Future problem in the country

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I was thinking how the country seems to be getting dumber each year.

Funny I was looking who was the author of this thread and thought the same thing.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
What can be done about this problem? It's not politically correct to suggest neutering women that are on welfare tand have 6 kids, but somewhere you have to make the decision that it's just not worth the future hassle of having to deal with this problem.

The solution is GENOCIDE. We will breed a master race of rich, intelligent white people!

The problem with your problem is that we NEED the poor. They do all of the jobs that we, the middle/upper class, don't want.

The people you're talking about are the ones dependent on the welfare state, which most of the poor are not (since they're doing the jobs we don't want, after all, like trash collection, janitorial duties, etc.). This is a problem that can be fixed without resorting to population neutering.

In other words, the real solution here is to fix our broken welfare system.

the real solution is to live and let live

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous
there is no "poor gene," dumbass.

poverty is a condition of society and habit.

Hello, dumbass. You are so woefully mislead.

While there is no "poor gene", there are genes which help determine one's IQ. That, in turn, influences the person's ability to learn and make money.

Secondly, you mention habit. Who do you think is going to instill habits in their children? The parent. A poor parent will be more likely to instill "poor" habits in their children than a rich parent.


But thanks for making yourself look like a fool on a public forum.

You're wrong; genes and IQ are poorly correlated, if at all.

George W Bush is well below average in IQ, yet he's filthy rich. If that example doesn't sit well with you, how about Paris Hilton?

Intelligence and wealth have little correlation. Wealthy people can breed moronic offspring.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Most of you seem to equate intelligence with financial gain and material possessions. Why should they be connected?

The op seems to think that having a lot of children that others have to pay for is a sign of stupidity or low IQ. Again, I'm not seeing the connection.

From an evolutionary point of view, success is having as many offspring as possible, the more fertile those offspring, the better. Darwin has it in for you.

This is a very old argument, and it always stems from the belief that you are somehow superior to most others. Constructing a logic that allows for the "control" of the inferior breeders for the benefit of the race has been done time and time again. The beauty of the system is that you get to pick and choose which traits are superior, thereby allowing you to select only those that reflect your own bias. The fundamental problem is that every race, class, religion, or shouting society can "prove" that they are indeed the superior beings, and therefore have to protect the human race by making sure that the lessor people stay in there place.

It's a great deal as long as you're at the top.

Is asking that everyone pays their own way through life too much to ask? Do you really think that the rest of society should be forced to pay for people who either can't or don't want to support themselves?

 

[rsd]

So in conclusion of this thread, I believe we now have sufficient evidence to burn alive the OP for poorly wording and describing his supposed "issue" and generally starting a stupid thread! =)

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
What can be done about this problem? It's not politically correct to suggest neutering women that are on welfare tand have 6 kids, but somewhere you have to make the decision that it's just not worth the future hassle of having to deal with this problem.

The solution is GENOCIDE. We will breed a master race of rich, intelligent white people!

The problem with your problem is that we NEED the poor. They do all of the jobs that we, the middle/upper class, don't want.

The people you're talking about are the ones dependent on the welfare state, which most of the poor are not (since they're doing the jobs we don't want, after all, like trash collection, janitorial duties, etc.). This is a problem that can be fixed without resorting to population neutering.

In other words, the real solution here is to fix our broken welfare system.

the real solution is to live and let live

Isn't that almost what I said? That's equivalent to dismantling the welfare system and letting the poor fend for themselves. I think a welfare system is important as a safety net for those who are down on their luck for a short time, I just don't think it should be an economic life support system for a single individual for years and years.

 

[rsd]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Greenman

Most of you seem to equate intelligence with financial gain and material possessions. Why should they be connected?

The op seems to think that having a lot of children that others have to pay for is a sign of stupidity or low IQ. Again, I'm not seeing the connection.

From an evolutionary point of view, success is having as many offspring as possible, the more fertile those offspring, the better. Darwin has it in for you.

This is a very old argument, and it always stems from the belief that you are somehow superior to most others. Constructing a logic that allows for the "control" of the inferior breeders for the benefit of the race has been done time and time again. The beauty of the system is that you get to pick and choose which traits are superior, thereby allowing you to select only those that reflect your own bias. The fundamental problem is that every race, class, religion, or shouting society can "prove" that they are indeed the superior beings, and therefore have to protect the human race by making sure that the lessor people stay in there place.

It's a great deal as long as you're at the top.

Is asking that everyone pays their own way through life too much to ask? Do you really think that the rest of society should be forced to pay for people who either can't or don't want to support themselves?

You are right, we should kill people once they reach the age of retirement. I mean, at that point they are being sustained thanks to the kindness and goodness of all the smart folk out there!

Kill the cripples while we are at it!

Brilliant!

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Anyways, as i linked above, it turns out the richer families produce more offspring, so it isn't happening, even though, if they did have more kids, it would.

Actually, that list show the average number of people per household. Since most very poor families in the inner city are fragmented, that divides the number of people per household.

 

[UberNeuman]

Good thing Jesus was rich, or he'd be on the OP's hit list....

 

[rsd]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: videogames101

Anyways, as i linked above, it turns out the richer families produce more offspring, so it isn't happening, even though, if they did have more kids, it would.

Actually, that list show the average number of people per household. Since most very poor families in the inner city are fragmented, that divides the number of people per household.

Folks be honored that we have not only a great social scientist but also a statistician and family dynamics expert in our midst!

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: rsd

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Greenman

Most of you seem to equate intelligence with financial gain and material possessions. Why should they be connected?

The op seems to think that having a lot of children that others have to pay for is a sign of stupidity or low IQ. Again, I'm not seeing the connection.

From an evolutionary point of view, success is having as many offspring as possible, the more fertile those offspring, the better. Darwin has it in for you.

This is a very old argument, and it always stems from the belief that you are somehow superior to most others. Constructing a logic that allows for the "control" of the inferior breeders for the benefit of the race has been done time and time again. The beauty of the system is that you get to pick and choose which traits are superior, thereby allowing you to select only those that reflect your own bias. The fundamental problem is that every race, class, religion, or shouting society can "prove" that they are indeed the superior beings, and therefore have to protect the human race by making sure that the lessor people stay in there place.

It's a great deal as long as you're at the top.

Is asking that everyone pays their own way through life too much to ask? Do you really think that the rest of society should be forced to pay for people who either can't or don't want to support themselves?

You are right, we should kill people once they reach the age of retirement. I mean, at that point they are being sustained thanks to the kindness and goodness of all the smart folk out there!

Kill the cripples while we are at it!

Brilliant!

Your reply was ridiculous and extreme. You have no valid point, do you?

 

[rsd]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Your reply was ridiculous and extreme. You have no valid point, do you?

Fitting given your original post

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: videogames101

Anyways, as i linked above, it turns out the richer families produce more offspring, so it isn't happening, even though, if they did have more kids, it would.

Actually, that list show the average number of people per household. Since most very poor families in the inner city are fragmented, that divides the number of people per household.

There's also the matter that, statistically, 3rd world countries have a much higher birth rate than more modern nations.

Usually people who aren't well off reproduce more.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Good thing Jesus was rich, or he'd be on the OP's hit list....

Was he on welfare, breeding at the expense of the rest of society? Or did he have a job as a carpenter?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: rsd

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Your reply was ridiculous and extreme. You have no valid point, do you?

Fitting given your original post

It was not fitting at all. In order to make it sound like you had a point, you took what I said to the extreme to make it sound ridiculous. You attempted to set up a strawman and you failed.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Good thing Jesus was rich, or he'd be on the OP's hit list....

Was he on welfare, breeding at the expense of the rest of society? Or did he have a job as a carpenter?

On his mission, he lived off the kindness of others, so I guess he was a freeloader.

 

[rsd]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: rsd

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Your reply was ridiculous and extreme. You have no valid point, do you?

Fitting given your original post

It was not fitting at all. In order to make it sound like you had a point, you took what I said to the extreme to make it sound ridiculous. You attempted to set up a strawman and you failed.

You came up with a poor described problem with absolutely no understanding nor factual data or evidence.

Btw, hasn't the whole "strawman" anti-argument thing jumped the shark a long time ago?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Good thing Jesus was rich, or he'd be on the OP's hit list....

Was he on welfare, breeding at the expense of the rest of society? Or did he have a job as a carpenter?

On his mission, he lived off he kindness of others, so I guess he was a freeloader.

I'm not religious so I don't buy any of this, but according to claims the man was able to turn water into wine and part the Red Sea, so it's doubtful that needing money to survive was much of an obstacle for him.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Good thing Jesus was rich, or he'd be on the OP's hit list....

Was he on welfare, breeding at the expense of the rest of society? Or did he have a job as a carpenter?

On his mission, he lived off he kindness of others, so I guess he was a freeloader.

I'm not religious so I don't buy any of this, but according to claims the man was able to turn water into wine and part the Red Sea, so it's doubtful that needing money to survive was much of an obstacle for him.

Guess you would have had him whacked as well.....

 

[Leros]

Once you start arguing about religion in a non-religious thread, its time to get out. Bye guys.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Good thing Jesus was rich, or he'd be on the OP's hit list....

Was he on welfare, breeding at the expense of the rest of society? Or did he have a job as a carpenter?

On his mission, he lived off he kindness of others, so I guess he was a freeloader.

I'm not religious so I don't buy any of this, but according to claims the man was able to turn water into wine and part the Red Sea, so it's doubtful that needing money to survive was much of an obstacle for him.

It doesn't matter if you're religious or not. Jesus is a historical figure. UberNeuman has said nothing with religious overtones or undertones. Whether you choose to believe he is what he said is a completely different matter.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman


Guess you would have had him whacked as well.....

Why would I have him wacked? He excelled at what he did and was on a path to success as soon as he gained freedom.

You must have been hallucinating when you read the article, since I see no part stating that he was a burden on society who lived on welfare all his life.

You need to prop your strawmen up a little bit better than that.

 

[IGBT]

..end dependent tax deduction, and the anchor baby racket. will go a long way to solving the problem. Tax payer funded free education needs to be phased out as well. When the true cost of having/raising kids is part of the family experience and quality rather then quantity becomes the standard things will change. Secular progressives want just the opposite. They want population dependency to justify BIG government.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Leros
Once you start arguing about religion in a non-religious thread, its time to get out. Bye guys.

Nothing UberNeuman said is religious.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: UberNeuman


Guess you would have had him whacked as well.....

Why would I have him wacked? He excelled at what he did and was on a path to success as soon as he gained freedom.

You must have been hallucinating when you read the article, since I see no part stating that he was a burden on society who lived on welfare all his life.

You need to prop your strawmen up a little bit better than that.

Point being, that if you had your way, you would have kicked the legs out from underneath him before he could make his way to a better life.

You have this grand "all knowing eye" and you can look upon the unwashed masses and know who is a benefit to society and who is not - and then pass judgment......

I'm just so humbled to read your mighty screed and just to stand within your shinning light of wisdom.....:laugh: