I can't think of anything to say about this--I'm too grossed out--but I did want to let you know that your topic title is accurate.

I'm guessing she's a spinner.

That is just gross.  And one of her daughters suffers from the same genetic defect she has.  I don't have a problem with saving defective babies, but they should be sterilized so they don't pass on their abnormalities.

Now that's a reality show I would watch!

jesusluvspegging wrote:

Bigcat wrote:

fnord wrote:

That is just gross.  And one of her daughters suffers from the same genetic defect she has.  I don't have a problem with saving defective babies, but they should be sterilized so they don't pass on their abnormalities.

Holy fuck Hitler.  Being gay hasn't made you more liberal at all has it!?

Fnord is surprisingly liberal, so long as the topics don't touch on reproduction or race.  He has that bizarre fag-hate for women that you so rarely see, as well as a special distaste for the "genetically inferior." Of course, being a knobslobber, he falls into that category himself, but requires no sterilization since he's opted out of the gene pool.

Not wishing to mate with a female means I have “that bizarre fag-hate for women?”  My female friends would find that interesting.  I felt a great deal of conflict when I distanced myself from my doomed friend “C” and was absolutely devastated when I found out she had passed away.

As for people with severe genetic defects, people who would never have survived childhood are now growing up and reproducing.  We are selecting out the reproductively unfit and helping them spread their genes.  Over the long term, this is very bad news for humans.  Have you ever met a woman with hemophilia?  Until a few decades this was an impossibility.  Now that males with hemophilia are surviving to adulthood and spawning, females with this condition are being born.  I’ve met several of them, and they literally come close to bleeding to death every month.  Our welfare system selects out people of low intelligence, poor impulse control and defective parenting instincts for special assistance in perpetuating these dysgenic characteristics.  Until WWII, most sane intelligent people believed applying eugenic principles to human reproduction was a great idea.  My parents looked into each other’s backgrounds and asked about relatives' health before getting married.  My maternal grandmother had one leg shorter than the other as a result of an accident and had to wear an orthopedic shoe.  Had this been a genetic problem, my mother told me my father would have called off the marriage.  Eugenic principles are utilized when breeding our food animals and pets; it makes no sense not to apply them to producing children.

This may surprise you, but gay people can and do spawn.  I've been asked several times to provide sperm and refused because I will not produce children that I don't take responsibility for.  The idea of turning my own flesh and blood over to others and hoping for the best horrifies me.

Last edited by fnord (2009-11-10 13:48:50)

We are the single species that consistently proves Darwin wrong.  Far from survival of the fittest, we go to great lengths to protect the sick, the weak, the deficient and the degenerate of our species.

XregnaR wrote:

We are the single species that consistently proves Darwin wrong.  Far from survival of the fittest, we go to great lengths to protect the sick, the weak, the deficient and the degenerate of our species.

This doesn't mean Darwin was wrong.  It just means we've gotten a little too smart for our own britches.  There is a certain evolutionary advantage to helping your family and even your tribe survive hardship.  But when you extend that beneficence to those carrying damaged genes, you defeat survival of the fittest and slow evolution.  Rest assured that all other flora and fauna will continue to evolve (well, maybe not pets).

XregnaR wrote:

We are the single species that consistently proves Darwin wrong.  Far from survival of the fittest, we go to great lengths to protect the sick, the weak, the deficient and the degenerate of our species.

That describes congress but doesn't explain affection for mutant sprog.

sigmoid freud wrote:

Stephen Hawking's truly freaky looking, and of far, far greater value to humanity than any High Streeter.

I resent that: what is truly more important? A profound understanding of the true nature of creation and the very substance of life, or someone who makes damned good brownies?

XY.  While its mimicry of an XX is truly pathetic, I don't think dropping the mimicry and presenting its true self would be any more attractive.

fnord wrote:

....My maternal grandmother had one leg shorter than the other as a result of an accident and had to wear an orthopedic shoe...

HA HA HA! Was her name Ilene?

I know a guy with scoliosis that would dig your granny. I bet her ankles would fit perfectly on his shoulders. He dated a Japanese girl with the same condition. I believe her name was Irene.

Hey, did your grandma invent MC Hammer's "high right low left" hairdo?

Isn't your nanny's social security number y = –2x + 3?

Taint wrote:

what is truly more important? A profound understanding of the true nature of creation and the very substance of life, or someone who makes damned good brownies?

I demand proof! Send brownies at indica once!