Organ Donation

[neems 2,406]

 

 

 

Eugenics doesn't have to be this ridiculous overly stringent practice,offer free health checks for everyone,recommend those who fail don't have biological children,give them an opportunity to adopt instead,or if one partners healthy use surrogates/donors,make all of this accessible to normal people.

 

Pay the top 5% to have as many kids as they'll have.

 

We're degenerating,were will be in 300 years if this continues?

 

In 300 years we will be engineering our own genetic future..... hereditary faults will be predominantly solved in the lab, not through more conventional natural selection or selective breeding. The selection process, whether considered an advanced form of 'natural' or not, will be largely affected by us rather than the complex methods of nature....

 

Outrageous statement maybe, but it's just the next step on the evolutionary ladder..... We've been fighting natural selection for millennia, it could be argued that it's the nature of such intelligent species.

 

 

That's possible not by any means definite,I'd have more faith in more basic methods,at least for now.

 

People have worked within the natural order performing rites and rituals that were a form of eugenics for at least as long as they've fought against it.

 

 

Mate, I'm not as against your view as you might think. Just stating how I see events are to unfold. We have gradually defied the conventional natural laws of selection with advancements in medicine and society. We have progressively replaced the selection criteria with ones we have greater control over. Eventually our understanding of bioengineering will allow us to control our own future in a way only seen in Sci-Fi now!

 

That of course makes us very dependant on ourselves......

 

 

My point is we have balanced the scales through history,as medical knowledge increased rites of passage adapted to weed out the weaker members (not necessarily killing them but disqualifying them from marriage and allowing them no status in society)

 

Then internationalism kicked in and it stopped dead,then we regressed and have continued to for over a 1000 years,we'd better just hope enough geniuses continue to be born and bring about what you said while we still have any resources left.

[Born Hunter 17,763]

The ONLY time the state has a right to pull a person up on what they are doing is if that action is directly harming someone or something else.

Up to that pint people should be given responsibility to decide/provide for themselves.

 

See, it falls down when the state offers to take away huge chunks of your responsibility in exchange for huge chunks of your money.......it leads us to this discussion which argues exactly what we are prepared to let them decide.

 

The obvious cure is that they should demand the bare minimum, we should give them the bare minimum and take back responsibility for our habits, our vices, our offspring and our life.

 

We are at a bad place at the moment IMHO

 

Reminds me of a quote;

 

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" Ben Franklin

 

 

Though I do accept it's not quite as simple as that.

[Truther 1,579]

 

 

 

But wouldn't the natural assumption that the thatcher worshippers we have running the show now have the same moral code as her? Didn't camerons mate (ex mate) say cameron belonged to some hooray henry club that's main purpose was to keep wealth out of the hands of the working class, well that and snorting coke and indulging in bit of pig f***ing

 

Multinationals and super rich individuals making a profit out of the people of this land, yet they pay little or no tax, then your party try and stop working tax credit when we already have working people using food banks A direct result of your party, and others, policies, allowing a flood of cheap immigrant labour in to keep wages down? How much hard proof do we need that profit always comes before people, despite risks to health?

 

They care very little about the herd mate, the only time anything positive gets done is to protect the interests of the ruling minority.

 

An assumption that ignores the obvious observations. It's an assumption based on your set in stone hypothesis that 'they're definitely out to get us' as supported by all the statements above but which cannot so simply be applied to what we are talking about. I don't care about any of that, none of it has anything to do with the governments attitude on domestic tobacco use!

 

Observation of the governments attitude towards domestic tobacco use is clear...... it's progressively restrictive and inhibiting! Quite starkly contrary to your assertion that they want us to all die from tobacco and alcohol abuse!

 

I have no dog in this race, despite your continued use of 'your party'. I'm being objective and drawing conclusions with no bias. You however aren't, you have your hypothesis, that may very well fit for some situations, and just apply it blindly to everything. It doesn't at all fit with the governments actual actions on the topic of domestic tobacco use. If they wanted us to all smoke ourselves to death then they would be far more liberal with the associated laws. They want it banned but daren't rock the boat too much for fear of the backlash. Issues like these are too sensitive to be bold on, that's why it's a progressive strategy.

 

And don't kid yourself that I think they want it banned because they worry about my health, I've not touched on the reasons they want it banned, just that it's clear that they do and the reason why they haven't restricted it in the same way they have other substances.....

 

 

You honestly think dave and co are sitting round thinking of ways to stop people smoking and drinking, for their own good Any government not pushing the anti tobacco angle would look like a set of profiteering, uncaring monsters, they take advice from health bodies, they just cant ignore it, much as they would like to.

 

Who said they want us to die from tobacco and alcohol abuse? Their aim is to make a profit out of it, not kill us all off ffs.........tobacco is the perfect drug for them, it doesn't make the worker ants unable to do their job, very very addictive, and kills you off in your 60's in general, savings on pensions But i'll agree to disagree, dave and his mates are doing their best to safeguard the nations health out of the goodness of their hearts, its obvious.

 

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but after singing the praise's of UKIP for weeks, maybe months? you voted for the cons, hence my use of "your party" or don't you understand the concept of voting for someone? Its not my fault you feel the need to defend these uncaring animals is it? I wouldn't like the job either, considering the material you have to work with

 

 

Your first sentence is in complete defiance of my last! LOL, it's like you didn't even read it.

 

Singing the praise of UKIP..... haven't we been through this before? I never once, to the best of my memory, thrashed the UKIP bandwagon like you seem to insinuate. I could relate to their politics, that I have never denied and quite explicitly stated that I hadn't decided if they would get my vote over the Cons. The concept of voting I get, you support a party, it doesn't make them your party, just the one that you gave your support to..... I can't believe I'm having to explain this.... Sometime in life you have to make decisions, it's not then your fault if despite your best effort events turn out for the worst.

 

LOL, I'm not defending anybody, I think banning alcohol and tobacco is completely cuntish! In case you don't get the implication of that, it means I think the Cons attempt to legislate against foods and alcohol etc is an infringement of my freedom. It wasn't defence of 'my party', it was an alternate and rational explanation to your conspiracy!

 

Their aim is to get us addicted to tobacco to maximise our profitability........ hmm back to the observable facts, FYI they're not hypothesis to explain the observations...... the government have continually and rightfully demonised smoking through education and advertising which has had the effect of reducing the volume of smokers......... cracking job they're doing of making us profitable eh!

 

They want it banned because it's clearly the right thing to do from a strategic political view but it's too sensitive a issue to be bold with! The electorate don't like their civil liberties being messed with but at the same time want the government to protect them. The answer, as usually the case, is to act but progressively so as not to suffer heavy backlash....... they aren't doing it for our health, they aren't doing it to make money, they're doing it because its politically the savvy thing to do when you consider the complexity of the politics.

 

 

We obviously wont agree BH, its notable they didn't have any qualms about stopping tax credit though, obviously the 1 in 5 smokers has more political clout than the low paid.

[Born Hunter 17,763]

 

We obviously wont agree BH, its notable they didn't have any qualms about stopping tax credit though, obviously the 1 in 5 smokers has more political clout than the low paid.

 

 

Agreed and you're a gent for being amicable.

 

As always mate, it's been a pleasure.

[WILF 46,873]

Tax credit is a smoke screen, they had no right to stop it......after all it's not a benefit, it's simply giving back the massive overpayment you are all making at the moment.

 

It's a great scam, steal a persons money and make them feel like you are doing them a favour by giving a small bit back !!........a labour invention just like the welfare state, a great idea which has then been used as a weapon of subjugation by successive governments.

The current generation of politicians are all one and the same man, I don't understand why no one can see that?

[Truther 1,579]

 

 

 

Eugenics doesn't have to be this ridiculous overly stringent practice,offer free health checks for everyone,recommend those who fail don't have biological children,give them an opportunity to adopt instead,or if one partners healthy use surrogates/donors,make all of this accessible to normal people.

 

Pay the top 5% to have as many kids as they'll have.

 

We're degenerating,were will be in 300 years if this continues?

 

Free health checks and encouraging those with nasty genetic disorders not to pass them on I have no problem with. The words "offer" and "recommend" make your proposal a lot more palatable, it's when people start talking about actually banning certain people from reproducing that it starts getting mental, that's a slippery slope I'm sure we'd all rather not go down

 

 

Unless it was banning muslim breeding, then i'm sure most of us would go down that slippery slope, except muslims and traitors like

 

Can't reply to the other post, here's my answer

 

"Fascist" Scraping the bottom of the lefty barrel out of desperation now eh

 

I think Neems puts it fairly well, looks like he missed "intentional inbreeding" being outlawed though, but i don't suppose the would be a problem in Neems England, or mine either

 

I did practice what i preach, did it not occur to you a potential problem could arise after you had 2 kids already? Simple answer was i wasn't aware from the beginning genius.

 

Not scraping the bottom of any barrel just using the word that best decribes your ideology, it isn't an insult unless you think you're somehow wrong

 

So you've changed your mind then? Now you don't think people shouldn't be allowed to have kids they should just be encouraged not to? Some might call that backpedaling but I'll call it progress

 

You said she was tested for a genetic complaint, if you had been practicing what you preach you both would of been entirely cleared of all genetic defects before even trying for a baby, surely.

 

 

It just makes me laugh you think my ideas are fascist? and makes me think you've never been round any real socialists, you know, lads that went and fought in the Spanish civil war, stormed the beaches at Normandy, parachuted into Arnheim, the same ones who started the unions, and fought for workers rights, Nationalists to a man, no lack of compassion when needed, and a good sense of right and wrong in my experience, but called a spade a spade, and put theirs first.

 

I'm not for riding rough shod over peoples lives, the ones that belong here that is, democratically elected governments should be there to serve the people, somehow that got turned on its arse over the last 30 years? Neems went into some detail, mine was just the rough idea, but its common sense, so not much chance of anyone taking any notice anyway.

 

Why would you get tested for something unknown in your family? I didn't carry a form about for birds to fill in, "do you have any genetic faults in the family?" shit happens mate, but that's the end of that.

[Truther 1,579]

 

 

We obviously wont agree BH, its notable they didn't have any qualms about stopping tax credit though, obviously the 1 in 5 smokers has more political clout than the low paid.

 

 

Agreed and you're a gent for being amicable.

 

As always mate, it's been a pleasure.

 

 

Laid up with a bad back, its passed my day on

[Silversnake 1,099]

I have a Lebanese friend who told me in Lebanon they have a record of if the genetics are getting too tight and they are advised not to propagate. If this is true, it shows government intervention is not unheard of for genetic well being. The same friend told me they do not have this system in place in Australia and therefore the high number of down syndrome and other genetic faults in the Islamic community over here. I would like to know if this is the case in any other countries too if anybody can confirm. Atvb.

[mackem 26,550]

I have a Lebanese friend who told me in Lebanon they have a record of if the genetics are getting too tight and they are advised not to propagate. If this is true, it shows government intervention is not unheard of for genetic well being. The same friend told me they do not have this system in place in Australia and therefore the high number of down syndrome and other genetic faults in the Islamic community over here. I would like to know if this is the case in any other countries too if anybody can confirm. Atvb.

There is a higher than average incidence of special needs children in the pakistani community in the UK due to inbreeding with first degree cousins,interfamily marriage with close cousins isnt uncommon,anyone want to shoot me down in flames for mentioning this just do a little research,i have seen it enough times to know its not a made up statistic.

[Silversnake 1,099]

Maybe Truther is right, maybe a bit of intervention and education might help. In saying that the British government would probably use the new powers to control who could breed and when and probably give the politicians first crack! I wish that was a joke...