... As for me "demonstrating" that mindless idiocy" is genetic, you yourself just stated that some forms are, so perhaps we can take it as read??? As to being more likely to reproduce, keep in mind this entire theory is, well, theoretical. I was simply mocking up a scenario for sake of debate and discussion. But that being said, let's look at it this way; many people choose not to have children or have them later in life so they can pursue career advancements, etc. Someone who is mentally handicapped, living in a group home with other similar people, is PROBABLY (is that word okay to use here???) not going to be thinking all that far into his/her future and considering long-term career goals. The stronger likelyhood is giving in to the instant gratification one feels when one's friend "plays with my pee-pee". See reply above. No, the economic aspect may have attached itself to an example, but is not my concern. Again, see reply above. The difference between LICTOR and I is that I am voicing a concern based on certain interpretation of theory. He is advocating something different. Personally, I would see our evolving into a race of bacteria as being backwards, even though it may increase the race's chances of survival in the very long term. So if there is no backwards evolution, what do we call a theoretical situation wherein the race stops advancing (mentally, physically, the whole ball of wax), and starts becoming weaker, slower, stupider, and all because nature's way of culling the species is overridden by man's tampering???

:lol: Touche...

Fair enough, but just because someone craps in the street doesn't mean we have to do the same.

Once the insults were removed, this is among the most sensible posts in this thread.

ToadBrother: Regarding your rant towards me on evolution..... As pointed out earlier in this thread, medicine has improved to the point where what would have been non-viable specimens in the past are now able to survive, with treatment. Perhaps my word "defective" is the source of your consternation. Let me put it another way. If a bunch of borderline-mindless idiots is kept alive after birth via medical treatment, and throughout their lives by welfare/support/caregivers/whatever, then go on to breed large numbers of other borderline-mindless-morons, then THAT, if carried on over a very long term, could do inestimable damage to the gene pool. In one of my earlier posts I went into that at greater length, but this is the Reader's Digest condensed version. The trouble with our society is that people who likely would never have lived to breed because of physical and/or mental defects, are now breeding, and in some cases breeding very large families. When you have no job, very little mind, and lots of hormones, what else is there to do??? Once there are enough of them running around, and some slightly-less mindless dolts start in with them, and so on and so on, it has an overall negative effect on the gene pool. This, too, is evolution. Backwards.

Hardly an argument.

Nonsense. The Sun has never exploded and taken the Earth with it. North America has not sunk into the ocean. The Moon has not fallen out of the sky. All these things have never occurred, and proof is there to see. In matters of Jesus and God, your opinion is nothing more than your opinion. Your determination to pass it off as fact and shove it down peoples' throats makes you appear boorish, and, as I stated previously, also hurts your credibility. I suggest we both leave off on this as it is not an argument you can win, and it is indeed thread drift. If you want to continue, open another thread on the topic. Back to the thread...... While I think I would not have made the choice Juliana's parents made, it was not my call to make. In all honesty, I would not have the strength to carry on as they have done. Nor do I think that once born, she should be "put down", however you want to phrase it. She is alive, aware and intelligent. Will she grow up to be a savant who brings us some miracle cure, or discovers some scientific breakthrough??? Only time will tell. But if her condition is hereditary, I would hate to see her procreate. Allowing a single specimen to survive does not pollute the gene pool. Allowing MANY defective specimens to breed uncontrollably can.

Actually, Jesus did not "sire" the virgin birth, he was the product of the virgin birth. Still, as a debater, if you cannot show proof, then you should express your OPINION as such. There is a book several thousand pages deep, written by many men, which disagrees with you on this point. There are countless millions of people worldwide who disagree with you on this point. What makes your opinion more valid than theirs??? BTW, a couple months ago I watched Chris Angel walk across water on his tv show. Many more people were there to watch him do it, live and in person. On another episode, Angel pulled himself out of what looked for certain to be a snowy grave. He had been buried under tons of snow for nearly an hour. Sure looked like resurrection to me. Do you deny his existence, too??? Don't get me wrong, LICTOR, I am no Mr Canada, busting people chops with my religious agenda. I am actually agnostic in the truest sense, ie; I admit that I DO NOT KNOW the answers. I DO NOT KNOW if Jesus truly existed or not. The fact is, neither do you. The difference is you pretend you DO know. And that can only hurt your credibility in a venue wherein debates are held.

It's interesting to ponder how he would react if some prominent gay personality came out and said something like "That nigger's bullshit doesn't bother me". Would be interesting to see. Until I hear about some such incident, I'll reserve judgment. He should, after all, be able to take as good as he gives.

Thanks for the additional info, but I wasn't attempting to write an exhaustive treatise on the histories of Christianity. It was about getting a message across and debunking a falsehood. Cheers, TB.

From the OP post......LICTOR: The word "duty" implies that we must go out, cast judgment upon, then eliminate those lesser specimens among us. As you can see by one of my previous posts, I agree that the genetic state of the human race may be in trouble, but surely there must be better solutions than what you have implied here. Eugenics I will not speak to. Equality of man, on the other hand, I believe in to a degree, that is to say every man should have the equal opportunity to advance himself. I do not agree that every man is entitled to whatever any other man has earned. If a man is not able to advance himself, then he is not entitled to the goods that the more advanced man has acquires through his own self advancement. Considered purely in financial terms, this would be a framework for capitalism. Again, while I do not enjoy your selection of words, I have some concern. I do not think the reason, however, to be "perverse", but rather I hope that the motivation is mercy, one of our highest ideals. However, I do not forgot the road to Hell and what it is paved with..... Now that's just over-the-top hyperbole to promote your own agenda. Stop it at once, or go to your room The rest of the post was by-and-large just a lot more hyperbole. LICTOR, you raise an interesting point, and one which has concerned me for many years, that of a merciful society vs evolution of the human race. I responded to later posts, then came back to yours. See my post #47. I'm sure you'll agree with much of the last half.

I was not aware of the Sickle-Cell Anemia thing, but I agree with you on much of the rest. But if the individual DOES pass on his genes, then eventually the superior genes will win out and remain in the population, whereas the inferior genes will eventually be eliminated from the species. Other inferior genes will come to the fore, but in time, they too will be eliminated. It's how the species stays healthy. Superior genes survive generation after generation. Inferior genes eventually are eliminated. True, to a point. But if we introduce a large number of inferior genes simply out of the desire for more variety, those genes will introduce defective specimens which will also tend to have a lower survival rate, and so these genes too will eventually be eliminated. I think what you were looking for was "healthy variations". With that caveat, I agree completely. Nonsense. I'm right here So the theory was not necessarily wrong, but rather the yardstick they used to measure good vs bad was flawed. Hell, elephants care for their sickly herd members. So do gorillas, wolves, many of the lower primates, even dolphins. But like elephants, it is unlikely that the sick or lame neandertals found a mate willing to breed with them. In most social animal groups sick or lame group members are cared for to some degree, but due to the pecking orders in these animal societies, those sick/lame members are VERY unlikely to reproduce. That is the difference with our species. We are allowing/promoting procreation of those misfits who are mentally or physically handicapped, and furthering the distribution of the faulty genes which are responsible for their conditions.

As unfortunate as it was, the Wall Street bail-out was something that bailed us all out. If those Wall Street institutions had been allowed to collapse, we'd have a full-blown depression on our hands rather than a recession. The dollar would have been de-valued to pennies. Personally, I don't want to see people jumping out of buildings, although I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of those executives TOSSED out of buildings. It would serve as a good warning for their successors. As American Woman said, these funds have nothing to do with health care. However, I agree that it would be nice if they were re-routed into something more constructive. When you consider the amount of money spent on the so-called "War on Terror" alone, it boggles the mind. And this so we can send our bravest and brightest to die overseas for a non-existent "war".

So far (at least as far as I';ve got in this thread so far), SHWA seems to have the most lucent argument against LICTOR's stance. (See post #33) I agree with elements of both arguments, disagree with others. Seeing as LICTOR has already addressed most of those who have railed against him, I'll concentrate on the following points from SHWA The rules don't change, only the venue. I'll get back to this later..... But you are not considering that other people are also part of her environment. Society IS or WILL BE her environment. How will she and it deal with each other??? Will she be another "Elephant Man", fit only to be a freak in a circus??? Once she's grown up (if she gets that far), how is she going to deal with society??? How is she dealing with anyone outside of her family now??? Will she survive her dealings with society, or will she eventually take her own life out of despair??? One thing is certain, I don't envy the poor child the road ahead. But will the environment (ie; society) accept her and allow her to participate??? With today's medical tools and knowledge, we could remove someone's brain and keep the body alive indefinitely. But is this truly "survival"??? As to her "strength" in surviving, that is a testament to those selfsame medical advances, coupled with the natural proclivity of a living body to survive. But if she was mature enough to be aware of her state, would she even WANT to survive??? Without the medicos, she certainly would not have made it even this far. I said I'd get back to "the venue" later. Later has arrived. I have mixed feeling on the entire issue of Darwin and his laws and their applicability to the human race. A noted sci-fi writer once stated (through one of his characters) something that made a great deal of sense to me. I can't recall the exact quote, but it went along the lines of "Once a society has reached what we define as 'Civilization', the evolution of the members of that society ends, and the race will evolve no further". The premise being that a "civilized" society coddles it's sick, it's crippled etc. Rather than the race becoming stronger, faster, smarter because those qualities are required to survive, the race begins to stagnate. Inferior genetic specimens (of which I consider myself one, by the way, hence my decision to not have kids) survive, breed, procreate, and continue to pass on inferior genes. These remain in the gene pool, and down the line serve to dilute more favorable and superior genes. Furthermore, he noted that many of the "misfits", due to their inability to work, have more leisure time, and tend to reproduce MORE than the superior stock who are presumably out getting something useful done. (A personal anecdote supports this part of the theory. Several years ago, I overheard a drunk young lady in a bar saying "The bastards cut my welfare benefits. Now I'm gonna have to have another f*%king kid just to be able to afford to go out drinking". Needless to say, I was less than-touched-at her less-than-obvious love for her kids.) Back to the point; we now live in a society wherein many members of our population would never have survived on their own. Further, mentally-handicapped people not only survive (which is good), but they are given group homes (also good), places to work and earn a living and self respect all at the same time (also good), and procreate (bad bad bad). We have people with hereditary mental-illness issue who are given a home, money, food, and a free rein to breed as they will. We now have, for the first time in human history, third-generation welfare recipients. People who cannot work, live on a marginal income, and are actually ENCOURAGED to produce more inferior stock because that will get them more support money from the government. We have created a society wherein inferior genes are not only tolerated, they are promoted, and the inability to be a contributing member of society is not penalized, but rewarded. If there is substance to this whole idea, and genetic theory tells us there is, then the race as a whole has not only stopped evolving, it can be argued that it is in a slow state of regression, evolving backwards into a slower, weaker, stupider species. The entire idea of this causes me grave concern for the future of the race. What to do about it??? Good question.

You speak as one who is certain. Out of curiosity, do you know anyone who was hanging around the Galilee area about 2,000 years ago??? If not, or if you were not there yourself, then this is simply your opinion and not a statement of fact. You should preface it as such.

Jesus, if he did indeed exist, was a carpenter by trade. This was in a time when unions and 8-hr workdays did not exist. Hammer weighed a fair bit more then that they do now. I very much doubt he was a "weakling". If you've ever shaken hands with a lifelong carpenter, you'll know what I mean. The fact that most of the portrayals of the man on the cross show him as a skinny, emaciated guy has always bothered me as it is inconsistent with his upbringing and his pre-messianic career.

Well, it also occurs to me that if someone, when asked, were to say "I don't know the circumstances so cannot speak to that", or some such, that would go into the 27% (or 18%) category. It's also possible that many of those polled were simply shy, or did not want to give an answer of any kind. Then again, it's also possible that some of them were plotting an attack of their own. It's a strange and wonderful world. Anything is possible. Sometimes that is not a good thing.

All the previous banter aside, I find it outrageous that the lawsuit has even been allowed to go forward. The convict obviously did not feel the courts were the way to go in addressing the "refund" issue while he was out on the street, and took the law into his own hands, which also resulted in him taking a life with his those hands. To me, that disqualifies him from addressing the issue in court at a later time. Kind of like if I shoot you for pissing in my garden, then try to sue you later, from behind bars, for the cost of the seeds to replace the plants killed by the urine. Take your choice, use the courts, or take it into your own hands. But if the latter fails, don't try fall back on the former after you've been caught, tried and convicted.

I am somewhat in agreement with Mr Canada here, but with a twist. Put them away for a longer time......but...... I believe that some of the problems we are seeing with and in prisons result from the fact that prisons are no longer a "punishing" environment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about thumbscrews or torture racks, but prisons with pool tables??? Cable tv with hundreds of channels??? Prison is not supposed to be a resort. I suggest prison reform. Make the prisoners pay for their own upkeep. Make them clean the prison blocks, cells, washrooms, everything. Make them wear silly clothes. Suits in hot-pink with flowers. Something that would make the typical biker or gangsta cringe just to THINK about wearing. Put light-industry into prisons. Set up assembly lines. Offer a minimum-wage pay structure, much of which goes towards the inmates' food, the facility's energy costs, etc etc etc. Hell, some of these guys gotta be mechanically savvy, so set up auto-shops. Body shops. Anything that will generate an income, and allow the prisons to operate as a break-even or profit-a-little basis. As for needing more prisons, simple, put the prisoners on the construction crew. Make them build their own prisons. As for the pool tables and cable tv, save them as rewards for good behavior. Someone mentioned putting prisons in the arctic. For serious, violent, maximum-security offenders that's a GREAT idea. What are they gonna do, break out and then walk 500 miles across the tundra to freedom??? More likely they'd become lunch to a hungry polar bear. News of just ONE prisoner getting devoured by a bear would give the others pause. I heard of a man who, every fall, commits a minor crime, just enough to get himself about 6-8 months in jail. He said it's more comfortable there than living in the Salvation Army room he usually rents, because at the Sally-Ann you're not allowed to stay in your room all day, and he doesn't like going outside in winter. May be a fictional story as I cannot find anything to cite and I heard the story word-of-mouth, but I don't doubt there's at least ONE human out there who thinks this way. IOW, turn the prisons into prisons rather than resorts with bars. Maybe then ex-cons will think twice before doing something that'll land them back in a "vacation from society".

Meh. A friend of mine used to say "Great minds think alike......but idiots do, too". We're gonna have to choose our category carefully.

You mean I didn't cite you as source??? My bad. Oh, wait. I'm STILL not gonna cite you as source :P Seriously, did you come up with something similar to that??? And here I thought it was my own original little thought. But then little thoughts are the only kind I get.......