"Children die in hot car while mom at salon"

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Darwinism at it's finest.

This isn't darwiism. The mother didn't suffer for her own mistakes, her KIDS did. This is just pure stupidity.

Um, do you understand the concept of darwinism? They either die before they breed, or they kill their offspring before they can breed. Either way, their genes do not live on.

It has nothing to do with "suffering" and everything to do with the genes being passed down.

Whatever.. when I think of darwinism I think of survival of the fittest. This had nothing to do with that. Those kids died cause her mother was a dumbass. Who gives a sh!t if they can't pass the genes now, really? I didn't know such stupidity was inherited, I sure hope it isn't.

Where did you think stupidity came from? The freakin' stupidity fairy? Of course intelligence is genetic.

When one speaks of "Darwinism" one speaks SOLELY of the passing of genes. It means nothing else.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: iamme

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
AmusedOne: yeah, whatever.

And why is everybody so up in arms over this lady's kids? If she was such a loser and so fscking stupid, do you REALLY want her offspring to survive?

So, you think that because she's a lousy mother, it's OK that her kids die a slow and horrible death?

It doesn't matter if it's OK or not. I said it's natural. Do you think it's OK when a mother gazelle neglects her kids and they get eaten by lions?

Offspring deaths caused by parental neglect is natural selection. It happens everywhere in the wild.

We bitch and moan about how stupid people are, yet we do everything to save their offspring. Why?

And why the "yeah whatever" to the little bit of history of reproductive restrictions, huh?

You're comparing our environment to those of wild animals. Darwinism says survival of the fittest. So only pro atheles and their kids deserve to be spared? Only the brightest and smartest deserve to live?

No. You are not understanding natural selection. And there is no reason why it doesn't, and isn't continuing now. No one deserves to be "spared." That's UNNATURAL selection. People who CAN survive, do survive. Genetic lines who run their cars into brick walls at 80 miles an hour, or kill their entire brood in a sweltering car do not.

Should we stop natural selection simply because we consider ourselves "civilized?" If we do, what becomes of us? What happens when those of the lowest IQs are saved by those who think that's "civilized" and end up have the most children, when nature would have let them die? These are questions that must be asked. To dismiss them out of hand simply because we consider ourselves "civilized" is to deny the reality of what we are, and where we came from.

Stupid animals have always offed themselves. "Civilization" isn't going to stop that, only slow it down long enough that they can reproduce.

Dude. what you're forgetting is that natural selection does not exist in our society any longer. I think its really disgusting that you can even suggest that maybe we should let their kids die just because it would have happened if nobody intervenes and we let nature run its course. Kids don't deserve to die just because their parents are dumb. There's no way of deciding how the kid will turn out.

As for "natural selection", these days medecine, the fact that almost EVERYONE passes down their genes wheter gay, straight, ugly, beautiful, smart, dumb, tall, short, whatever, undermines this. People will die in car accidents no matter what type they are. Natural selection doesn't exist at least in North America and Europe, our society undermines it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: hudster

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

And if it's beneficial for the stupid and the weak to die in the animal kingdom, why is it suddenly bad when it happens with humans?

AmusedOne, I'm not saying your argument is wrong, but your sig seems to betray your argument here:

sig line of : AmusedOne

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

do you think they conflict?

that's why I never had a sig for the longest time...I'm very aware of people's sigs, especially when they're trying to argue a point, and their sig seems contrary to me. I never wanted to have a saying in there that may at some point contradict an argument that I was trying to make in a thread. (you'll notice that I do have a sig now...but it's a pretty frivolous one that I don't have to worry too much about 😉 )

-hudster


p.s. i'm still angry/disgusted about this story, and still think she should be fried/dehydrated *almost* to the point of death, over and over again, for the rest of her natural life.

How does my argument seem contrary? WTF does a stupid mother offing her kids have to do with government oppression, and individual freedom?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Wingznut PEZ

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
And why is everybody so up in arms over this lady's kids? If she was such a loser and so fscking stupid, do you REALLY want her offspring to survive?

If you truly believe that... Please do humanity a favor and don't breed, yourself. :|

I'm not sure I have ever read a more cold, less compassionate, borderline dictatorship statement on this board.

How can you actually think that just because the mom is self-centered that those two kids deserved to die? That's practically saying that you believe in eugenics.

(No need to reply. Nothing you say can earn back any respect from me.)

So I take on objective look at the situation, and I'm cold hearted? Sorry I'm not all in tears and ready to kill over this. Next time I'll try harder just for you.

And this has nothing to do with eugenics, and everything to do with natural selection. As I said in a later post, would you think it's wrong if a mother Gazelle neglected her young and they were eaten by lions or starved to death, or would you chalk that up to natural selection?

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Darwinism at it's finest.

This isn't darwiism. The mother didn't suffer for her own mistakes, her KIDS did. This is just pure stupidity.

Um, do you understand the concept of darwinism? They either die before they breed, or they kill their offspring before they can breed. Either way, their genes do not live on.

It has nothing to do with "suffering" and everything to do with the genes being passed down.

Whatever.. when I think of darwinism I think of survival of the fittest. This had nothing to do with that. Those kids died cause her mother was a dumbass. Who gives a sh!t if they can't pass the genes now, really? I didn't know such stupidity was inherited, I sure hope it isn't.

Where did you think stupidity came from? The freakin' stupidity fairy? Of course intelligence is genetic.

When one speaks of "Darwinism" one speaks SOLELY of the passing of genes. It means nothing else.

I know plenty of stupid people who had smart parents and plenty of smart people who had stupid parents. On top of that, you're speaking only of the potential for intelligence. That potential is nothing if not exercised. Even people with learning disabilities can make something of themselves if they have the will power too. Not you, nor anyone else can say with any certainty just how those kids would be. Who knows, maybe they would have made something of themselves if they had the chance of life, but now that chance is gone cause of a mother who was ignorant. Even smart people do really stupid things from time to time, and stupid people will do things that surprise you.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: iamme

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
AmusedOne: yeah, whatever.

And why is everybody so up in arms over this lady's kids? If she was such a loser and so fscking stupid, do you REALLY want her offspring to survive?

So, you think that because she's a lousy mother, it's OK that her kids die a slow and horrible death?

It doesn't matter if it's OK or not. I said it's natural. Do you think it's OK when a mother gazelle neglects her kids and they get eaten by lions?

Offspring deaths caused by parental neglect is natural selection. It happens everywhere in the wild.

We bitch and moan about how stupid people are, yet we do everything to save their offspring. Why?

And why the "yeah whatever" to the little bit of history of reproductive restrictions, huh?

You're comparing our environment to those of wild animals. Darwinism says survival of the fittest. So only pro atheles and their kids deserve to be spared? Only the brightest and smartest deserve to live?

No. You are not understanding natural selection. And there is no reason why it doesn't, and isn't continuing now. No one deserves to be "spared." That's UNNATURAL selection. People who CAN survive, do survive. Genetic lines who run their cars into brick walls at 80 miles an hour, or kill their entire brood in a sweltering car do not.

Should we stop natural selection simply because we consider ourselves "civilized?" If we do, what becomes of us? What happens when those of the lowest IQs are saved by those who think that's "civilized" and end up have the most children, when nature would have let them die? These are questions that must be asked. To dismiss them out of hand simply because we consider ourselves "civilized" is to deny the reality of what we are, and where we came from.

Stupid animals have always offed themselves. "Civilization" isn't going to stop that, only slow it down long enough that they can reproduce.

Dude. what you're forgetting is that natural selection does not exist in our society any longer. I think its really disgusting that you can even suggest that maybe we should let their kids die just because it would have happened if nobody intervenes and we let nature run its course. Kids don't deserve to die just because their parents are dumb. There's no way of deciding how the kid will turn out.

As for "natural selection", these days medecine, the fact that almost EVERYONE passes down their genes wheter gay, straight, ugly, beautiful, smart, dumb, tall, short, whatever, undermines this. People will die in car accidents no matter what type they are. Natural selection doesn't exist at least in North America and Europe, our society undermines it.

I didn't suggest we should do a damn thing. What I'm saying is that no matter what we do, people are going to kill themselves and their kids in stupid ways. I pointed out that this happens among all animals, and that we are really no different. The only difference here is we say it's "natural selection" when it happens to other animals, but cry "outrage" when it happens to humans. Why?

If the selection in our society is not natural, what is it? Alien? Are we suddenly unnatural because we are self aware and control our environment? Or is it natural that we are self aware and control our environment? Before you make emotional outbursts, try looking at this logically.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Darwinism at it's finest.

This isn't darwiism. The mother didn't suffer for her own mistakes, her KIDS did. This is just pure stupidity.

Um, do you understand the concept of darwinism? They either die before they breed, or they kill their offspring before they can breed. Either way, their genes do not live on.

It has nothing to do with "suffering" and everything to do with the genes being passed down.

Whatever.. when I think of darwinism I think of survival of the fittest. This had nothing to do with that. Those kids died cause her mother was a dumbass. Who gives a sh!t if they can't pass the genes now, really? I didn't know such stupidity was inherited, I sure hope it isn't.

Where did you think stupidity came from? The freakin' stupidity fairy? Of course intelligence is genetic.

When one speaks of "Darwinism" one speaks SOLELY of the passing of genes. It means nothing else.

I know plenty of stupid people who had smart parents and plenty of smart people who had stupid parents. On top of that, you're speaking only of the potential for intelligence. That potential is nothing if not exercised. Even people with learning disabilities can make something of themselves if they have the will power too. Not you, nor anyone else can say with any certainty just how those kids would be. Who knows, maybe they would have made something of themselves if they had the chance of life, but now that chance is gone cause of a mother who was ignorant. Even smart people do really stupid things from time to time, and stupid people will do things that surprise you.

Again, you are reacting from emotion. I'm simply pointing out the cold hard fact of nature.

 

[Amused]

Let me make myself perfectly clear here.

I am not advocating ANY action in society to kill people. I am actually arguing AGAINST reproductive restrictions advocated by others.

I've been accused of advocating Eugenics in this thread. I've done nothing of the kind. In fact, I'm arguing AGAINST it. Those who want to "license mothers" are the ones advocating a form of eugenics, not me.

I took a chance in this thread and looked at the situation objectively, with as little emotion as possible. I asked myself why, on one hand we would look at a negligent mother let her offspring die in the animal kingdom and call that "natural selection" but be unwilling to call it anything of the sort amongst ourselves.

No one has been able to answer this without emotional based outbursts that explain nothing but their own bias towards humans.

I've even been told, just for thinking along these lines, that I should not breed. Are these thoughts so hard? Is it so completely impossible for people to take an objective look at their own species?

 

[Optimus]

Adrift in a sea of black asphalt, 3-year-old Adonnis Maynor did what he could to help his baby sister. Somehow he unbuckled her from her car seat during the 3 1/2 hours police say the two were locked in the suffocating heat of their mother's black compact car.

But by the time their mother returned -- after getting her hair done Friday afternoon -- Adonnis and 10-month-old Acacia were covered in vomit, dead inside a car parked baking in the sun in a Southfield parking lot.

Desperate for a breath of air before they died, they left mouth prints on the inside glass of the car.

Good God....


I'm literally sitting here at work with tears in my eyes.


Damn that "mother" to hell.

:|🙁:|🙁:|🙁:|🙁:|🙁:|🙁:|🙁:|🙁

 

[hudster]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
How does my argument seem contrary? WTF does a stupid mother offing her kids have to do with government oppression, and individual freedom?

well, keep in mind that I'm not familiar with the context that your sig line comes from...i'm simply taking your sig line at face value. And at face value, your sig line appears to be talking about individual rights, and that they are crucial. (that seems implied to me). And, although it does not mention any specific rights, I would argue that probably the most crucial of all individual rights is the right to life? or do you disagree? Anyway, that's what *I* got out of your sig.

And in the course of this thread, you've made comments such as

Should we stop natural selection simply because we consider ourselves "civilized?" If we do, what becomes of us? What happens when those of the lowest IQs are saved by those who think that's "civilized" and end up have the most children, when nature would have let them die? These are questions that must be asked. To dismiss them out of hand simply because we consider ourselves "civilized" is to deny the reality of what we are, and where we came from.

and

We bitch and moan about how stupid people are, yet we do everything to save their offspring. Why?

Why? To me, your sig line (and the implications that I drew from it, as I explained above) answers that question clearly. Because individual rights are critical. Because an individual has a right to life, unconditionally, not based on whether or not his/her parents are stupid.

That's how I see them being contradictory: you sig line is pro-individual-rights (IMO), and in the thread you're basically regarding this tragic event as just natural selection at its finest, which of course, natural selection totally disregards those two children's individual rights.

Am I making too many leaps/assumptions here? Maybe I am, but it seems contradictory to me.


-hudster

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: hudster

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
How does my argument seem contrary? WTF does a stupid mother offing her kids have to do with government oppression, and individual freedom?

well, keep in mind that I'm not familiar with the context that your sig line comes from...i'm simply taking your sig line at face value. And at face value, your sig line appears to be talking about individual rights, and that they are crucial. (that seems implied to me). And, although it does not mention any specific rights, I would argue that probably the most crucial of all individual rights is the right to life? or do you disagree? Anyway, that's what *I* got out of your sig.

And in the course of this thread, you've made comments such as

Should we stop natural selection simply because we consider ourselves "civilized?" If we do, what becomes of us? What happens when those of the lowest IQs are saved by those who think that's "civilized" and end up have the most children, when nature would have let them die? These are questions that must be asked. To dismiss them out of hand simply because we consider ourselves "civilized" is to deny the reality of what we are, and where we came from.

and

We bitch and moan about how stupid people are, yet we do everything to save their offspring. Why?

Why? To me, your sig line (and the implications that I drew from it, as I explained above) answers that question clearly. Because individual rights are critical. Because an individual has a right to life, unconditionally, not based on whether or not his/her parents are stupid.

That's how I see them being contradictory: you sig line is pro-individual-rights (IMO), and in the thread you're basically regarding this tragic event as just natural selection at its finest, which of course, natural selection totally disregards those two children's individual rights.

Am I making too many leaps/assumptions here? Maybe I am, but it seems contradictory to me.


-hudster

I'm not regarding this incident as anything. I'm asking why we believe this very thing is natural selection in the wild, but nothing of the sort in our society.

My argument in this thread started when there were multiple cries for reproductive restrictions. My argument is based against that.

 

[killmeplease]

This is not natural selection, it's idiot selection. An idiot decided to snuff out her children by being stupid.

If a construction worker were stupid enough to drop a load of steel on somebody else's head, it would be idiot selection. If the dead construction worker had run under the steel in hopes of catching it, it would be natural selection.

If these children had crawled into the hot car by choice and refused to exit by their own choice, an argument for natural selection would be compelling.

 

[hudster]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
I took a chance in this thread and looked at the situation objectively, with as little emotion as possible. I asked myself why, on one hand we would look at a negligent mother let her offspring die in the animal kingdom and call that "natural selection" but be unwilling to call it anything of the sort amongst ourselves.

well, it's probably for the same reason that when two animals fight in the wild, and one kills the other, we call it nature, while when one human kills another, we call it murder. Sure, if left to our human nature, we would probably behave little differently than the animals. But that is why there is civilization...because we as a species DO hold ourselves to a higher standard than just "survival of the fittest".

No one has been able to answer this without emotional based outbursts that explain nothing but their own bias towards humans.

well, it IS hard to avoid showing a bias towards humans. (at least for me anyway)

I've even been told, just for thinking along these lines, that I should not breed.

well, whoever told you that is most likely reacting out of irrational emotion towards this issue too.

Are these thoughts so hard? Is it so completely impossible for people to take an objective look at their own species?

i wouldn't say "completely impossible", but I WOULD say "extremely difficult". It's hard to look objectively at our own race when you cannot erase from your mind, the image of a little boy, and his little sister, who died a horrible and senseless death. Two children who will never grow up, never have the joy of opening another present, never see another beautiful sunset, never have a chance to realize any of their dreams. I'd say a majority of people look at a human tragedy like this from that sort of perspective, and when looking at it that way, it is extremely difficult to detach your emotions from it and look at it objectively and from the perspective of nature "simply running it's course".


-hudster

p.s. AmusedOne, while I *am* arguing emotionally about this tragedy, I certainly hold nothing against your personally for the viewpoint that you've expressed in this thread, and I view this as just a friendly disagreement/debate.

 

[Michael1897]

there was a story like this where a dad and his friend left his child in a car while they went on a hike. bad idea
some people are really stupid 🙁:|

 

[hudster]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
My argument in this thread started when there were multiple cries for reproductive restrictions. My argument is based against that.

Well, people are appalled by this tragedy, and are looking for a way to prevent it from happening to other children. Since this tragedy occurred solely due to the mother's stupidity, it's a natural irrational reaction for people (including myself) to say that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to have children.

 

[iamwiz82]

Just on detroit news channel:

The mother has asked to be allowed to attend the funeral for the children.

 

[RedShirt]

Ok ppl, after reading every post in this thread I have this to offer:

1. This saddens me and I cannot understand how someone could be so completly stupid...
2. You do not need a drivers licence to drive! You just need one to drive on a public road. The Government needs money to make the roads you drive on, charging for licences and other taxes make the roads possible. These are two separate things
3. While this womens actions are totally inexcusable, it may have been a mistake on her part. She could just be that DUMB. I mean, no one has said ANYTHING about a father, so I'm gonna assume there is no father. She is obviously too dumb to know how to not have kids (unless for some rare reason, she wants kids with no father). I think she is just so damn dumb... She still needs to face the consequences of her actions though, but for everyone saying to put her in a car and do the same thing??? Come on people, I think life in prison is a perfectly good punishment.
4. Natural Selection STILL takes place in our society, its just not as apparent as in the animal world. The sad truth is some ppl with not re-produce because no one from the opposite sex finds them appealing, this is a sad fact, but true.
5. Humans are different than other animals... I'm pretty sure I think. I mean, if a bunch of deer want to build a new form of mass transportation, or try to have a deered flight to mars, I'm all for that, but I think its only humans that are gonna be able to do that...

 

[GasX]

Dude. what you're forgetting is that natural selection does not exist in our society any longer. I think its really disgusting that you can even suggest that maybe we should let their kids die just because it would have happened if nobody intervenes and we let nature run its course. Kids don't deserve to die just because their parents are dumb. There's no way of deciding how the kid will turn out.

As for "natural selection", these days medecine, the fact that almost EVERYONE passes down their genes wheter gay, straight, ugly, beautiful, smart, dumb, tall, short, whatever, undermines this. People will die in car accidents no matter what type they are. Natural selection doesn't exist at least in North America and Europe, our society undermines it.

Well to a degree maybe, but don't think it is gone. In fact, we have a sort of economic darwinism that thrives in this country. People who are smart and/or work very hard rise to the top.

 

[CraigRT]

what a stupid wench... i think they should throw her in the back of a car and park it in a big gigantic fire.

she drives around for an hour with 2 dead kids in the back (HER OWN!) trying to think of an excuse!!

Yeah, she's trash.

 

[absolutiza]

it happens man.. like dogs. you cant keep them in hot-ass air like that

 

[geno]

After the mother discovered her children were dead, she drove around for about an hour, "trying to conjure up an excuse for her actions,"

SICK :|:|:|


what an utterly sad excuse for a human being, I hope she rots for this