Darwin. There, someone had to say it.

[Ewazix]

Yep, besides culling the fat and the old we should go a few steps further with other classes of people who are less worthy than holiday airline pilots or fit pursers for example. Start with the disabled and mentally impaired, then other undesirable social groups, maybe we could improve the species with a nice little eugenics program as well. I think the OP is on to something. edit: On something

:roll:

 

[Chris_D]

Let's be clear here:

My discriminatory criteria is set ONLY against those who choose to actively and consciously compromise their own health/immune system knowing exactly what the inherent dangers of smoking / over-eating / drug-taking / drinking alcohol to excess are.

Please don't try and exaggerate, magnify and twist this out of context!
If you're in one of those 4 groups I've mentioned above then get to the back of the line!

 

[enuff_zed]

Perhaps we should all be given pistols that are lethal but only up to 2 metres range.
Enforces social distancing, culls the idiots who think that it's only for other people and relieves a lot of the stress that this lock down is bringing on.
Everyone's a winner

 

[mmm-five]

But you have only been working a maximum of 34 years. You have to work another 22 years to pay enough tax and national Insurance to get close to the 72 year olds.

But, but, but, I've worked twice as hard as some, and paid twice the tax (was hourly paid for a long time)

 

[enuff_zed]

But you have only been working a maximum of 34 years. You have to work another 22 years to pay enough tax and national Insurance to get close to the 72 year olds.

But, but, but, I've worked twice as hard as some, and paid twice the tax (was hourly paid for a long time)

And if you stayed fit and healthy all your life, would they give you a National Insurance refund...............just before they finished you off??

 

[john-e89]

I think your ethnic cleansing needs some fine tuning Chris.....

 

[z4pilot]

Let's be clear here:

My discriminatory criteria is set ONLY against those who choose to actively and consciously compromise their own health/immune system knowing exactly what the inherent dangers of smoking / over-eating / drug-taking / drinking alcohol to excess are.

Please don't try and exaggerate, magnify and twist this out of context!
If you're in one of those 4 groups I've mentioned above then get to the back of the line!

If you'd included tax inspectors and car parking attendants, you'd have been onto a winner...

What happens if your fat, alcoholic, chain smoking wastes of good oxygen are also tax payers and so have been funding the very system you would deny them?

 

[Chris_D]

I think your ethnic cleansing needs some fine tuning Chris.....

Gonna start with you John.
You're outside my 4 prefered candidate groups but ur at the top of the list for annoyance value alone.
:evil:

 

[enuff_zed]

On the bright side, as far as I can see from skimming back through, this is the first time in a month that a thread has gone to two pages without once featuring the c-r-n-v-r-s word.

Chris, that's a hell of a devious ploy. Well done.

 

[Chris_D]

Let's be clear here:

My discriminatory criteria is set ONLY against those who choose to actively and consciously compromise their own health/immune system knowing exactly what the inherent dangers of smoking / over-eating / drug-taking / drinking alcohol to excess are.

Please don't try and exaggerate, magnify and twist this out of context!
If you're in one of those 4 groups I've mentioned above then get to the back of the line!

If you'd included tax inspectors and car parking attendants, you'd have been onto a winner...

What happens if your fat, alcoholic, chain smoking wastes of good oxygen are also tax payers and so have been funding the very system you would deny them?

I'd suspect they'd have contributed WAY less when compared to what they will probably end up costing the system.
:wink:

 

[Lynchy]

Should you be put to the back of the list for being out on your bike the other day and putting yourself at risk from the guy that coughed near you ?

 

[BeeEmm]

BeeEmm wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020 14:33
But you have only been working a maximum of 34 years. You have to work another 22 years to pay enough tax and national Insurance to get close to the 72 year olds.
But, but, but, I've worked twice as hard as some, and paid twice the tax (was hourly paid for a long time)

Methinks that you and I need a different thread, but I will try and end it here. I paid 40% of my salary as tax during my best period, worked for 56, yes 56 years employed up to 16 people and retired at 70 to enjoy the rest of my life until I am 103. Based on what I have seen around me, I feel perfectly entitled to reach 103 without prejudice. Cough!, cough! cough!, s**t!

 

[buzyg]

Yep, besides culling the fat and the old we should go a few steps further with other classes of people who are less worthy than holiday airline pilots or fit pursers for example. Start with the disabled and mentally impaired, then other undesirable social groups, maybe we could improve the species with a nice little eugenics program as well. I think the OP is on to something. edit: On something

:roll:

Age has nothing to do with the criteria, according to Chris. Just being fat, drinking, smoking, and drug taking. All of which most people could do something about. If they were not such overweight, alcohol swigging, chain smoking, druggies. :wink:

:innocent:

 

[john-e89]

I think your ethnic cleansing needs some fine tuning Chris.....

Gonna start with you John.
You're outside my 4 prefered candidate groups but ur at the top of the list for annoyance value alone.
:evil:

:trampoline: :trampoline: :yeah: :yeah:

 

[exdos]

O.P.

You, like many others, are misinterpreting Darwin. Darwin's theory of "Survival of the fittest" does not refer to the word "fittest" in the way that you use it, where those whom ride bikes, like you, are "fitter" than those obese people whom over-eat and whom you clearly despise with more than a passion. Darwin's use of the word "fittest" refers to evolution producing individual species having a particular "fit" into a biological niche in which they can survive against all other competing life forms because their biology is such that they are particularly adapted to fit into such a niche.

I think your views fit those of an operative at Auschwitz.

 

[Chris_D]

O.P.

You, like many others, are misinterpreting Darwin. Darwin's theory of "Survival of the fittest" does not refer to the word "fittest" in the way that you use it, where those whom ride bikes, like you, are "fitter" than those obese people whom over-eat and whom you clearly despise with more than a passion. Darwin's use of the word "fittest" refers to evolution producing individual species having a particular "fit" into a biological niche in which they can survive against all other competing life forms because their biology is such that they are particularly adapted to fit into such a niche.

I think your views fit those of an operative at Auschwitz.

Sounds a bit like sour grapes for me to be honest for me negatively commenting on your post in the 'Virus worries' thread and you being offended and becoming a big sulkypants.

I'm quite familiar with Darwin and I used it in the correct context thanks.

 

[sw4nny]

Survival of fittest is who can adapt,so if your obese and clever and rich you would have private health personal doctors etc so you would have more chance of surviving even though you may not be the fittest physically
You can change the word obese for smoker or drinker or drug user.,you can be the fittest in many ways ,monetry mentaly and in many other ways not just physicaly.

 

[exdos]

Sounds a bit like sour grapes for me to be honest for me negatively commenting on your post in the 'Virus worries' thread and you being offended and becoming a big sulkypants.

If I felt like you suggest, then, believe me, I would've replied to you in that particular thread. I can take a punch.

Whilst I fully acknowledge the various philosophical dilemmas that the C-19 pandemic creates, I do not think your Eugenicist attitude is the correct approach. The opening sentence of your posting states: "I know this post will bring me a lot of stick" so you shouldn't be in the least bit surprised that forum members, including me, should give you the stick that many of us might think you deserve for airing your offensive views on a public forum. If the cap fits.

 

[BeeEmm]

Whilst I fully acknowledge the various philosophical dilemmas that the C-19 pandemic creates, I do not think your Eugenicist attitude is the correct approach. The opening sentence of your posting states: "I know this post will bring me a lot of stick" so you shouldn't be in the least bit surprised that forum members, including me, should give you the stick that many of us might think you deserve for airing your offensive views on a public forum. If the cap fits.

Is that a Dutch Cap? Sorry, just trying to lighten it a little.

 

[Vornwend]

A few thoughts/questions:

It's sometimes reported that up to 60% of the UK population are obese - that's a big chunk to abandon - or do you suggest a specific BMI cutoff?

What if, as was the case in 1918, a new virus targets the younger age groups disproportionately? - would you be happy to abandon them too?

Every obese smoker could be a father, mother, son, daughter, aunt, uncle, husband, wife - letting them go leaves devastation behind

Given so many of the population are obese its inevitable that some of them would be doctors, nurses, care workers, shelf stackers, refuse collectors etc etc - they have no value either? Don't we all rely on each other and therefore need to act like that?

How do you know what reasons might lie behind someones obesity or addiction? Should we just ignore that and allow no compassion or sympathy?

Darwin may have correctly described the law of the jungle that got us here but how many of would really like to live by it now? How many of us have never been vulnerable or weak or had a family member or friend who was? Letting that survival of the fittest genie out of the bottle would surely lead to a loss of civilisation and the development of a cruel and compassion less society? History is littered with examples of that - lets learn from that.

Isn't a civilised society characterised by how it treats its most vulnerable and weakest in times of need?

If you spend your life judging others I guarantee you will always find a reason to be angry