The Man in Black wrote:
Er...that doesn't mean that evolution slows down, it just means that "undesirable traits" arn't [sic] the same as in a less technologically advanced society.
Okay, I erred in my labeling of that. What I meant was that the undesirable traits are not as undesirable as they once were. Stone ages: you were born without a leg, you die. Now: Born without a leg, and you're taken care of. People will not dismiss you just because of one deformity. You might even luck out, fall in love and have kids.
The Man in Black wrote:
Anyone can see "this is dangerous, I might get hurt." The only way someone would do this out of stupidity is if they are mentally retarded- and they reproduce at very low rates, if I recall correctly.
1.Okay, let me put it this way: stupid people are more likely to engage in higher risk behaviors. They are less likely to see and/or understand the dangers involved. Do you debate this?
2.In milder cases, retardation often isn't noticeable. Just a tiny little thing I thought you might want to know.
3.Genetics are also involved in none-retardation cases of intelligence. Just look at someone who has smart parents, and you'll probably notice they have some intelligence of their own, too. You could argue that this is entirely environmental, but most scientists agree that things are a combination of nature vs. nurture.
Ero:If it is already potentially fatal, then how would the more serious version develop, and what would it be? Immediately fatal? Specify! Other than that, I suppose I must side with you, except for the killing part. People who reproduce and know they have genetic flaws that could kill any offspring should be charged with reckless endangerment (which, I think, can count as 2nd degree manslaughter), in my opinion.
We all have recessive (and damaging) genes. That is the reason why inbreeding often results in abnormal children. If this is what you're talking about, then realize that these genes exist in pretty much everyone.
The Man in Black wrote:
this isn't a formal debate.
Calling this debate club implies at least an attempt to follow common sense when it comes to debating. That means addressing the issue and points about it, not the person stating them.
MiB:
Kyhm wrote:
Third rule: Somebody starts flaming... starts swearing... conceeds the debate... the debate is over.
Ad hominem isn't just insulting a person, it's (as mentioned by Ghost) an error in logic. It does not serve to make your point any better than not doing it. It does, however, make you seem similar in maturity to your average 13-year old. I'm going to guess you're a bit older than that. "Please stop being an idiot," is not witty, does not make you seem any smarter, and doesn't help you make your points. Otherwise I would be flaming like a bitch right now.
The Man in Black wrote:
I'll insult who I please, when I please.
This reminds me of FA.
And I was trying to (mostly) agree with you, MiB.