Why do you vote as you do?

[expat]

I hate socialists. Even when I was 12, and my parents were very much "working class" I hated socialists. Something for nothing is not for me. Survival of the fitest is the true norm. Unf. we won't let the week die off anymore so the gene pool is polluted with week genes. And thus our race will eventually die out (before the sun goes supanova anyway). No bad thing.

I suppose you mean "weak", and "fittest".

More seriously, you have a gross misunderstanding of evolution by selection, if you think that failure to select against the weak will "pollute" the "gene pool" with weak genes. Polluting the gene pool is a meaningless expression. The gene pool is the pool of genes that are available for selection to operate on. Having a wider pool of genes is not in any sense weaker, actually it is stronger in an important sense, in that the operation of selection has more material to work with and can therefore work more efficiently. Evolutionary selection is always in response to environment, not in response to some imagined target, or measurement of "strength" of genes, whatever that might mean.

Your description of survival of the fittest as "the true norm" is a giveaway. Survival of the fittest is a motor of selection, not a norm. It is an ad hoc response to circumstances, not in any way a meaningful definition, by which I mean that you do not get to decide what is "fittest", and there is no moral superiority attached to being "fittest".

This is no minor point: you are waffling rubbish using basic scientific terms that you have heard somewhere without understanding them. At the age of 12 you could perhaps be forgiven this, but it is depressing to hear this from people who have the vote, and seemingly the inclination to use it based on this fallacy. And you probably still think that you deserve to survive.

Edit: I'm sorry, I shouldn't be so rude. But I hate pseudoscience.

[Jeebo72]

I suppose you mean "weak", and "fittest".

More seriously, you have a gross misunderstanding of evolution by selection, if you think that failure to select against the weak will "pollute" the "gene pool" with weak genes. Polluting the gene pool is a meaningless expression. The gene pool is the pool of genes that are available for selection to operate on. Having a wider pool of genes is not in any sense weaker, actually it is stronger in an important sense, in that the operation of selection has more material to work with and can therefore work more efficiently. Evolutionary selection is always in response to environment, not in response to some imagined target, or measurement of "strength" of genes, whatever that might mean.

Your description of survival of the fittest as "the true norm" is a giveaway. Survival of the fittest is a motor of selection, not a norm. It is an ad hoc response to circumstances, not in any way a meaningful definition, by which I mean that you do not get to decide what is "fittest", and there is no moral superiority attached to being "fittest".

This is no minor point: you are waffling rubbish using basic scientific terms that you have heard somewhere without understanding them. At the age of 12 you could perhaps be forgiven this, but it is depressing to hear this from people who have the vote, and seemingly the inclination to use it based on this fallacy. And you probably still think that you deserve to survive.

Yawn. Glad I gave the the opportunity to express your self important, "LOOK AT ME" drivel. You're happy. I'm happy. All is well. Hope you didn't waste too much time reading, re-reading, proofing your reply.

BTW nature (at least in times gone by) decided who was fittest. Not me, not you, not some made up, good at the time morality of the majority. Now we support the weak. This is not just true of humans, but we also artificially keep alive other species too, just to make us feel better.

[DodgyAgent]

All the people who work for you, fix things for you, transport you to your holiday, supply everything you need to your local shops, staff those shops, empty your bins, bring fuel for your car, teach your children, look after your poorly relatives, keep criminal activity under control... all of them are educated, supported, looked after and often housed as well by the Welfare State, and the Welfare State pays for those people during times when there isn't enough demand for their services and they get laid off work till there is. It's to the advantage of all of us, whether we "directly" use it ourselves or not.

As for the dole scroungers and benefits cheats... they are acting illegally anyway. That's their fault, not the system's fault, and if they are caught then they are prosecuted. There are MPs who exploit the expenses system, contractors and agents who exploit the tax rules, fat cat bankers who exploit the bonus system and even doctors who exploit the drugs system. Dodgy people do dodgy things. The vast majority of people don't.

You don't demand that cars be abolished because some people drive too fast, do you?

None of the people who do any of the above are supported by the welfare state. They are all employed and paid directly or inderectly by me. There are about 4 million people who are paid money to effectively do nothing. These people are the thin end of the welfare state, the thick end is the many people who work in it and run it.

For you to say that these "workers", because of the low level at which they work (semi/unskilled) require welfare is extraordinarily patronising. How on earth do you know that just because someone is say a cleaner that they ever need to draw on welfare benefits?

There is a need for welfare, for those who genuinely need help such as terminally ill, old or handicapped. It has however become so out of control that anyone who doesnt feel like working doesnt need to.

Welfare also patches up an education system that regularly churns out (from state schools) children who are incapable and/or unsuitable for/to work.

You are a typical priviliged left wing stereotype. You like to think that by voting labour and supporting welfare that you are somehow "helping" the lesser off. The truth is that you are not interested in helping those who are worse off than you because without them your sad sorry greedy and selfish inner self would have no moral integrity.

[expat]

Yawn. Glad I gave the the opportunity to express your self important, "LOOK AT ME" drivel. You're happy. I'm happy. All is well. Hope you didn't waste too much time reading, re-reading, proofing your reply.

BTW nature (at least in times gone by) decided who was fittest. Not me, not you, not some made up, good at the time morality of the majority. Now we support the weak. This is not just true of humans, but we also artificially keep alive other species too, just to make us feel better.

What you just wrote (2nd para) is true, and the first 2 sentences are exactly what I was saying (and you were not). What you wrote before is not. They are not the same. Why do you toss about pseudo-science to support your views?

As for first para, nothing to to with "look at me". Look at Darwin. Seriously: try reading Darwin before you spout about evolution. He wrote very well, any reasonably intelligent reader can follow it.

But as you say, yawn. I doubt your ability to understand the things you speak of, but I am convinced of your ability to be childish and insulting about it. Shame on me for falling for an idiot, again.

But, as someone with a scientific education, I hate pseudo-science.

[shaunbhoy]

Look at Darwin. Seriously: try reading Darwin before you spout about evolution. He wrote very well, any reasonably intelligent reader can follow it.

I think you have answered your own conundrum there expat.
Jeebo's long slither up the evolutionary incline has scarcely begun. No point baffling him with logic.

[Jeebo72]

Look at Darwin. Seriously: try reading Darwin before you spout about evolution. He wrote very well, any reasonably intelligent reader can follow it.

But as you say, yawn. Shame on me for falling for an idiot, again.

But, as someone with a scientific education, I hate pseudo-science.

Read Origin ... Thanks.

"any reasonably intelligent reader can follow it."

" I doubt your ability to understand the things you speak of, but I am convinced of your ability to be childish and insulting about it."

" Shame on me for falling for an idiot, again."

er yes. Look unto yourself. You must be intelligent, I must not. Why? Well because you say so. Sure I'm more crass, and to the point, but you play the same game. I'm sure someone out there cares that you can put a sentence together. Weldone, have a star.

[Jeebo72]

I think you have answered your own conundrum there expat.
Jeebo's long slither up the evolutionary incline has scarcely begun. No point baffling him with logic.

You're right too alter boy...

[dang65]

None of the people who do any of the above are supported by the welfare state. They are all employed and paid directly or inderectly by me. There are about 4 million people who are paid money to effectively do nothing. These people are the thin end of the welfare state, the thick end is the many people who work in it and run it.

For you to say that these "workers", because of the low level at which they work (semi/unskilled) require welfare is extraordinarily patronising. How on earth do you know that just because someone is say a cleaner that they ever need to draw on welfare benefits?

There is a need for welfare, for those who genuinely need help such as terminally ill, old or handicapped. It has however become so out of control that anyone who doesnt feel like working doesnt need to.

Welfare also patches up an education system that regularly churns out (from state schools) children who are incapable and/or unsuitable for/to work.

You are a typical priviliged left wing stereotype. You like to think that by voting labour and supporting welfare that you are somehow "helping" the lesser off. The truth is that you are not interested in helping those who are worse off than you because without them your sad sorry greedy and selfish inner self would have no moral integrity.

Duh. I'm not talking about benefit payments, I'm talking about Welfare - the NHS which keeps all those people nice and fit and healthy so they can run around after you, me and each other; which gives them the education required to be able to do all those jobs, from cleaner to neurosurgeon, from mechanic to nuclear physicist; and which gives them financial help during times when they are laid off work - whatever their job may be - so that they can continue to function when they are needed again, by us.

It's you who have bizarrely interpreted my post as if I think that all people who earn less than me are actually paid and housed by the State to do nothing? Eh? I've given a long list of people who do everything.

You seem to consider that the education system churns out inadequate people, whilst completely ignoring the millions all around you who do far more complex and skilled jobs than you could dream of doing yourself, and who were educated by the State. In fact, seeing as you are an agent by trade, I'd say that you entirely rely on the State to keep you supplied with both contractors and clients who are educated to a standard which commands salaries so high that you can cream off your percentage and no one even says, "Er, hang on, what's that sponging git actually done to earn a lump of our cash like that?"

[DodgyAgent]

Duh. I'm not talking about benefit payments, I'm talking about Welfare - the NHS which keeps all those people nice and fit and healthy so they can run around after you, me and each other; which gives them the education required to be able to do all those jobs, from cleaner to neurosurgeon, from mechanic to nuclear physicist; and which gives them financial help during times when they are laid off work - whatever their job may be - so that they can continue to function when they are needed again, by us.

It's you who have bizarrely interpreted my post as if I think that all people who earn less than me are actually paid and housed by the State to do nothing? Eh? I've given a long list of people who do everything.

You seem to consider that the education system churns out inadequate people, whilst completely ignoring the millions all around you who do far more complex and skilled jobs than you could dream of doing yourself, and who were educated by the State. In fact, seeing as you are an agent by trade, I'd say that you entirely rely on the State to keep you supplied with both contractors and clients who are educated to a standard which commands salaries so high that you can cream off your percentage and no one even says, "Er, hang on, what's that sponging git actually done to earn a lump of our cash like that?"

NHS is not welfare, state schools, fire service, police armed services are not part of welfare, they are part of the public sector service sector. Whatever school you went to clearly did not teach you basic English did it?

[JimBobTwoTeeth]

NHS is not welfare, state schools, fire service, police armed services are not part of welfare, they are part of the public sector service sector. Whatever school you went to clearly did not teach you basic English did it?

Welfare - "financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government"

This thread turned into a 'who has got the biggest cock' discussion in record time.

By the way it's probably me