Safe Speed Forums

Sorry-bad wording-my fault. What I meant was the lower the common sense/intelligence of the parent the less likely they are to pass on common sense/intelligence to their children.



Yes, but even if you're right here the ability to nurture offspring is a survival trait.

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

Hmmm, so perhaps in this case the poor influence was in the form of “if you want to survive, you need to run like hell if you see police” which the previous generation of that family thought was good survival advice – and it probably was given their lifestyle…… ironically enough! If so then could it be said that that if that child wasn't so 'unlucky' (police at wrong place, wrong time), his nurturing would have served him well?

This is my whole point: we alone can do something about it instead of dying. Cats don't have language, medicine, or education. But we do: we can heal the physically ill with medicine, and we can educate the less informed with language. Darwinism is not the main force at work anymore on us.

I see your point-it's unlikely that the police would kill him though.

Perhaps Darwin’s theory is still alive and well but has now morphed into a system where those who give the best education/advice will have their wisdom propagated?

[In doing so, Darwin's theory itself had adapted and so continues to survive ]

It's a good argument-though not without flaws. I can't say mine is without flaws either and I suspect the truth to be somewhere in between.

The ability to do any of the above relies on the intelligence/common sense of the person in question who is in need of medicine, education or comprehension of language at more than a basic level. Vicious circle?

It would make sense that social and economic influences would accelerate evolution in the right circumstances.

True, but his parents might have!

As you already said: it depends on prioritisation. Perhaps their priorities are different from ours; do we (or I) have the wrong frame of reference for this debate?

Good point. I've seen a bag snatcher do exactly what this kid did but in front of my car and the only reason he wasn't killed was because everyone braked hard enough to make tyres smoke.

I wonder if we aren't talking about a defective fight/flight reflex then?

Interesting. He knew, or at least assumed, that you would leave his path clear.


It must be defective if it didn’t work, unless the car driver didn’t see the child but the child judged there was a good chance the driver did, hence meaning he was simply unlucky this time.
I couldn’t comment further on that without knowing exactly what happened but given his background I’m beginning to think that Darwin’s theory may not fit here.

No, mate. I read that comment the way it was written. completely glibly and insensitively. The man has been given the opportunity to rephrase his observation (which he has to an extent) and apologise where appropriate for any offense he mayhave caused - but seeing as he won't appologise for any any offense not intended to be caused, one can only assume that the bloke wanted to cause offence!

I am not the only one to have taken umbrage at that CRASS comment. Still at least between you you've worked out you lack the spunk to attend the funeral and utter it to the mourners - I don't have to wonder why, do I?

And for the record - what happened at Dunblane was a tragedy in itself. But I think removing hand guns from everyone else in the country was completely over the top, unfair, innapropriate, unnecessary and has not actually worked with regards to gun crime.

As you have all said - none of us actually know each other so putting these beliefs into my mouth and then slagging me off for them is well, pathetic.

For the record. If I'd been drinking in a bar when such a story came on the telly, and someone with, I presume, the grin of a cheshire cat, had come out with such a comment - shall we just say a 'breach of the peace' may have come about.

I am more than happy to address all the issues. And as I have said, on the face of it, it would appear the boy was ultimately responsible for his own demise - along with other factors such as lack of parental control, etc, etc, etc, etc. I can accept most if not all the arguments.... What I find distasteful in its entirety is the smug 'having a laugh' comments. The kid may well have been a little shit. He may well have been on course to become a juvenile delinquent. But having a laugh over the demise of such a child at that age is just not on. It's crass, offensive, inappropriate!

What was said didn't need to be said - I think every single one of us understands that playing on very fast roads, not paying attention to the hazards and dicing with death is risky to say the least. The boy has paid the ultimate price for his folly. Let us not revel in it, eh?

It's very, very sad. I hope the example of what has happened to him can be relayed to all the local children there with the warning not to play on the roads.... Not as fodder for inconsiderate, chuck away comments about Darwinism.

_________________
We have a complaisant but venal judiciary and police force - all too eager to pervert the Law to satisfy their own aims

I see our self-appointed interpreter and moral guardian is back.

My idiot magnet must be on.

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

And for society as a whole.

Personally, I'm quite happy for the chav scum that infest our society to die, and take their genes with them.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

So you're not just angry, you're violent too?

Priceless. Absolutely priceless.

He was only 7 too.

Go knows what sort of condemnation his warm body would be despatched with if, God forbid, he'd been 10

_________________
We have a complaisant but venal judiciary and police force - all too eager to pervert the Law to satisfy their own aims

And you're a comedian too, Mr appropriately named: dunky.

_________________
We have a complaisant but venal judiciary and police force - all too eager to pervert the Law to satisfy their own aims

Eh?

Ummm, before you dive down my throat too, I was referring to chav scum, not this 7 year old boy.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Mr Angry I think we understand your view and there is not much point in going over that ground again. You are just “making a mountain out of a mole-hill” and taking a minor comment completely out of context.


Zamsara yes we can do something, but not everything and not as much as you may think.

We can’t stop all people dying, any more than we could stop the 7 year old boy in question from being killed, and a few thousand others who are killed on the roads each year. We may be able to delay some people dying, but as fast as our medical abilities increase, the population is increasingly becoming more prone to accidents and ill health. In the end the cost of necessary treatment will become unmanageable, as we are already seeing.

We do educate our people, but there are still many who fail to benefit from that, possibly because they are incapable of being taught for various reasons. The better our medicine become at saving premature babies, the more this produces children with various problems which makes it difficult for them to survive and if they do then they will have children who are quite likely to be disadvantaged in some way.

I regret you seriously over estimate the ability of the human race to protect itself from its own inevitable weaknesses.

Darwinism is very much in effect and is still a significant and unavoidable force at work on us, whether we like it, or not.