Darwinism: The self cleaning of the gene pool. The strong surviving over the weak. The smart surviving over the stupid. The natural order removing the defective.
Hand Guns: The manual cleaning of the gene pool. From holy wars to the death sentence. From gang shootings to road rage to assassinations. The act of one man affecting man as a whole.
Due to the locking of my thread to invite discussion about events of great stupidity, due to the stupidity that followed it, I will state my argument here in as simple a language as I can so it is not misinterpreted. Please do not prove yourself an example.
Wars have been fought with weapons, as is the fate of man. To invade or defend for the survival of your race, history is written by the victor. The Darwin Awards are given to those who have removed themselves from the gene pool due to their own stupidity. In nature, the strong survive wile the weak die, wile in our world, weak men pull triggers of cheap weapons. Maybe we should not ask, "Why do we make weapons to kill ourselves" but instead ask if this is just nature balancing out the natural order?
Discussion -
Position A: Everything is going as it should. We are living and dying in a way that benefits man as to prevent overpopulation of the world, those who die are suppose to, something along these lines.
Position B: We are our own downfall. We keep making bigger and more powerful ways to kill ourselves. If we don't do something, mankind will make the world a wasteland and die out.
Position C: God will save us. Religion etc.. etc..
Position D: I don't understand big words. Flame, flame...
Thank you very much for recreating it in a more constructive tone.
I'm probably leaning mostly towards position B... With modifications, of course, but that's the one I'm closest to.
Those who get their hands on guns and start 'cleaning out the gene pool' are most likely not the ones most fit - they're just daft enough to like killing. It's not the unlucky that should die, it is the weaklings... I sound harsh now, don't I?
But I do think it is a problem that every life is considered so darn precious that it must be attempted to be saved in every single case...
A, B, C, and D. Whoever dies or lives is under the hand of God. He will come and save us from death. But in the meanwhile, we'd best be trying not to exercise our depravity. I understand big words, but I'm a little flummoxed as to the purpose of this thread.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the applications of weapons in our society. Take a position or make one of your own. What do you think of the current state of things with the Wars going on? What about the shootings and murders in your neighborhood? What do you think of suicide and Darwinism? Would you have kids knowing they will be exposed to this world?
Just FYI, C and D are just there because I knew some one would say something like this.
I believe that while weapons may seem to inhibit evolution, they are simply a part of it. Humans learn to make and use weapons. Whether this is for good or ill, it is still evolution. As for murders, it hardly changes any thing. Their are so many people, and so little murders. (Comparatively.) I find that lack of weapons would more likely orchestrate the fall of man.
But I do think it is a problem that every life is considered so darn precious that it must be attempted to be saved in every single case...
Could you explain what you mean more? I think I agree with you.
I'm more into B, but also into A as well. If we all wouldn't be dying now, (anything living), then the world would all be overcrowded, and we would be exceeding our population expenditure, so we would have nothing in terms of food, water, and shelter. This is where Survival of the Fittest comes in, where all the strong overpower the weak and frail. They get to reproduce, and in time, breed better organisms.
Reason B: we are killing each other for resources, developing a bigger weapon than the other nation and killing them off. Just be glad that something overly dramatic didn't happen and set off a nuclear war, because everything will be a completely-realistic fallout.
I think it was Devoidless, but he pretty much summed up everything that a fallout would contain in a thread somewhere in this forum in the later pages. It was quite long, but it represented everything that a future fallout would turn out.
