AVFCforever1991 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Just done mine. I made a delightful cup of tea. Got some biscuits and enjoyed it. Much more enjoyable. I nominate you to eat a crumpet, crumpet.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted February 7, 2014 Let them get on with it. Darwin's theory. We've essentially become a nation of morons anyway.Another subscriber to the Darwin theory then. Good ... good ... *rubs hands* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 How long before our gene pool becomes the "weak"? What you lot are talking about is eugenics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted February 7, 2014 Darwin is not eugenics. Darwin subscribes to letting the eejits find their own way off a cliff. Eugenics decides who to push and who to keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Quite literally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 Darwin is not eugenics. Darwin subscribes to letting the eejits find their own way off a cliff. Eugenics decides who to push and who to keep. By doing nothing you're making that decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 7, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 7, 2014 I don't mind not the opinion of not liking the game. I don't even mind the opinion that the game is dangerous (even though I disagree with it) But what does really irk me is the suggestion that those who play the game normally are somehow responsible for those who go over the top and kill themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted February 7, 2014 Darwin is not eugenics. Darwin subscribes to letting the eejits find their own way off a cliff. Eugenics decides who to push and who to keep.By doing nothing you're making that decision.No, now you're discounting or trivialising free will which is a very important part of it. There's a huge difference between going out and consciously killing someone or standing back and letting them decide to do whatever the hell they want. Be it stay alive or die. Even on VillaTalk I'd say that's unarguable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 Absolutely, I'm not disagreeing with you on that really BOF. I'm asking human beings to be more accountable for other human beings in general. I suppose it's a bit hairy fairy yoghurt knitting for some, but it's how I feel. Revolution > Evolution right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted February 7, 2014 I'm asking human beings to be more accountable for other human beings in general.It does certainly seem to be a fairly recent phenomenon that it's OK for people not to be accountable for their own actions. That everyone else is at fault for creating the environment. I despise the transference of responsibility onto society (and by extension somehow onto me) of complete ****wits who decide to do stupid things and be pitied for it. I go back to my OP. The 2 deaths are Darwin nominees for me. Nothing less than that and should be treated that way. Let's all post false-empathy for the families as is the norm on the internet (even though we really don't give a shit). But I'll not feel anything for the 2 who killed themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Letting people make their own mistakes has nothing to do with eugenics, whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdomlahor Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) A guy I know set himself on fire as a result of this. Edited February 7, 2014 by adz.villa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 I'm asking human beings to be more accountable for other human beings in general.It does certainly seem to be a fairly recent phenomenon that it's OK for people not to be accountable for their own actions. That everyone else is at fault for creating the environment. I despise the transference of responsibility onto society (and by extension somehow onto me) of complete ****wits who decide to do stupid things and be pitied for it. I go back to my OP. The 2 deaths are Darwin nominees for me. Nothing less than that and should be treated that way. Let's all post false-empathy for the families as is the norm on the internet (even though we really don't give a shit). But I'll not feel anything for the 2 who killed themselves. I never said anything about people not being accountable for their actions. What I'm talking about is nothing new at all, to care for your fellow man is a core Marxist value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This sounds like a mugs game. I don't like the sound of this 'Darwin Nominated' stuff either, but what do I know? I'm not as clever as some of you lot on here, but I'm trying to learn by reading the threads. What about Phillip Seymour Hoffman was he Darwin Nominated or what? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 I was perhaps misguided in my loose observation that those taking part were somehow to "blame" for these deaths. I just can't accept the notion that we shouldn't give a **** though. That's **** mad. You don't see bankers dying off due to Darwinism, only multiplying. So perhaps it's about time we started taking closer care, i.e. Educating, those who might be fit for the fight. The workers of this world. These are not *just* dumb kids. They're essential to our tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 7, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 7, 2014 I was perhaps misguided in my loose observation that those taking part were somehow to "blame" for these deaths. I just can't accept the notion that we shouldn't give a **** though. That's **** mad. You don't see bankers dying off due to Darwinism, only multiplying. So perhaps it's about time we started taking closer care, i.e. Educating, those who might be fit for the fight. The workers of this world. These are not *just* dumb kids. They're essential to our tomorrow. I lie somewhere in the middle of your view and BOF's view. We should most certainly give a ****. But there's a difference between giving a **** and feeling responsible for deaths that have nothing to do with you. We should be aware of the dangers of thi sgame (and of anything) and people should be encouraged not to participate in things that put them in that sort of danger. But, like I said before, you can't ban stuff that isn't dangerous, because a tiny minority have made it dangerous for them. Similarly, I feel absolutely no guilt, and neither should I, that those people have died as a result of them approaching a relatively harmless game idiotically. I feel sympathy, especially for the families, and I hope it doesn't happen to anyone else, and I hope people are more cautious as a result. But I don't feel guilt. It's not my fault and neither is it the game's fault. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) There is nothing wrong with educating and providing services for people in vulnerable positions. I don't think anyone is arguing for completely ignoring the troubles of others. However, comparing a drug addict to a kid doing something regrettable is rather questionable. You can help those in need, but you can't babysit a country. People will do daft shit and wind up dead, they always have and always will. Edited February 7, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted February 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted February 7, 2014 What legacy will the current generation of 15-25 years olds leave behind? Drinking games, vampires, and making millionaires out of orange people who can hardly string a sentence together. .. This really did make me chuckle Not enough to give me a Like though. I should've done it in caps, or included more swearing. FFS, I MIGHT AS WELL GO AND DO SOMETHING FKING STUPID FOR ALL ANYONE CARES ANYWAY... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 There is nothing wrong with educating and providing services for people in vulnerable positions. I don't think anyone is arguing for completely ignoring the troubles of others. However, comparing a drug addict to a kid doing something regrettable is rather questionable. You can help those in need, but you can't babysit a country. People will do daft shit and wind up dead, they always have and always will. It's not costing me anything to express these views. I happen to think that the, excuse the generalisation, working classes are in need and that we should be moving towards a more unified society. It's a wider point, probably way off topic now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 There is nothing wrong with educating and providing services for people in vulnerable positions. I don't think anyone is arguing for completely ignoring the troubles of others. However, comparing a drug addict to a kid doing something regrettable is rather questionable. You can help those in need, but you can't babysit a country. People will do daft shit and wind up dead, they always have and always will. I was trying to understand what was meant by 'Darwin Nominated' it sounded to me like it was being suggested that people were selecting themselves out of the gene pool through stupid acts. I probably should of thought of a better example than a drug addict though. Anyway I always thought Darwinism was about selecting for the environment and adapting to that rather than anything like filtering out people who might be deemed 'stupid'. As I say I'm just trying to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts