40 replies to this topic

[NergiZed]

Libains, on 17 Apr 2009, 10:41, said:

Dauth, on 17 Apr 2009, 8:29, said:

AJ you're being logical but not following it to the final conclusion. As we are not removing non-viable genes from the gene pool and that the number of mutations are consistent over a long enough time period (200y or more tbh) then it stands to reason that it is increasingly likely that we will develop more diseases as time advances.

@Topic, natural selection is no longer physical it is becoming more mental. Though not fast enough imo, if a parent does not want to look after their offspring then the consequence of their actions is easy to see.

Hmmm, it's true that as keep the useless, defective genes around we're more likely to develop diseases from them. Howeever it is a narcissistic view and I'd rather think that prior to then we will as a race either fix these genetic mutations forever, or be able to completely cure them when they raise their head. Sadly though, if the human race refuses to let itself evolve, which it is doing at the moment, I can see nothing more than a very bleak future for our race.

Well, a big chunk of our genes are actually recessive or junk data. Also, It's not that we're not evolving fast enough, it's that evolution is naturally an incredibly slow process. Personally, I think that we'll be able to 'self-evolve' (ie. using drugs, genetics, cybernetics to enhance and prolong life) far far faster than evolution.

Also, back to the whole 'natural selection' thing. I personally use the term very loosely; I use it almost synonymously with the term competition, like if a car company fails, I would just say it's natural selection, as the company failed to survive the economic environment and 'naturally' went bankrupt. I dunno, maybe it's just me.

Huh, getting way off topic

Edited by NergiZed, 18 April 2009 - 00:27.

[Admiral Wesley]

I personally, and humbly disagree with whoever moved the topic into Philosopher's Corner. It's a news headline. It's about a game. So technically, it belongs in the Game Discussion. However, I do understand that Natural Selection definitley comes into play in this, and it is a philisophical "thing." But that ain't the point. The point is that some dumb 9 year old jumped off a building after playing too much SmackDown vs. Raw. However, we should stay on topic. Not right our own thesis papers on Natural Selection. Thank you.

[Dauth]

General Wesley, on 18 Apr 2009, 22:26, said:

I personally, and humbly disagree with whoever moved the topic into Philosopher's Corner. It's a news headline. It's about a game. So technically, it belongs in the Game Discussion. However, I do understand that Natural Selection definitley comes into play in this, and it is a philisophical "thing." But that ain't the point. The point is that some dumb 9 year old jumped off a building after playing too much SmackDown vs. Raw. However, we should stay on topic. Not right our own thesis papers on Natural Selection. Thank you.

That is the moderator's job. Not yours. Topics are like conversations, they can evolve, I suggest you learn about this or you will find yourself alone in a park at the age of 40 with a bottle of rum in a paper bag and wonder where it all went wrong.

[Kalo]

Thank god Jack Thompson is disbarred, or we'd have another Rockstar VS Jack episode.

[Nid]

With Natural selection in play, I myself would have been very dead not a month after I was born.
However, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and while I may be able to contribute something to society, someone who has to throw themselves off a building because they saw someone or something else do it clearly will not do very well later on in life.

[Kalo]

Nidmeister, on 19 Apr 2009, 22:18, said:

With Natural selection in play, I myself would have been very dead not a month after I was born.
However, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and while I may be able to contribute something to society, someone who has to throw themselves off a building because they saw someone or something else do it clearly will not do very well later on in life.

It depends on how far the line would go. Such a rule or regulation would most likely starve us of all the geniuses in our world because of ones warped mind of what is "acceptable".

[SquigPie]

"LOLOLOLO! I R FAMUOS WRESTLAR! ROFLMAO JUMPZORZ!"

Last words of random 9-yearold kid.

Edited by SquigPie, 11 May 2009 - 07:54.

[CommanderJB]

SquigPie, you've already been warned about spamming outside of the SYD. There really isn't an excuse this time and there sure as heck won't be next time. Make sure that whatever you post adds to the discussion, or don't post it at all.

[SquigPie]

Look up Irony.

I'm not spamming, I'm making a point (jumping out of a window is stupid), and I do it my way, I don't intend to write a spam-post, I write an ironic reference to the stupidity of the spammer (Boy spoke 1337-sp33k=he was stupid+he jumped out of a window=REALLY STUPID!).

Undestand?

[Wizard]

SquigPie, we ask that people make constructive comments when posting in response to a topic. If it's not constructive it's spam. Your post added nothing to the discussion. I suggest you consider this when posting in future and most certainly the rights to the PA you were given earlier today will not last you long and could end up with a warning.

[SquigPie]

Okay, so whenever I have a discussion in the future, I'm not allowed to agree with other people?

so if I wrote: "I agree with that, the kid was stupid" i would automatically be added on the "list of people to ban in near future"?

[CommanderJB]

There was nothing in your post that indicated agreement with a previous poster, and even if it had, we expect a larger contribution to topics in the Philosophers' Corner than just '+1-ing', whether literally or effectively. You're allowed to agree with someone but in a serious area such as this you are expected to present your opinion (a) in detail and (b) in a sensible manner. Your post did neither.

Edited by CommanderJB, 11 May 2009 - 10:48.

[SquigPie]

If i had time, I would have added more depth to that post, but since I didn't have time, I didn't write it in detail, so I hoped that the (apperiantly) intelligent community of this forum would be able to pierce the immidiate spamlook of my post instead of simply thinking "ZOMGZ SPAM!" (look! there it was again, irony!), and realise that it was meant as a sarcastic comment on the stupidity of the child in question.

Ontopic again now?

Edited by SquigPie, 11 May 2009 - 10:54.

[CommanderJB]

Patronising those who are attempting to show you what is expected when posting in an area is not appreciated and while I do not make much of it, and nor do I feel that I should be immune to criticism by any measure, if I were you I'd take a step back from the computer for a while. We are not trying to rule with a rod of iron, we are attempting to promote reasoned debate which remains civil and interesting.
As for the 'apparent intelligence' of the community and its moderating team, I doubt anyone could have discerned the level of meaning that you appear to be crediting your post with, and it's not because you're more intelligent than everyone else. Rather it is because irony is difficult to convey through text, as the majority of meaning in a message comes through body language, and in an instance where your words say one thing and the 'hidden' meaning is concealed by a wall of ones and zeroes, I would suggest to you that if you continue to post 'ironic' contributions such as the above you are ignoring this very obvious fact. While I'm not much of a fan of smilies myself, they are a useful way of adding meaning to such a post. If not, then explaining yourself in detail is the correct course of action.
Now, we can continue this debate, or you can make contributions that are relevant, interesting to read, treat the subject with due respect and convey their meaning accurately to all audiences just as you have been doing in the religion thread. Your choice.

[SquigPie]

Okay, Okay, I made a mistake. Next time i make a "lolcomment" I'll remember to add that it was meant as a ironic reference.

[Antonius Maximus]

Lord Atlantis, on 17 Apr 2009, 11:22, said:

I argee with NergiZed on this one. While both the kid (granted he had no choice with needing special education) and the parents (for not attending to the kid how they should have) are at fault, the people who take games as real life and substitute it in instead of having their own thoughts won't contribute to society.

While it is sad, its true.

yea i can understand the rational behind that comment, i find in many ways people are too humane in regards to those with handicaps that don't allow them to contribute to society. But having said that there are many able bodied people that do bugger all for the world and are free loading off the hardworking people. I know of some handicapped people that work and hold down a job, it just annoys me how those with little always contribute the most