b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 7631803 (Thread)

# I'm with you to an extent, but if we're going to better the human race and preserve our gene pool
the retards and the disabled folk should probably go first. For the greater good.
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:03, archived)
# here, you dropped you 'kamph'
:)
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:09, archived)
# Hey, I wasn't the one that suggested we start exterminating people.
I would eat soylent green though.
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:10, archived)
# followed by anyone who needs glasses
the average eyesight is already bad enough as it is
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:10, archived)
# Oi!
I wear glasses!
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:15, archived)
#
pssst, me too ;)
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:27, archived)
# 8-(

(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:21, archived)
# don't bung them all in together fella :)
I've worked with enough kind hearted and mentally superior disabled folk in my time.

Just because someone doesn't have the use of their legs doesn't mean they can't create the most incredible work of art or write the greatest piece of literature.

But I'm talking about the eradication of evil. Which I'm pretty certain you can't do because you then have nothing to qualify good against, and once you've got rid of the really evil ones then people wnat to get rid of the slightly evil, then the "bit arsey" ones, then the ones that borrowed your screwdriver for too long, etc etc
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:13, archived)
# Some might suggest
that the eradicators of evil are committing an evil act.

Kind of like how it's ok for an army to murder thousands of people because their government did the same thing.
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:16, archived)
# very much so
you become as bad as your enemy and all that, which is why I hypothesise these things and would never consider acting on them myself.

I don't even kill flies, I let them out the window :D
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:17, archived)
# and what if evil is not genetically determined
or if evil is so multigenic that virtually every person has a gene associated with increased "evilness" risk?

BTW: the second scenario is true for most conditions, so you'd have to exterminate the entire humaan race to get rid of retards from our gene pool. Not that I'm against that.
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:19, archived)
# OF COURSE evil is not genetically determined.
What do you think brains are for, if not forming evil plans?
Odd how this kind of discussion suckers me into jokes that suggest the doctrine of original sin, bless the innocent little animals for they are incapable of evil, etc.
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:29, archived)
# that
and watch reality TV.
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:32, archived)
# TO PERFORM THE TURKEY CURSE:
Take a foot stance as if you were John L. Sullivan preparing for fisticuffs. Face the particular greyfaced you wish to short-circuit, or towards the direction of the negative aneristic vibration that you wish to neutralize. Begin waving your arms in any elaborate manner and make motions with your hands as though you were Mandrake feeling up a sexy giantess. Chant, loudly and clearly:
GOBBLE, GOBBLE, GOBBLE, GOBBLE, GOBBLE!

The results will be instantly apparent.

(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:19, archived)
# Sadly
this sort of behaviour is hard-wired into our brains from our genetic legacy. So yes, a cull to eradicate the bastards would be lovely but I think it would make us a completely different species, like cattle or something.
It's the job of our modern society to keep a check on this sort of thing, but there are just too many people in the world, and the type of society we evolved for just doesn't work any more.
The only solution I can think of is to get rid of reality TV, ITV, Nuts & Zoo and their like and all of the drivel out there that glorifies this kind of twatty behaviour.
Or if you have a problem with freedom of speech, publish them but only sell them to people who will read them because it's 'ironic'. Yes, Oxbridge students!
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:20, archived)
# Creativity, imagination, ideas, language
= the capacity to piss on an dying woman in the street.
Actually, wait, that's not quite right; I bet all kinds of species of animal have done similar things. They just don't have newspapers to report it, or any sense of decency to be outraged.
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:42, archived)
# I've always wondered if other animals are capable of having a sense of outrage.
I'd love to see giraffes doing it.
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:47, archived)
# only some primates do
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:51, archived)
# Chimps routinely eat their neighbour's babies
so whatever they're getting outraged about, it must be something other than that.
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 10:56, archived)
# well, they get outrged if they are the victims
that is

like the Daily Mail readers
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 11:12, archived)
# Daily Mail readers hate it when their babies are eaten by chimps.
They're so uptight.
(, Thu 20 Sep 2007, 11:20, archived)