The Top Ten Most Overpaid Jobs in USA (capitalists that Edrico should hate)

[emprworm]

Yes, and sex is also a biological function. That doesn't justify rape.

You cannot justify something by saying "it's natural". The whole purpose of having civilization in the first place is to free ourselves of the constraints imposed on us by nature. After all, murder is natural. It's the most natural thing in the world. Does that make it right?

gunwounds didn't say that.

[nemafakei]

"Oh i see... so i owe my success today to some Roman scholar who rotted 2,000 years ago because i use his alphabet huh ?"

Well, whoever taught you history, you certainly don't owe him much.

[emprworm]

"Oh i see... so i owe my success today to some Roman scholar who rotted 2,000 years ago because i use his alphabet huh ?"

you said it.  now go pay your history professor

[GUNWOUNDS]

you said it.

[Edric O]

Gunwounds:

I am perfectly aware of that.... Emprworm has stated that many times before in his various threads so its not like your the first person to tell me this.  However nowhere in my post did i say it that something is correct because it is natural.

Then what exactly did you mean by this:

its not a political or economic attribute Edrico... it is a biological one...

It sounded to me like you were trying to justify the injustice of rewarding/punishing children for the actions of their parents by saying it's natural, so I pointed out that being "natural" doesn't automatically make something desirable or even acceptable.

However I AM saying that comparing rape and murder  (obvious vices) to that of taking care of one's offspring and ensuring their survival is ridiculous.  Doesnt that qualify for slippery slope logical fallacy?

As I see it, punishing children for acts they didn't commit is just as vile and evil as rape or murder.

Taking care of one's offspring is one thing. Giving them a great reward or a terrible punishment for the actions of their parents is quite another.

oh so you are saying we should be free from the constraints of taking care of our offspring and ensuring its survival?.... are you even thinking this through before you type? or are you just smashing the keyboard and praying?

Excuse me? If there's anyone who isn't thinking before he types, that's you.

"Being free from the constraints of taking care of our offspring and ensuring their survival" means not having to worry about the survival of our children. It means having the certainty that our children will survive, so we no longer have to find ways to ensure that survival ourselves.

So yes, OF COURSE this is a good thing, and OF COURSE it's one of the reasons why human civilization was created.

Of course we should be free from having to worry about our survival, or the survival of our children. It's called the Right to Life.

Fitness most certainly does apply.... the average lifespan of a black man in Harlem, Queens,New York  etc,  is 25 years old.

The average lifespan of someone in Beverly Hills, California  is triple or 4 times that.

I would wager that the lifespan of Doctors and Lawyers is greater than that of gangsters and thugs....

So what's your point?

Doctors, lawyers, gangsters and thugs exist only as a result of the ARTIFICIAL environments we have created. Our modern medicine, our laws, our cities and streets. Harlem and Beverly Hills are artificial environments.

"Fitness" means being able to hunt your dinner with a spear. We've developed well beyond that stage.

Oh i see... so i owe my success today to some Roman scholar who rotted 2,000 years ago because i use his alphabet huh ?

So by your logic everyone owes everyone ?.... i have to disagree... the people who contributed to society were rewarded... the roman scholars lived in the lap of luxury for being such educated men.....and ... physics professors were paid to teach Einstein physics... they didnt do it for free...

People in the past have been rewarded for their efforts and genius.... so saying that we owe them today is nonsense....

saying we owe them is saying they were never rewarded.. and thus we owe them for our success..... which is false.

God, what a giant strawman! I never said you owe any actual physical debt to anyone. All I said was that you owe your spark of genius to countless millions who came before you, and to the existence of human society itself. In other words, I pointed out that your genius and innovation are the result of the artificial environment you live in, so they do not make you "fit" in the bilogical meaning of the word.

Again, I must stress the fact that I'm not talking about any actual physical debt. You completely misunderstood what I was saying, and Emprworm took it further and made the strawman even larger and more ridiculous. The only thing I'm saying is that genius and innovation are only possible in the artificial environment created by human society. I'm saying that being a genius in molecular physics doesn't make you "fit", since it wouldn't help you at all in the natural environment of Homo Sapiens.

So i am playing God if i wish to become wealthy and ensure that my lineage will be prosperous? (blessings from father to son)

Am i also playing God if i decided to be a lazy bum and smoke crack and have my family die of starvation. (curse from father to son)

Jesus specifically mentioned that wealth and poverty do not come as blessings or curses from God; He told His Apostles that in this world even the holiest of men can be poor, and even the greatest sinners can be rich.

And yes, you are playing God if you expect to have the power to "bless" or "curse" other people (in this case, your children).

When the bible says  sins of the father are passed to the son... it wasnt just a metaphorical spiritual statement..... obviously it had another meaning... which is ....how you conduct yourself in this world will have a dramatic impact on your children and their future offspring.

The Bible was talking about blessings or curses FROM GOD. Such as the blessings to the people of Israel, for example. It was not talking about worldly issues.

Jesus said "the poor you will have with you always"

He was talking to a man who was in a great hurry to help the poor. He said that you will always have the poor with you, but you won't always have the Son of God with you. Since we don't have the Son of God with us, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus only addressed that statement to the people who lived during His time on Earth.

thus the concept of "haves" and "have nots"  is NOT something that is a product of Modern Capitalist Society...

Of course not! It's a product of class society and the exploitation of man by man - things which are much older than capitalism. They began with the ancient world, continued with feudalism and finally produced capitalism. Capitalism is only the latest (and the last) form of class society.

Oh, and by the way, I suggest you stop hiding behind religion in a political discussion.

[Edric O]

As for Emprworm's post, I have already replied to all of his points in my answer to Gunwounds.

However, I'd like to mention that Emprworm constructs one giant, immense, monstrous STRAWMAN. He picks one of my sentences, twists its meaning to suit his own purposes, then conjures an entire vision of a dystopian "society" which simply has nothing to do with anything I ever said, and which is almost the complete antithesis of what I support.

Emprworm rants about the evils of a society in which people have to pay off an infinite debt (in other words, a debt they can never fully repay) to each other. I totally agree with him. Such a society is unjust and immoral - and such a society exists right now. It is the capitalist society we live in. Remember that in capitalism, a sizable potion of the money earned by every worker goes to his employer, as "payment" for the fact that the employer came with the initial capital that started the company. It's as if your employer loans you $100, and you're expected to pay him back $1 for the rest of your life in exchange for it. This is exactly the kind of infinite debt that Emprworm so eloquently thrashed.

So thank you, Emprworm, for supporting my arguments and showing the evils of capitalism.

(see this topic for more details on the "infinite debt" paid by workers in capitalism; on the second page we also discuss Emprworm's beloved myth called "intellectual property")

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gunwounds:

Then what exactly did you mean by this:

It sounded to me like you were trying to justify the injustice of rewarding/punishing children for the actions of their parents by saying it's natural, so I pointed out that being "natural" doesn't automatically make something desirable or even acceptable.

As I see it, punishing children for acts they didn't commit is just as vile and evil as rape or murder.

Taking care of one's offspring is one thing. Giving them a great reward or a terrible punishment for the actions of their parents is quite another.

Excuse me? If there's anyone who isn't thinking before he types, that's you.

"Being free from the constraints of taking care of our offspring and ensuring their survival" means not having to worry about the survival of our children. It means having the certainty that our children will survive, so we no longer have to find ways to ensure that survival ourselves.

So yes, OF COURSE this is a good thing, and OF COURSE it's one of the reasons why human civilization was created.

Of course we should be free from having to worry about our survival, or the survival of our children. It's called the Right to Life.

So what's your point?

Doctors, lawyers, gangsters and thugs exist only as a result of the ARTIFICIAL environments we have created. Our modern medicine, our laws, our cities and streets. Harlem and Beverly Hills are artificial environments.

"Fitness" means being able to hunt your dinner with a spear. We've developed well beyond that stage.

God, what a giant strawman! I never said you owe any actual physical debt to anyone. All I said was that you owe your spark of genius to countless millions who came before you, and to the existence of human society itself. In other words, I pointed out that your genius and innovation are the result of the artificial environment you live in, so they do not make you "fit" in the bilogical meaning of the word.

Again, I must stress the fact that I'm not talking about any actual physical debt. You completely misunderstood what I was saying, and Emprworm took it further and made the strawman even larger and more ridiculous. The only thing I'm saying is that genius and innovation are only possible in the artificial environment created by human society. I'm saying that being a genius in molecular physics doesn't make you "fit", since it wouldn't help you at all in the natural environment of Homo Sapiens.

Jesus specifically mentioned that wealth and poverty do not come as blessings or curses from God; He told His Apostles that in this world even the holiest of men can be poor, and even the greatest sinners can be rich.

And yes, you are playing God if you expect to have the power to "bless" or "curse" other people (in this case, your children).

The Bible was talking about blessings or curses FROM GOD. Such as the blessings to the people of Israel, for example. It was not talking about worldly issues.

He was talking to a man who was in a great hurry to help the poor. He said that you will always have the poor with you, but you won't always have the Son of God with you. Since we don't have the Son of God with us, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus only addressed that statement to the people who lived during His time on Earth.

Of course not! It's a product of class society and the exploitation of man by man - things which are much older than capitalism. They began with the ancient world, continued with feudalism and finally produced capitalism. Capitalism is only the latest (and the last) form of class society.

Oh, and by the way, I suggest you stop hiding behind religion in a political discussion.

I am sorry but it is hard to understand your stance on things because you always seem to evolve your statement and jump around... "oh i didnt mean this i meant that!"  " i wasnt saying that i meant this!"  Everytime you reply you say empworm and i "misunderstood" you or when you say something that contradicts something of your own faith... you turn it around on me and say i am playing God...

Even if someone is correct and your wrong... you will never admit it... because in your eyes they always "misunderstand" or "dont get it"  or "you meant something else"

Are you ever wrong Edrico?..... you seem like you can never admit it.  You are very persuasive person so instead of admitting that you are wrong sometimes you simply  use your persuasiveness to the point of brute force.

Also i was not hiding behind religion in a political discussion....

you said said that curses should not be given from father to son.... and that is the whole concept of original sin...  which is something you believe in .. so i was pointing out how you were contradicting yourself....

let me point out some other areas where you are wrong...

As I see it, punishing children for acts they didn't commit is just as vile and evil as rape or murder.

i never said we should punish children for something they didnt do... i said children deserve their inheritance.  YOu twisted my statement  and then added rape and murder to it... STRAWMAN.

It sounded to me like you were trying to justify the injustice of rewarding/punishing children for the actions of their parents

Nope you trying to put words in my mouth.. i  was only talking about rewards.. i didnt say shit about punishment.

"Being free from the constraints of taking care of our offspring and ensuring their survival" means not having to worry about the survival of our children. It means having the certainty that our children will survive, so we no longer have to find ways to ensure that survival ourselves.

So you want shirk off your parental responsibilities?.... its your responsibility to have "find ways to ensure that survival ourselves" ... i dont want to put that responsibility on society or the government.. ITS MY damn responsibility to take care of my kids... and its something i should worry about... atleast a good parent would.  I dont agree with your idea of shirking off responsibility or trying to place it on someone/something else...

Doctors, lawyers, gangsters and thugs exist only as a result of the ARTIFICIAL environments we have created. Our modern medicine, our laws, our cities and streets. Harlem and Beverly Hills are artificial environments.

a doctor, lawyers, thugs, are not artificial... even civializations as old as ancient egypt had such things... Harlem and Beverly Hills are NOT artificial... where do you get this artifical crap from?....

its easy to think up of examples where todays professions could be mirrored in primitive times..... 

doctor (medicine man),

thug (rogues or bandits),

judge (elders),

Harlem ( bad part of the woods),

Beverly Hills (Good side of the woods with the best grass and plenty of animals).

Artificial my ass ... is all "natural" not "artificial".... just more modernized.....

"Fitness" means being able to hunt your dinner with a spear. We've developed well beyond that stage.

Well now i see why you argue politics cause you dont know much about biology.... "Biological fitness" has nothing to do with food or spears.....it is defined simply as an organism that passes on its genetic information to the next generation. How do you do that?... you have children... and you ensure that they stay alive.  Then it is up to your children to reproduce so that they may be considered biologically fit.

Biological fitness does not change with modern times... i dont care if it was the year 2600 with Captain Kirk... if Captain Kirk decided to never have kids.... and eventually died without ever having kids....then he would be labelled as "biologically unfit"

God, what a giant strawman! I never said you owe any actual physical debt to anyone. All I said was that you owe your spark of genius to countless millions who came before you, and to the existence of human society itself. In other words, I pointed out that your genius and innovation are the result of the artificial environment you live in, so they do not make you "fit" in the bilogical meaning of the word.

Again, I must stress the fact that I'm not talking about any actual physical debt. You completely misunderstood what I was saying, and Emprworm took it further and made the strawman even larger and more ridiculous. The only thing I'm saying is that genius and innovation are only possible in the artificial environment created by human society. I'm saying that being a genius in molecular physics doesn't make you "fit", since it wouldn't help you at all in the natural environment of Homo Sapiens.

This is totally wrong.... being a genius in physics sure as hell would make you "fit" in the "natural" environment of homo sapiens...

being smarter and technologically superior to others has always been an advantage throughout the history of mankind.

If a primitive man was a genius with aerodynamics and made a badass arrow.. he would be ruining people's shit left and right ... with his clearly superior projectile weapons... also someone with a good knowledge of physics would also be able to envision crafting chariots and all sorts of vehicles and more weapons to go along with his arrow.  Being a genius in primitive times would make MORE of a significant impact in homo sapiens primitive environment moreso than if you were a genius in this modern era...  so you are totally wrong there...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Jesus specifically mentioned that wealth and poverty do not come as blessings or curses from God; He told His Apostles that in this world even the holiest of men can be poor, and even the greatest sinners can be rich.

oh really? well you are wrong... when someone tithes to the church they are supposed to get tenfold back.. obviously a wealth blessing from God

And yes, you are playing God if you expect to have the power to "bless" or "curse" other people (in this case, your children).

The Bible was talking about blessings or curses FROM GOD. Such as the blessings to the people of Israel, for example. It was not talking about worldly issues.

nope you are wrong again... heavens laws are set ... if you sin.. bad things happen to you and if you think your children wont be touched by the bad things then you are naive ... if you follow christ... good things happen... and the children will be blessed

[nemafakei]

My point was obviously not that we don't use (fundamentally) the same alphabet as used fist of all by the Roman civilisation (if only you could see the books currently open on my desk...). My point was that no single person came up with the alphabet, it evolved over time. Millions of people have contributed to the development of alphabets (and syllabaries etc.). Besides, Rome was founded something like 756BC (I really should have memorised that damned date by now...)

Edit: Found it: 753BC. Close. 2000 years ago, C. Julius Caesar was dead at any rate.

[Edric O]

oh really? well you are wrong... when someone tithes to the church they are supposed to get tenfold back.. obviously a wealth blessing from God

So you're saying God takes bribes? I seriously doubt that...

If you give money to the Church or to the poor, then you should do it out of the kindness of your heart, not because you expect something back. That is Christian morality.

nope you are wrong again... heavens laws are set ... if you sin.. bad things happen to you and if you think your children wont be touched by the bad things then you are naive ... if you follow christ... good things happen... and the children will be blessed  as well..

Tell me, have you ever read the Book of Job?

You make God sound like some sort of vengeful Mafia guy. That's utterly disgusting and repulsive. What if a man is the kindest, most compassionate person in the world, but his parents were terrible sinners? Should he be punished for their actions? Should he be punished for sins that he never commited?

It has everything to do with worldly issues... if i follow god and i am blessed with food and shelter.. will not my children be blessed as well?.. wont they share the food and shelter?...

You are not blessed with food and shelter for following God. He does not want you to follow Him out of greed and desire for material gain.

If i am sinful and god takes away food and shelter.... will not my childdren starve and shiver?

You really haven't read the Book of Job, have you?

Your God sounds more like an ancient pagan god than like the God of Christianity. The God of Christianity does not hand out (or take away) material posessions in this world according to your sins (or lack thereof). He reserves His judgement for the afterlife.

So yes... blessing and curses can go from parents to children.. trying to say otherwise is naive.. and saying its wrong is direspecting God.

Then I don't know what God you pray to, but your God is not my God.

And with that, I believe we can declare our religious debate officially ended. Since it seems our most fundamental religious beliefs differ, all religious arguments become irrelevant.

[GUNWOUNDS]

So you're saying God takes bribes? I seriously doubt that...

If you give money to the Church or to the poor, then you should do it out of the kindness of your heart, not because you expect something back. That is Christian morality.

Tell me, have you ever read the Book of Job?

You make God sound like some sort of vengeful Mafia guy. That's utterly disgusting and repulsive. What if a man is the kindest, most compassionate person in the world, but his parents were terrible sinners? Should he be punished for their actions? Should he be punished for sins that he never commited?

You are not blessed with food and shelter for following God. He does not want you to follow Him out of greed and desire for material gain.

You really haven't read the Book of Job, have you?

Your God sounds more like an ancient pagan god than like the God of Christianity. The God of Christianity does not hand out (or take away) material posessions in this world according to your sins (or lack thereof). He reserves His judgement for the afterlife.

Then I don't know what God you pray to, but your God is not my God.

And with that, I believe we can declare our religious debate officially ended. Since it seems our most fundamental religious beliefs differ, all religious arguments become irrelevant.

What are you talking about ?? .. i never said god takes bribes? .... it clearly states in the bible that you get tenfold back for tithing... WHY ARE YOU SIDE-STEPPING

[Edric O]

If you actually believe that God will personally give you $3.4 if you tithe 34 cents to the Church, then you really are a disturbed person...

God isn't running a bank. The verse talking about you getting rewarded tenfold for tithing is NOT meant to be taken at face value. In other words, you don't actually get money from God. That's such an obvious fact that I simply can't understand how you don't seem to be able to comprehend it...

Do you think God actually intervenes in the economy? You think He prints money? Or maybe he takes money from sinners and magically transports them into the pockets of people who tithe to the Church?? What are you smoking?

...but regardless, you haven't actually said anything new in your latest post. And you certainly haven't shown that you understood anything from the Book of Job.

So why don't we just do as I said, and declare our religious discussion ended? I think I made myself quite clear when I told you: "I don't know what God you pray to, but your God is not my God."

[Edric O]

And now here it is, the post you've all been waiting for - the reply to Gunwounds's other points:

I am sorry but it is hard to understand your stance on things because you always seem to evolve your statement and jump around... "oh i didnt mean this i meant that!"  " i wasnt saying that i meant this!"  Everytime you reply you say empworm and i "misunderstood" you or when you say something that contradicts something of your own faith... you turn it around on me and say i am playing God...

If my posts aren't clear enough, then why don't you ask me what I meant before you jump to conclusions and build up strawman arguments?

It's not my fault that you and Emprworm keep trying to twist my words (actually Emprworm is the only one that does it on purpose, I'll grant you that; you only seem to have made a confusion).

So I'm sorry Gunwounds, but your pathetic whining won't get you anywhere. When you twist my words or misrepresent my position, I won't sit there and accept your strawman just for the sake of being a good sport. I also won't dumb down my arguments just because you don't seem to be able to understand them.

Even if someone is correct and your wrong... you will never admit it... because in your eyes they always "misunderstand" or "dont get it"  or "you meant something else"

Are you ever wrong Edrico?..... you seem like you can never admit it.  You are very persuasive person so instead of admitting that you are wrong sometimes you simply  use your persuasiveness to the point of brute force.

That's pure bullsh*t. Are you trying to replace rational arguments with infantile ad hominem now? How about focusing on the issues at hand instead of throwing mud in my direction?

I am wrong many times. All human beings are. However, this is not one of those times. When I am proven to be wrong, I always admit it.

But with all due respect, you haven't exactly done a great job of proving anything so far...

Also i was not hiding behind religion in a political discussion....

you said said that curses should not be given from father to son.... and that is the whole concept of original sin...  which is something you believe in .. so i was pointing out how you were contradicting yourself...

And I pointed out that there is a difference between curses coming from God and "curses" created by human beings. God has the right to pass down curses from father to son. Humans do not. That's why I said you are playing God when you want to hand down "curses".

i never said we should punish children for something they didnt do... i said children deserve their inheritance.  YOu twisted my statement  and then added rape and murder to it... STRAWMAN.

You said inheritance was natural. I pointed out that rape and murder are equally natural. You accepted the fact that being natural doesn't make something right. Case closed.

Also, if you say that children deserve their inheritance, then you're saying that poor children should be put at a disadvantage in comparison with rich children. In other words, you're saying that poor children should be punished and rich children should be rewarded, which I find to be unjust and immoral. Where exactly is the strawman in that?

Nope you trying to put words in my mouth.. i  was only talking about rewards.. i didnt say shit about punishment.

If you are giving someone a reward he didn't earn, then you are giving him an unfair advantage over others, and effectively punishing those others (by putting them at an unfair disadvantage).

So you want shirk off your parental responsibilities?.... its your responsibility to have "find ways to ensure that survival ourselves" ... i dont want to put that responsibility on society or the government.. ITS MY damn responsibility to take care of my kids... and its something i should worry about... atleast a good parent would.  I dont agree with your idea of shirking off responsibility or trying to place it on someone/something else...

So what's your point? That children should be put in mortal danger just so you can prove yourself to be a good parent and save them from that danger?

My point is that one of the main reasons why we created civilization was the establishment of collective responsibility. The physical expression of collective responsibility (in the systems we've had so far) is the state. People came together and established collective responsibility so that individuals would have certain benefits guaranteed. For example, the benefit of survival (what we call the Right to Life). In other words, we established civilization so that we wouldn't constantly have to worry about how to stay alive. Or about how to keep our children alive. We established civilization so that we and our children would have our survival guaranteed.

a doctor, lawyers, thugs, are not artificial... even civializations as old as ancient egypt had such things... Harlem and Beverly Hills are NOT artificial... where do you get this artifical crap from?....

From technology, Gunwounds. Technology results in artificial environments and changes in human society.

And take another look at your statement: "CIVILIZATIONS as old as Ancient Egypt had such things". Civilizations. Not human beings in their natural state, but human civilizations.

its easy to think up of examples where todays professions could be mirrored in primitive times.....

doctor (medicine man),

thug (rogues or bandits),

judge (elders),

Harlem ( bad part of the woods),

Beverly Hills (Good side of the woods with the best grass and plenty of animals).

Artificial my ass ... is all "natural" not "artificial".... just more modernized.....

LOL, by that logic, an AK-47 is just a modernized spear. And a tank is just a modernized chariot. And, of course, a skyscraper is just a modernized cave... ::)

There is one point at which "modernization" takes you from the natural to the artificial. For example, the medicine man used natural herbs, while the modern doctor uses artificial substances that are the result of intense research and cutting-edge technology.

What sets human beings apart from other animals is precisely the fact that we shape our own environment. Other animals adapt to their environment. We make our environment adapt to our needs.

Well now i see why you argue politics cause you dont know much about biology.... "Biological fitness" has nothing to do with food or spears.....it is defined simply as an organism that passes on its genetic information to the next generation. How do you do that?... you have children... and you ensure that they stay alive.  Then it is up to your children to reproduce so that they may be considered biologically fit.

Your rudimentary knowledge of biology takes you to ridiculously false conclusions. First of all, biological fitness only applies to cases where survival depends on genetical characteristics. Hence my example with the caveman hunting his dinner with a spear. In our modern world, genes don't count for much. Stephen Hawking's bad genes didn't kill him, and they didn't prevent him being one of the greatest geniuses of our times. Your genes may be perfect from a biological point of view, but that won't count for squat in our technological civilization. Our survival depends on our intelligence and our minds, not our genes.

Biological fitness does not change with modern times... i dont care if it was the year 2600 with Captain Kirk... if Captain Kirk decided to never have kids.... and eventually died without ever having kids....then he would be labelled as "biologically unfit"

If having kids no longer depends on the characteristics of your genes, then you can't talk about "fitness" any more. An organism can be "fit" or "unfit" in a world where only certain genetic qualities allow it to reproduce. But in modern human society, reproduction has become a matter of choice and personal preference. Thanks to our technology, we have risen above the laws of natural selection. Technology works faster and better than biological evolution. We no longer need to evolve our bodies. Instead, we evolve our technology.

This is totally wrong.... being a genius in physics sure as hell would make you "fit" in the "natural" environment of homo sapiens...

Not if you're a potential genius in a field of physics that hasn't been discovered yet, or that doesn't help you to hunt wild animals. I gave molecular physics as an example.

being smarter and technologically superior to others has always been an advantage throughout the history of mankind.

Being smarter and technologically superior are not genetic characteristics. That's the point. Technology beats genes. Natural selection and biological evolution have stopped in Homo Sapiens, because we have outgrown them. Biological evolution works very, very slowly. You'd need to wait thousands of years just to notice the slightest biological improvement. Technological evolution works MUCH faster. Our technology evolves so fast, that the biological evolution of our bodies has become irrelevant.

And if that's not enough and you really want your idiotic Social Darwinism to be hacked to pieces, I can introduce you to a biologist friend of mine who posts on the Relic forums...

[GUNWOUNDS]

ok i am gonna stop the tit for tat quoting back and forth and i am gonna write this to disprove you once and for all.....

1.)

[GUNWOUNDS]

Stephen Hawking's bad genes didn't kill him, and they didn't prevent him being one of the greatest geniuses of our times

sorry i said i would stop the quoting tit for tat... but i have to address this....

Stephen Hawking's bad genes didnt kill him but his disabling disease only hit him later in life... he was healthy

[danielsh]

This is only an incidental question, but I feel that it needs to be asked anyway.

now in modern times

[GUNWOUNDS]

This is only an incidental question, but I feel that it needs to be asked anyway.

Are you actually defending eugenics? Is it your frank and serious belief that mentally disabled people should not be allowed to reproduce and dirty the gene pool?

I do not understand why you are asking me a loaded question....however i will try to side-step your landmines as i say this:

A mentally retarded person has the mental capacity of a child and therefore cannot consent to sex .. as they stay in a perpetual state of childhood....thats the primary reason for not letting them reproduce....

.....secondly they need serious care and therefore could not take care of a child.....

.........and thirdly.... MANY people go to see a genetic counselor before reproducing to ensure that they are genetically compatible as to not create children with severe problems.... Meaning most intelligent rational people would opt not to reproduce with each other if there was a high likelyhood of having a severely handicapped child....

i am not saying lets kill handicapped people or their babies.... i am saying that we need to hold them to the same standards we hold ourselves too.... meaning we

[danielsh]

Should the state intervene when a mentally disabled person might reproduce, and make an effort to prevent that?

[Dante]

No state has the right to do that.

[Wolf]

Why, Dust? It brings more money to the state if the individual cannot reproduce, since a mentally-disabled individual will consume far more state money being aided than he will produce. I think an amoral analysis of this situation reaches the opposite conclusion than the one you have reached.

[Dante]

Individualism is important. If someone wants to do something that will not directly take money out of my coffers, who am I to say they shouldn't? Besides which, If I start interfering in the private lives of others then they might think that gives them the right in to meddle in mine and that I will not allow.

As you can see, self-preservation dominates.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Should the state intervene when a mentally disabled person might reproduce, and make an effort to prevent that?

well its more complex than that....

[SurlyPIG]

That gets a little touchy depending on what disabilities the person has and how they are affected by them.

First thing I will say, though, any adult that has sex with a person with the capacity of a five-year-old - whether they are an twenty-year-old with a mental disability or an actual five year old - is a perv and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  I don't think anyone can argue with that.

Beyond that, there are some mental disabilities that are much more complicated.  Usually they have something to do with how the person communicates (how they perceive the world around them and how they are limited in responding to it).  With help, these people can learn to cope with how they perceive the world differently and learn to interact with it in their own way.  To deny them a right everyone else has (right to procreate, if there is such a thing in a world of six billion), would be unfair.  Just plain wrong.

For example, people with cerebral palsy, a condition believed to be caused by damage to the brain during or shortly after birth, does not detract from the way a person develops, thinks, reasons and learns, but impedes their ability to express what they think because the brain damage impedes muscle coordination and speaking ability.  In essence, it's a perfectly normal person in a body that doesn't work, similar to those who suffer from brain injuries caused by massive head trauma and have to re-learn how to perform basic movements.  It's said to be one of the worst disabilties to live with because you're a normal person inside but can't speak or move normally which can lead to some people treating you like a five-year-old all the time.  I'm not sure whether or not cerebral palsy can impede a person's ability to reproduce and whether or not that can be remedied with fertility science, but when reproduction is possible, it is not a genetic disability and would not be passed on to the next generation.

On the other hand, a condition like downs syndrome (47 chromosome disorder) would be passed through generations (even though I think the condition usually results in impotence) and in this case mental retardation is such that you could argue that it would be irresponsible to allow them to bear offspring.

[nemafakei]

As I recall, with CP, you can lose muscle control and/or mental capacity. At a certain age, people here with CP are tested to see which one (I know someone with CP who came out with a ridiculously high score).

As regards reproduction, it is possible that you are mechanically unable to reproduce, if it's really bad, and, in the cases where it affects other parts of the brain, there may by psychological problems. Technically, I think it is possible in almost all cases to force someone with CP to reproduce. Speech, being one of the most complex muscle activities we perform, is, as you say, the most vulnerable.

"On the other hand, a condition like downs syndrome (47 chromosome disorder) would be passed through generations (even though I think the condition usually results in impotence)"

Invariably so, as I recall.

[Edric O]

First, I want to finish my old discussion with Gunwounds:

ok i am gonna stop the tit for tat quoting back and forth and i am gonna write this to disprove you once and for all...

Well, I'm not going to stop the tit for tat quoting, because it's useful when you want to keep track of the argument.

Oh, and by the way, quit your boasting: you haven't disproved anything, and you know it. I suggest you look back at all the points I made in my previous post, and which had nothing to do with God or blessings.

But anyways with my seven points i have clearly trounced you when you said God does not bless us with material things.

I put this at the beginning in order to show the reason why you haven't disproved anything. My point, if you remember, was this:

Your God sounds more like an ancient pagan god than like the God of Christianity. The God of Christianity does not hand out (or take away) material posessions in this world according to your sins (or lack thereof).

Do you understand? My point was that God does not give material blessings according to your faith or your good acts or anything else of that sort.

You mentioned 4 instances in the Bible when God gave blessings of food. But let's take a closer look at them:

3.) When the israelites were in the desert with moses and were starving .... mana came down from heaven to feed them..... obviously God blessed them with FOOD....

4.)  Were people were starving Jesus turn a few loaves of bread and a few fish into thousands.... a blessing of FOOD....

6.) Elijah was in the desert with no food and God provided him with some..... another blessing of FOOD.

Notice anything in common? In all those cases, the people were STARVING. God gave them a blessing of food not because they were pure or holy or good in any way, but simply because they needed the food to stay alive. It was not a reward for their achievements. It was need-based aid.

5.) when the disciples were trying to fish and could not find any fish..... Jesus said cast out your nets again... and they laughed and did it anyways.... and then their nets overflowed with fish and some of the nets even broke cause they were so filled with fish...

obviously a blessing of FOOD

Jesus was trying to make a point. The blessing of food had nothing to do with the disciples themselves. It wasn't a reward of any kind.

As for the rest of your "7 points":

1.)  I know that the tenfold blessings you get from God are NOT always going to be cash.... but it COULD be... how God decides to bless you is up to him.

So does He print money, or does He magically take money from others to give it to you? ::)

2.)  You said  food isnt a blessing from God?.... so i guess you dont say grace before you eat and thank God for the food?

Actually, the blessing from God is that you're alive to enjoy the food in the first place. I thank God for my life, not for my food.

7.) It is true that God can bless you with "non-material" blessings such as Love, Happiness, Joy, Health, and Peace BUT can you be healthy,happy, joyous, peaceful if you are starving, shivering, and diseased?

I don't know. Ask the hundreds of millions of people who are starving, shivering and diseased in the world right now.

More to the point, however, if God helps those people, then it is the same kind of "need-based aid" that I was talking about in relation to your Bible events.

Keep in mind, though, that God's true blessings are in the next life, not in this one.

and in response to your irrelevant arguement about Job.......Satan told God that Job was only faithful to God because job lived a prosperous life.... God told satan... no... i will take everything away and he will still love me and stay loyal to me...so god took everything away and Job stayed loyal and did not curse the lord even tho his wife begged him to curse the lord....and because of that God blessed him and gave him back his wealth, bore him new children and etc, etc,

I do not see how this relates to our discussion?

It relates to our discussion because you said that "if you follow christ... good things happen... and the children will be blessed as well". But Job's first children weren't exactly "blessed" for the goodness of their father, were they?

You also said "If i am sinful and god takes away food and shelter..."

But the Book of Job shows that God can take away your food and shelter even if you are the holiest of men. He can use that to test your faith.

And just out of curiosity: Weren't we supposed to be talking about inheritance? How the hell did we get here?