patrick.net

Also, you know you're not respected when...

As a supporter of Socialized Medicine, I've gotta tell ya... you have made a point. Well played, my friend.

Definitely Darwin Award potential, but not enough imagination to really pull it off, so to speak.

What if his IQ were 150 and his future potential children weren't as careless as he? What about the numerous smart and resourceful people with easily curable diseases who can't afford health care? Should we let them die because that's just part of evolution?

We all do stupid things from time to time. Should we be left to die if we happen to get hurt for doing something stupid?

Why don't we just have eugenics since you are so keen on having only smart people? There are sure a lot of dumb people breeding like mad. Perhaps stupid people have assets for human survival that many smart childless people don't have?

By your myopic definition of Darwinism, Ocotomom and her ilk are more fit than the numerous childless geniuses out there.

Would have been cool if he made it and landed on his feet. People do some really stupid things to look cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ymQxhMKKW4

Now if someone was paying you a lot of money to take this kind of risk, it be one thing, but doing it for fun just to post a video on youtube, is just plain stupid.

BobbyS says

What if his IQ were 150

If his IQ were over 80, he would have realized how incredibly stupid that stunt is and wouldn't have tried it.

BobbyS says

What if [...] his future potential children weren't as careless as he?

What if this jackass takes a mate that would have otherwise reproduced with an engineer. His potential future children are far less likely to achieve world peace or cure cancer than the potential future children. However, there is no way to predict the future, so what's your point? His child is as likely to be the next Hitler as to be the next Einstein. It makes no sense to speculate about the future in this manner.

BobbyS says

Should we let them die because that's just part of evolution?

You are taking what is obviously a joke posting way the fuck too seriously. Please have your mechanic examine your sense of humor chip. It appears to have short-circuited.

BobbyS says

Why don't we just have eugenics since you are so keen on having only smart people?

Evolution is not eugenics. If some dumb ass gets himself killed by doing something incredibly stupid, stupid enough to get a Darwin award, that is hardly the equivalent of the Holocaust. Comparing the two is quite frankly insulting to anyone who lived through the Holocaust.

BobbyS says

By your myopic definition of Darwinism, Ocotomom and her ilk are more fit than the numerous childless geniuses out there.

As I've said to other assholes, "if you don't want me to put my dick in your mouth, then don't put your words in mine." I have not presented any definition of Darwinism, yet you are claiming to know exactly what my definition of that word is. This is extremely presumptuous of you. Hell, it's presumptuous of you to even assume that I have my own definition of Darwinism. (Hint: I tend to use standard English definitions rather than redefining words.)

OK, you genius. Tell me exactly what "my definition" of Darwinism is, so that I can tear another hole in your ass by showing how wrong you are.

And if you are too cowardly to do this, then don't jam your bigotry and ideas down other people's throats. Also, learn to distinguish a serious discussion from a light-hearted jest. I know it's the Internet and you can't see facial expressions, but if you had any reading comprehension skills you'd be able to tell the difference.

Sorry everyone for my abruptness, but stupidity always brings out the asshole in me.

Young kids, like that in the video, have always behaved irrationally when there was a chance to impress a girl. We all been young and care free once, without a care in the world.

FortWayne says

Young kids, like that in the video, have always behaved irrationally when there was a chance to impress a girl.

I agree. 99% of the stupid things that teenage boys do is done solely for the purpose of impressing teenage girls. The Millennials have taken it one step further by video recording and posting their stupid acts on YouTube.

The really sad thing is that this evolutionary driven bravery/agility demonstration is a poor standard by which to choose a mate. It is not a useful skill, and the teenage girl is better off choosing that smart, nerdy kid who will be financially secure in the tech age. The boys spending all their time doing dumb stunts like this are likely to be in the unemployment line when they enter the work force.

Dan8267 says

Evolution is not eugenics. If some dumb ass gets himself killed by doing something incredibly stupid, stupid enough to get a Darwin award, that is hardly the equivalent of the Holocaust. Comparing the two is quite frankly insulting to anyone who lived through the Holocaust.

True, but you have disdain for people who do stupid things and believe they deserve to die if they can't pay for the medical bills. You think it's funny for people to die for doing something stupid, which shows you have disdain for people who do stupid things. By suggesting a clause in Obama's healthcare bill exempting people who end up in the hospital from doing something stupid, you are advocating to (whether it jives with reality or not) weed out people with certain genes that may predispose them to acting stupidly, which shows you are prejudiced against people who you perceive as 'stupid'. Weeding out stupidity from the gene pool is a form of eugenics. So I suggested, if you hate stupid people, why not just kill them all, which is what you suggested.

Dan8267 says

OK, you genius. Tell me exactly what "my definition" of Darwinism is, so that I can tear another hole in your ass by showing how wrong you are.

It's very obvious your definition of Darwinism involves people whom you perceive as stupid deserving to die if they can't pay for their medical bills and people whom you perceive as not stupid deserving to live regardless of any genetic downfalls they may have. If a person should have a lapse in judgement and injure themselves, DIE! In other words, you'd rather big wave surfers, ski jumpers, stunt doubles, etc who severely injure themselves to die if they can't pay for their health care merely because you perceive their high-risk actions as stupid. To sum up your definition of Darwinism: Stupid = not worthy of life. Not stupid=worthy of life. To counter your narrow-minded view of Darwinism, think "idiocracy". Dumb people or smart people who do dumb things aren't necessarily the least fit, which is what you are suggesting.

Ever see this film?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0

What was posted was largely a joke but one cannot forget we do have Darwin awards time to time.

From a ethical standpoint we often do not consider all the ramifications for various actions. For example in organ donations should someone that loses a lung due to smoking qualify for a lung transplant over someone that did not smoke? Should someone qualify for a new liver if they are a alcoholic?

Hey shrekgrinch, you might be interest in this. I'm about to go ape shit on some liberal dumb ass like I often went on you. I guess I was wrong, there are a few batshit crazy fuckers on the left that are as loony as those on the right, and this one is Glenn Beck's counterpart.

BobbyS says

you have disdain for people who do stupid things and believe they deserve to die if they can't pay for the medical bills

Correction, I do have a disdain for stupidity, but I hardly think that a person should die for not being able to pay a medical bill. That is something you pulled right out of your ass, Bobby.

You see, the video I posted was of a dumb kid doing a dumb stunt and stupidly posting it on YouTube. I then followed it up with a video of a panda taking a shit on another panda. This should have been your first clue that I was not making a serious argument against socialize medicine. Everyone else got the joke, but I guess the subtly of panda shitting on panda was a bit too sophisticated for someone of your intellectual standing.

However, even if someone were to make an argument against socialized medicine -- and there certainly are plenty of good arguments on both sides -- that would not make them out to be a heartless bitch. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them Hitler.

BobbyS says

By suggesting a clause in Obama's healthcare bill exempting people who end up in the hospital from doing something stupid, you are advocating

This is exactly why I think you are a spineless shithead. As much as I hate stupidity, I hate malicious deception even more, much more. A person who puts words in another's person mouth deserves no respect from anyone. This is exactly what the slimiest of politicians do. It is what Fox News does. And evidently, it is what you do.

There have been plenty of ultra-cons who have tried to use this tactic on me. Every time I call them out on the bullshit and show how stupid they are. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to show that when a left-wing nut-job uses the same tactic, I tear him a new asshole as well.

After reading my previous reply, the appropriate face-saving response would have been to say

My bad. I didn't pay attention to the videos and the comments, and so I erroneously jumped to the conclusion that you we're advocating letting people die to weed out the herd. Now that I've read this thread carefully, I see that you were being facetious, and I completely jumped the gun.

I guess in this day of extreme polarization, I have become accustomed fighting tooth and nail on every issue. I forgot that most people don't fall into either extremes, and that we can solve more problems by listening to the other side than attacking it. Thank you for reminding me that not everything falls into black or white. It is a lesson that many of us forget today. Going forward, I will keep this in mind.

Instead of saying something like that, you decided to double-down on stupidity. And since, like most dumb asses, you lack the ability to address what I have said, you instead try to argue against far weaker, but imaginary, arguments. Way to take a stance against Nazi eugenics. How fucking brave of you! At least have the balls to argue something controversial like whether or not abortion should be legal.

Worst of all, you lie to the whole word by claiming your opponent is advocating these things. This is the lowest form of politicking there is. It shows the utmost disrespect not only for your opponent but also for anyone listening to the debate, for you are saying that they are so stupid as to fall for such an obvious ruse. You are proof that some loads were meant to be swallowed.

Scumbags like you try to create controversy where there is none because you don't have the balls to address truly controversial issues. This kind of fake, holier-than-thou attitude is both dishonest and repugnant. Perhaps the ancient Greek blind poet Homer addressed this issue most eloquently in the Iliad, which I have copied a section of from Wikipedia:

What you pissed off 'cause your dad gets more pussy than you?
Fuck you! suck my fuckin' dick!

Printin' lies, startin' controversy
You want to antagonize me? antagonize me motherfucker!
Get in the ring motherfucker! and I'll kick your bitchy little ass! punk!!

BobbyS says

It's very obvious your definition of Darwinism involves people whom you perceive as stupid deserving to die if they can't pay for their medical bills and people whom you perceive as not stupid deserving to live regardless of any genetic downfalls they may have.

This is my definition of Darwinism:

Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth. Its original formulation is provided in the first edition of On the Origin of Species in 1859. This entry first formulates ‘Darwin's Darwinism’ in terms of five philosophically distinctive themes: (i) probability and chance, (ii) the nature, power and scope of selection, (iii) adaptation and teleology, (iv) nominalism vs. essentialism about species and (v) the tempo and mode of evolutionary change.

As for your batshit crazy conclusions of what must be going on in my mind, I can only say your words reflect your own insecure self-perception rather than anything to do we me. Perhaps you realize that you are genetically prone to stupidity, a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence you provided in this thread, and as such fear that nature or man will threaten your chance for survival as a result.

It makes no sense for me to argue against your imaginary and paranoid delusions of what you think I believe. I will just say this. I am like a mirror. I reflect the inner image of the person talking to me, only inverted. Right-wing nuts see me as an elite liberal socialist. Left-wing nuts see me as a heartless conservative fascist/capitalist. In both cases, it is the one looking into the mirror that casts the image.

I am orthogonal to the batshit crazy left-right line you and your ultracon counterparts draw. The truth, and my beliefs, does not lie between dumb ass Tea Baggers and dumb ass hippies. No, it lies on the other side of the smart-dumb axis, which evidently runs at a right angle to the left-right axis. So maybe you should stop talking out of your ass about what other people must be thinking, and instead listen and ask questions when you are uncertain.

No, I don't believe in any of the things you are saying. However, I will go on the record as stating that our species would be better off if you didn't reproduce. Now that's some Darwinism I can get behind.

Oh, and for anyone who's curious about my opinion on health care, not that it's important, I'm actually for universal health care as long as it meets five conditions:

1. Health care and employment are divorced. You shouldn't lose your insurance when you switch or lose a job.

2. A single payer system exists. That means no provider can discriminate against individuals as everyone is charged the same amount for the same service. Kind of like having a price listed on a menu. Of course, different providers can and will charge different amounts for a service, particularly because of location. But patient A pays as much for an x-ray as patient B.

3. At least one public option plan. If the private sector cannot compete with the government in providing a service, then that service should be done by the government. If the private sector can do it better, then so be it. Either way, competition is good.

4. Non-profits and for-profit organizations get an equal playing field in terms of all legal matters regarding health insurance. No legislation should favor one organization over another. And that means no laws written by lobbyists. [If this happens, the non-profits might do a better job than either the corporations or the government.]

5. No transfer of costs from the elderly to the young. Insurance is suppose to protect you from unexpected and unlikely tragedies, not harm one generation to benefit another. As such, young adults should be in their own insurance pool.

Provided these five seasonable and socially just conditions are met, I would even favor the individual mandate. Absent these conditions, the individual mandate is just a tax the private insurance company can impose upon the population, particularly the young.

However, with these five conditions, I can see the benefits of the economy of scale the individual mandate would bring.

Oh, in case anyone is wondering why I was so harsh with BobbyS, there is a purpose to ridiculing the village idiot. It discourages others from taking the role. It also discourages the use of baser and less ethical political tactics. If only every politician got booed when bragging about how much they pray or turn to god, then politicians would never use religion to support their selfish ambitions.

Your idiocy, personal attacks on me and desire to post such a empty and long-winded response shows you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. Instead of accepting the truth, you've instead turned into a maniac and posted denial-laden words. You've acknowledged that dying from doing stupid things is Darwinism, which is a very myopic and cold-hearted view. Nevertheless, I still hope you and your family live a healthy and prosperous life and receive a great level of health care regardless of your ability to pay for it, in spite of your insanity.

Obviously I used too many words and went into too much detail for an illiterate such as yourself to read. Oh yes, I've acknowledge everything you said in my reply including that I killed John F. Kennedy. I was the guy on the grassy knoll. You got me. I also invented cancer, war, and death. After all, how else could those things have come into the world?

The sheer level of hypocrisy that dumb shits like you engage in never ceases to amaze me. If you cannot take personal attacks, then don't render them. Even more amazing is the way in which assholes like you provide the most insincere "best wishes". You are the quintessential example of a troll.

My feelings toward you can only be expressed by a professional actor.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/qrvMTv_r8sA

I finally get what he was driving at.

BobbyS says

Should we be left to die if we happen to get hurt for doing something stupid?

Absolutely. There would be questionnaires in the emergency room waiting area. You say the guy we just wheeled in got run over by his own car, after he jumped out with the engine running, wheels spinning while doing wheelies. Instant Darwin award. Stop it guys! No need to save that one, he's a Darwin case. Wheel him down to the morgue.

Ladies!
No need to get your panties in a knot. Here's a summary of this thread, which I find to be hilarious and rather pointless:

BobbyS says

By your myopic definition of Darwinism, Ocotomom and her ilk are more fit than the numerous childless geniuses out there....Why don't we just have eugenics since you are so keen on having only smart people?

Dan8267 says

Evolution is not eugenics. If some dumb ass gets himself killed by doing something incredibly stupid, stupid enough to get a Darwin award, that is hardly the equivalent of the Holocaust. Comparing the two is quite frankly insulting to anyone who lived through the Holocaust.

BobbyS says

You think it's funny for people to die for doing something stupid, which shows you have disdain for people who do stupid things....So I suggested, if you hate stupid people, why not just kill them all, which is what you suggested.

Dan8267 says

Correction, I do have a disdain for stupidity, but I hardly think that a person should die for not being able to pay a medical bill. That is something you pulled right out of your ass, Bobby

Dan8267 says

Scumbags like you try to create controversy where there is none because you don't have the balls to address truly controversial issues. This kind of fake, holier-than-thou attitude is both dishonest and repugnant. Perhaps the ancient Greek blind poet Homer addressed this issue most eloquently in the Iliad, which I have copied a section of from Wikipedia:
What you pissed off 'cause your dad gets more pussy than you?
Fuck you! suck my fuckin' dick!
Printin' lies, startin' controversy
You want to antagonize me? antagonize me motherfucker!
Get in the ring motherfucker! and I'll kick your bitchy little ass! punk!!

BobbyS says

Your idiocy, personal attacks on me and desire to post such a empty and long-winded response shows you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. Instead of accepting the truth, you've instead turned into a maniac and posted denial-laden words.

Dan8267 says

Obviously I used too many words and went into too much detail for an illiterate such as yourself to read. Oh yes, I've acknowledge everything you said in my reply including that I killed John F. Kennedy. I was the guy on the grassy knoll. You got me. I also invented cancer, war, and death. After all, how else could those things have come into the world?

Hilarious is self-explanatory. Pointless?

Dan8267 says

You are taking what is obviously a joke posting way the fuck too seriously.

Bobby, it was a joke post. It was funny, given that the videos were just stupid pranks that ended badly.

I would like to thank ya'll for the entertainment. And Dan, you've turned me onto the classics. I'll run to the Quik-E-Mart and pick me up one of them there Iliads. Seems like some good reading.

elliemae says

I'll run to the Quik-E-Mart and pick me up one of them there Iliads.

If you can't find the original ancient Greek, I recommend the Richmond Lattimore translation shown below.

If they sell it at the Quik-E-Mart, I shall buy it. That's where I buy all my literature (local paper, nickle shopper...)

This thread was crazy. The guys were dumb and your post was surely posted in jest. Sorry for calling you Shirley.

Not sure how the Bobster took it so seriously.