"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/09/16 21:40, Janok wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 20/09/16 23:18, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/09/2016 23:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/09/16 19:16, ARW wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/09/16 22:13, Huge wrote:
On 2016-09-19, ARW wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-09-18, ARW wrote:

Had any ******s view the car or phone up asking stupid
questions?

Yep. "Will you accept a Merc in p/x". The ad says "No p/x".

The world would, IMHO, be a better place if breathing required a
minimum
amount of intelligence.

Indeed.


AS I keep pointing out Darwin is not survival of the fittest,. it is
merely propagation of those not sufficiently dysfunctional to fail
to
generate offspring.

Are you suggesting that the ability to get an erection should
require a
certain level of intelligence?


NO, I am saying that the reverse is true. The ability to impregnate
women and have babies requires no intelligence at all, otherwise the
human race would probably have died out years ago.

Except that there are studies that support the concept that
intelligence
is inherited, and unfortunately less intelligent families have more
offspring.

We're doomed!!!

Idiocracy.

That was the whole point of classical warfare. To cull the population
of young stupid males.

Trouble with that line is that anyone who has ever had anything
to do with breeding knows that you have to cull the females, its
useless to cull the males, because any male can **** lots of females
and presumably lots of that kept happening with some of the males
away at the war.

You missed my pointy. The smart males stayed at home.

Very few of them ever got to do that with classical warfare.

Prior to WWII there wasn't an absolute population problem. Disease and
poverty kept numbers down.

Not in China or India it didnt.