Which takes precedence ~ the human species or the individual human.

Should individuals humans lose their rights so to guarantee the survival of the larger entity ~ humanity.

Or should humanity possibly fail because of individual's rights.

I think you would have to place such a question into a context and deal with it on a case by case basis.

Then how about reproduction of the species.

By allowing inbreeding of the species genetics via restricting partners by concepts like marriage and monogamy, we are dumbing down and so reducing our species survival chances.

Should we start breeding programs so to strengthen our species by taking breeding rights away from the individual.

Quality over quantity.

The overall discussion point is an interesting one worth having. There is certainly a tension between the rights of the individual and the collective that is being strained more than ever in the 21st century. 

Too bad the motive of this thread will be to have another discussion about gay marriage, overpopulation, or banning religion.

Is there a reason why you can't just say what your thinking greens_win? Do you have to always make these vague threads that you will twist into something else by page 2? 

Rather than shooting the messenger, how about discussing the topic.

As a starter I stated genetic corruption of the human race via customs that work against humanity. Nothing to do with gay marriage or banning religion. As for over population, customs have an impact.

If you don't desire to discuss the limitations on the human genetic pool via customs, you choose a topic for this humanity V human discussion to start.

garbage thread

____ wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

Then how about reproduction of the species. By allowing inbreeding of the species genetics via restricting partners by concepts like marriage and monogamy, we are dumbing down and so reducing our species survival chances. Should we start breeding programs so to strengthen our species by taking breeding rights away from the individual. Quality over quantity.

For a start we should make sure gays don’t breed…

FriYAY wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

____ wrote on May 8th, 2013 at 10:57am: Then how about reproduction of the species. By allowing inbreeding of the species genetics via restricting partners by concepts like marriage and monogamy, we are dumbing down and so reducing our species survival chances. Should we start breeding programs so to strengthen our species by taking breeding rights away from the individual. Quality over quantity. For a start we should make sure gays don’t breed…

Why single out gays? Why not criminals, blacks, Muslims or ugly people?

yeah and why would you be worried about gays breeding given that homosexuality is a genetic dead end

Oh FFS

Why not, chinks, Christians or good looking people?

:D :D :D

JC Denton wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

yeah and why would you be worried about gays breeding given that homosexuality is a genetic dead end

Well i'll be!!

:D :D :D

JC Denton wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

yeah and why would you be worried about gays breeding given that homosexuality is a genetic dead end

A genetic dead end for heterosexual couples.

A good point for breeding to be taken out of the hands of individuals since gay children could be the symptom of inbred heterosexual parents.

JC Denton wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

yeah and why would you be worried about gays breeding given that homosexuality is a genetic dead end

This is only true if you believe that science will never work out a way to create embryos in the old boy's rectum.

I, for one, have much more faith in human progress.

____ wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 10:35am:

Which takes precedence ~ the human species or the individual human. Should individuals humans lose their rights so to guarantee the survival of the larger entity ~ humanity. Or should humanity possibly fail because of individual's rights.

greens,

Once again, you are showing that you are a collectivist.

What ppl like yourself do, is always 'for the best',
.....and what you do is always wicked, because ppl like yourself have no moral compass, imo.

You are confused,   .....and wrong!







Yadda wrote on Jul 25^th, 2011 at 12:35pm:

I can imagine that some may argue, that societal laws should protect the majority, and NOT specifically, the individual. I disagree, strongly!! If the detail of the law protects the rights of every individual, THEN AUTOMATICALLY, the interests of every person [of the majority], are also protected.

"wicked", "no moral compass", and "wrong"

labels, labels, labels ...


now that's out the way, do the rights of so few dictate the downfall of the many.

the micro version, should the rights of cells in the human body take precedents over the whole. Should we stop removing cancerous cells.

____ wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

"wicked", "no moral compass", and "wrong" labels, labels, labels ... now that's out the way, do the rights of so few dictate the downfall of the many. the micro version, should the rights of cells in the human body take precedents over the whole. Should we stop removing cancerous cells.

Only an proud, vain, idiot imbecile, would try to cure cancer by removing cancer cells from the body.

And they would try to [do that], because they imagine that they are clever.


greens,

Never mind....labels, labels, labels ...

You ARE a wicked imbecile.

And i will tell you why you are an imbecile.

Because you always want to treat symptoms.

But you NEVER, EVER, want to avoid causes.


Quote:

".....because ppl like yourself have no moral compass"

And, you still, cannot see it.

That, is what is sad, about ppl like yourself - wilful blindness.





Dr.Lorraine Day Cancer Cure                              39 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DYhyCu3DQY

this is not a post....
.....it is a means to view what i have posted!!!!!

FD

this is not a post....
.....it is a means to view what i have posted!!!!!

FD knows what i mean

Only Gud knows what you mean.

And He shall judge thee for it.

"a judgemental god" !

why do some people give this god thingy insecure human traits?

Karnal wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 10:06pm:

Only Gud knows what you mean. And He shall judge thee for it.

Collectivism is not an answer to our problems.

Collectivism is the principle cause our problems.






Tolerance of what is wrong, causes the creation of all the problems which we experience.

But to suggest such logic, is 'bigotry' and 'intolerance'.



yadda, the bigot.





"And what is good, Phaedrus? And what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
Plato,
and in, Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance


In this age ?

Yes!!!         :P

____ wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

Then how about reproduction of the species. By allowing inbreeding of the species genetics via restricting partners by concepts like marriage and monogamy, we are dumbing down and so reducing our species survival chances. Should we start breeding programs so to strengthen our species by taking breeding rights away from the individual. Quality over quantity.

Marriage and monogamy has absolutely nothing to do with "inbreeding". I am not sure what bizarre logic you used to reach that conclusion. The concept of pair-bonding is something that has advanced us as a species.

Breeding programs is something that has been flirted with at various times without any success. (Most famously by the Nazi's).

I have however heard the theory that modern medicine is actually weakening us as a species. People who in the past would have died young are now being kept alive long enough to breed and pass on their genes.

Quote:

Breeding programs is something that has been flirted with at various times without any success. (Most famously by the Nazi's).

bc they were only in power for 10 years? how do you expect something that requires long term commitment to yield fruit in a single decade?

Quote:

Marriage and monogamy has absolutely nothing to do with "inbreeding".

It restricts the diversification of the human gene pool so dumbing down the species.


There are probably no monogamous mammals. All the mammals that are said to be monogamous are only socially monogamous, and not sexually monogamous. This is probably true for all birds as well. Birds formerly thought to be sexually monogamous (like swans) are now known to engage in what is euphemistically called "extra-pair copulation" all the time.

Monogamy is evolutionary death to a species. A species that practices sexual monogamy will quickly die out due to inadequate mixing of the gene pool.

you are so dumb

We don't need to do anything.  Nature has thousands of ways to weed out the crap, and it acts without fear or favour to maximise the fitness of the species.  We've held it bay for a while with technology, but the dam wall is starting to crumble.

Darwin Awards should be Televised.

So much faith in Mother Nature. So little faith in science.

The Faculty's Ethics Committee has approved the transplant of human embryos in old boys' rectums.

It will be an interesting social experiment, no?

... wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 8:30am:

We don't need to do anything.  Nature has thousands of ways to weed out the crap, and it acts without fear or favour to maximise the fitness of the species.  We've held it bay for a while with technology, but the dam wall is starting to crumble.

I couldn't agree more. It amazes me you've lasted this long.

Grey wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

... wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 8:30am: We don't need to do anything.  Nature has thousands of ways to weed out the crap, and it acts without fear or favour to maximise the fitness of the species.  We've held it bay for a while with technology, but the dam wall is starting to crumble. I couldn't agree more. It amazes me you've lasted this long.

I've noticed over the last couple of days you've been seeking out my posts, but have dropped all pretences about argument, in favour of snark - a tactic usually employed by women, but also men controlled by their emotions.  Why do you think I elicit such a strong emotional response in you grey?  I certainly have my theory, but it'd amuse me to hear you rationalize it.

____ wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

JC Denton wrote on May 8th, 2013 at 4:44pm: yeah and why would you be worried about gays breeding given that homosexuality is a genetic dead end A genetic dead end for heterosexual couples. A good point for breeding to be taken out of the hands of individuals since gay children could be the symptom of inbred heterosexual parents.

AHH SO your parents were inbred . NOW WE KNOW ;) ;) ;)

Quote:

I've noticed over the last couple of days you've been seeking out my posts, but have dropped all pretences about argument, in favour of snark - a tactic usually employed by women, but also men controlled by their emotions.  Why do you think I elicit such a strong emotional response in you grey?  I certainly have my theory, but it'd amuse me to hear you rationalize it.

You've got a fantastic set of tits!!!!

Some are tit men others leg etc, maybe passive/aggressive is the Anarchists mating ritual? :o

____ wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

JC Denton wrote on May 8th, 2013 at 4:44pm: yeah and why would you be worried about gays breeding given that homosexuality is a genetic dead end A genetic dead end for heterosexual couples. A good point for breeding to be taken out of the hands of individuals since gay children could be the symptom of inbred heterosexual parents.

AAHH  so your parents were inbred ! ;)

... wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Grey wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 12:58pm: ... wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 8:30am: We don't need to do anything.  Nature has thousands of ways to weed out the crap, and it acts without fear or favour to maximise the fitness of the species.  We've held it bay for a while with technology, but the dam wall is starting to crumble. I couldn't agree more. It amazes me you've lasted this long. I've noticed over the last couple of days you've been seeking out my posts, but have dropped all pretences about argument, in favour of snark - a tactic usually employed by women, but also men controlled by their emotions.  Why do you think I elicit such a strong emotional response in you grey?  I certainly have my theory, but it'd amuse me to hear you rationalize it.

Awwwwwwww did I hurt your feelings diddums? For somebody who dishes it out you sure seem sensitive. Here's your last few posts leaving aside the one I commented on above.


Quote:

Marriage should be between a man and a woman. I got that from your previous post. The purpose of the "so" was to get you to expand on the implications. Otherwise I can only surmise that you don't think any standards should exist because there may be a small number of unfortunate exceptions. You don't believe that do you.?  I mean, think what would happen if the same principle were applied to killing.  No killer would face rebuke, because occasionally it may be justfied. -------------------------------------- So?  ---------------------------------------- Leave them to endure the consequences of their choices, without the luxury of teh govvament playing the role of father.  ------------------------------------------ The difference being that the community/tribe was a collection of clans, numbering a coupla hundred people tops.  Not millions, or even billions.  -------------------------------------------- Australian gun laws on.... Look Spot!  The man who shot ya pa! (with picture) ----------------------------------------------------- In praise of older women (started by me :-) I don't think young men hooking up with older women is unusual.  A young man of say, 20 hasn't yet reached his peak, while a woman of say, 45 reached hers long ago and is on the decline.  Regardless of their past, their current sexual value is about equal.  ---------------------------------------------------- Q & A Fair enough that they question it, but I suspect they're just not hearing the justification or counter argument.  They say they're encouraged to "question everything" and "think for themselves" which would be great, if it were true.

So your allegation that I'm stalking you is entirely baseless, because I didn't comment on any of them.

'So' - doesn't sound like a rational argument to me. Neither did your 'snark' to spot. If you don't want me to pull your chain don't leave me such a bloody obvious one to pull.

Sure I think you're a wanker, so I reserve the right to comment if I see any more of your inanities lying around. But don't fret, I don't go looking for them, 'heaven forbid'  ::)

yes, cutting and pasting my various posts is a great way to prove you're not seeking out my posts.  I don't mindif you are, it just provides me more opportunities to zing you.