Love freedom? Thank a vet

[Guest Guest]

You need some professional help, you're a sick puppy.

76550[/snapback]

In other words, you don't like it, but you're not smart enough to say why.

Ever consider changing your mind? Maybe then you wouldn't have so much mental turmoil. Of course that assumes you have enough of a mind to change.

[Guest Kearny Educator]

Many say "God bless America or the God Bless the Troops". But the divine power does not keep the troops from harm. There is natural selection or survival of the fittest and it is inexorable.

They volunteered and there is no free lunch.

76533[/snapback]

"the devine power does not keep the troops from harm"? And you know this .....

how? Sounds like rectum talk to me.

[Guest Kearny Educator]

Sadly, "at this point," many of those people you just described in that second sentence are already dead.

76409[/snapback]

Rectum talk.

[Strife767]

"the devine power does not keep the troops from harm"?  And you know this .....

   how?

Because they're being harmed. Idiot.

Sounds like rectum talk to me.

76820[/snapback]

Sounds like you just gave yourself away, 2dim.

[Guest Guest]

"the devine power does not keep the troops from harm"?  And you know this .....

  how? Sounds like rectum talk to me.

76820[/snapback]

Because they keep getting blown up.

[Guest Guest]

"the devine power does not keep the troops from harm"?  And you know this .....

  how? Sounds like rectum talk to me.

76820[/snapback]

Coming from an educator that cannot spell divine.

[Bern]

Coming from an educator that cannot spell divine.

76910[/snapback]

Considering Mr. P, is kept, I'm not surprised that there are other educationally challenged educators in Kearny.

[Guest Guest]

Many say "God bless America or the God Bless the Troops". But the divine power does not keep the troops from harm. There is natural selection or survival of the fittest and it is inexorable.

They volunteered and there is no free lunch.

76533[/snapback]

Natural selection has little or nothing to do with it. Being wounded or killed in war is usually a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Second, when people volunteer to become soldiers and defend us, I want them protected as best as possible. There's no place for the attitude Bern is expressing.

[Bern]

Natural selection has little or nothing to do with it. Being wounded or killed in war is usually a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Second, when people volunteer to become soldiers and defend us, I want them protected as best as possible. There's no place for the attitude Bern is expressing.

76931[/snapback]

In this war, being wounded or killed is because they volunteered to be in it. A lot of kids did not volunteer to be in it. Their chances of surviving and passing their genes on are greater. That is how natural selection works. Survivors are more likely to pass their genes on.

If you don't like the way natural selection works, talk to God and get Him to change the rules.

How are they protecting us? This war has done nothing to protect us. If anything, it has endangered us.

If a REAL crisis requiring troops occurs, well then too bad. They will not be available.

We lost face with the world. Other countries now realize we are not the super power we were made out to be. The projection of power that we were so good at, which got us a lot of advantages in world politics and world economic leverage is gone. You will see China, Iran, India and Russia becoming a lot more assertive. And when we tell them we don't like what they are doing their response will be - "So, what are you going to do about it? Your dollar is a joke. You are a debtor nation. You are losing your economic influence and your military is busy. Worry about yourself and keep your nose out of our business. Begone."

Even smaller Asian countries will become more assertive. Most Asian countries, when we try to interfere will start telling us to mind our own business with China backing them up. Also, our diversions has given China the opportunity to get a very strong toehold into Africa.

China, Iran, India and Russia want their share of the world pie. They no longer see us as stopping them.

One of our foreign vendors told us last week, starting next year, they are no longer accepting dollars. We have to buy from them because they're the only ones in the world who make that specific product. The prices will now be in Euros and the money has to be converted to Euros when remitted. They are NOT a European company.

[Guest Guest]

In this war, being wounded or killed is because they volunteered to be in it. A lot of kids did not volunteer to be in it. Their chances of surviving and passing their genes on are greater. That is how natural selection works. Survivors are more likely to pass their genes on.

If you don't like the way natural selection works, talk to God and get Him to change the rules.

How are they protecting us? This war has done nothing to protect us. If anything, it has endangered us.

If a REAL crisis requiring troops occurs, well then too bad. They will not be available.

We lost face with the world. Other countries now realize we are not the super power we were made out to be. The projection of power that we were so good at, which got us a lot of advantages in world politics and world economic leverage is gone. You will see China, Iran, India and Russia becoming a lot more assertive. And when we tell them we don't like what they are doing their response will be - "So, what are you going to do about it? Your dollar is a joke. You are a debtor nation. You are losing your economic influence and your military is busy. Worry about yourself and keep your nose out of our business. Begone."

Even smaller Asian countries will become more assertive. Most Asian countries, when we try to interfere will start telling us to mind our own business with China backing them up. Also, our diversions has given China the opportunity to get a very strong toehold into Africa.

China, Iran, India and Russia want their share of the world pie. They no longer see us as stopping them.

One of our foreign vendors told us last week, starting next year, they are no longer accepting dollars. We have to buy from them because they're the only ones in the world who make that specific product. The prices will now be in Euros and the money has to be converted to Euros when remitted. They are NOT a European company.

76945[/snapback]

Yep, thank god for George Bush alright.

[Guest Paul]

In this war, being wounded or killed is because they volunteered to be in it. A lot of kids did not volunteer to be in it. Their chances of surviving and passing their genes on are greater. That is how natural selection works. Survivors are more likely to pass their genes on.

If you don't like the way natural selection works, talk to God and get Him to change the rules.

How are they protecting us? This war has done nothing to protect us. If anything, it has endangered us.

If a REAL crisis requiring troops occurs, well then too bad. They will not be available.

We lost face with the world. Other countries now realize we are not the super power we were made out to be. The projection of power that we were so good at, which got us a lot of advantages in world politics and world economic leverage is gone. You will see China, Iran, India and Russia becoming a lot more assertive. And when we tell them we don't like what they are doing their response will be - "So, what are you going to do about it? Your dollar is a joke. You are a debtor nation. You are losing your economic influence and your military is busy. Worry about yourself and keep your nose out of our business. Begone."

Even smaller Asian countries will become more assertive. Most Asian countries, when we try to interfere will start telling us to mind our own business with China backing them up. Also, our diversions has given China the opportunity to get a very strong toehold into Africa.

China, Iran, India and Russia want their share of the world pie. They no longer see us as stopping them.

One of our foreign vendors told us last week, starting next year, they are no longer accepting dollars. We have to buy from them because they're the only ones in the world who make that specific product. The prices will now be in Euros and the money has to be converted to Euros when remitted. They are NOT a European company.

76945[/snapback]

Bern, that's not true. Natural selection works on the fitness principle. Soldiers aren't less fit than non-soldiers. In fact, they're probably more fit than most.

Furthermore, what you're describing is not natural selection. You said yourself that soldiers can't pass on their genes because they made a conscious choice to volunteer for military service. That's human artifice at work, not nature.

In addition, natural selection passes on genes, and thereby traits. There's no trait that I know of for volunteering for military service. What trait do you claim they're passing on? Just because non-soldiers pass on their individual genes doesn't make this an example of natural selection at work. Natural selection is an interaction between the environment and genes (producing traits) competing to survive in that environment.

Most important, maybe, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. You sound as though you're saying that our soldiers deserve to die because they volunteered to serve their country, as they saw it. I trust that's not your intent, but then what is your intent? Could you elaborate on your answer?

[Guest Patriot]

In this war, being wounded or killed is because they volunteered to be in it. A lot of kids did not volunteer to be in it. Their chances of surviving and passing their genes on are greater. That is how natural selection works. Survivors are more likely to pass their genes on.

If you don't like the way natural selection works, talk to God and get Him to change the rules.

How are they protecting us? This war has done nothing to protect us. If anything, it has endangered us.

If a REAL crisis requiring troops occurs, well then too bad. They will not be available.

We lost face with the world. Other countries now realize we are not the super power we were made out to be. The projection of power that we were so good at, which got us a lot of advantages in world politics and world economic leverage is gone. You will see China, Iran, India and Russia becoming a lot more assertive. And when we tell them we don't like what they are doing their response will be - "So, what are you going to do about it? Your dollar is a joke. You are a debtor nation. You are losing your economic influence and your military is busy. Worry about yourself and keep your nose out of our business. Begone."

Even smaller Asian countries will become more assertive. Most Asian countries, when we try to interfere will start telling us to mind our own business with China backing them up. Also, our diversions has given China the opportunity to get a very strong toehold into Africa.

China, Iran, India and Russia want their share of the world pie. They no longer see us as stopping them.

One of our foreign vendors told us last week, starting next year, they are no longer accepting dollars. We have to buy from them because they're the only ones in the world who make that specific product. The prices will now be in Euros and the money has to be converted to Euros when remitted. They are NOT a European company.

76945[/snapback]

Your misinformation, misconceptions, fallacies and lies rival those of Strife.

You two must be drinking from the same cup of Kool-aid.

[Strife767]

Your misinformation, misconceptions, fallacies and lies rival those of Strife.

Yawn, nothing but empty accusations from the inappropriately-named buffoon. How many times have I defied you to cite me lying, yet you never respond? You're full of crap; only your sockpuppets agree with you, which is pretty sad. Don't you have anything better to spend your life doing than antagonizing people with this bullshit?

[Bern]

Bern, that's not true. Natural selection works on the fitness principle. Soldiers aren't less fit than non-soldiers. In fact, they're probably more fit than most.

Furthermore, what you're describing is not natural selection. You said yourself that soldiers can't pass on their genes because they made a conscious choice to volunteer for military service. That's human artifice at work, not nature.

In addition, natural selection passes on genes, and thereby traits. There's no trait that I know of for volunteering for military service. What trait do you claim they're passing on? Just because non-soldiers pass on their individual genes doesn't make this an example of natural selection at work. Natural selection is an interaction between the environment and genes (producing traits) competing to survive in that environment.

Most important, maybe, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. You sound as though you're saying that our soldiers deserve to die because they volunteered to serve their country, as they saw it. I trust that's not your intent, but then what is your intent? Could you elaborate on your answer?

76988[/snapback]

At least your response is intelligent, unlike the one that followed yours. The usual inane gibberish.

Yes, natural selection works on the fitness principle. But its not just physical fitness. Its also mental and social fitness - which determines how well you integrate into society and so forth. So someone who does not integrate well may end up as a homeless person who does not pass their genes on. We've seen that in the animal kingdom. Some canines get along with humans. The canines who were smart enough to get along were taken in for the useful work they did. If anything, those canines may have been the weaker members of their canine clan. In return they were fed and had enhanced lives which allowed them to breed more successfully. Now we use them primarily as pets. Whereas canines who did not get along were hunted out of existence.

Similar to when you volunteer for the military. At this point, volunteers exist because they believe in this mission (Iraq) or they are economically challenged. Both conditions are a detriment since they cause them to be put in harms way. It may be human artifice but it is also natural selection. Just as human artifice altered the natural selection of canines. But it was the canines that made the decision to get along or not with the humans.

Do they deserve to die? No. But die they do because that is how the world works.

[Bryan]

Bern, that's not true. Natural selection works on the fitness principle. Soldiers aren't less fit than non-soldiers. In fact, they're probably more fit than most.

Betcha I can find a scientist who would call Paul's statement above a sign of ignorance regarding evolution.

Fitness is defined purely as the practical outcome of propagating one's genes. That's it. Nothing directly to do with push-ups, chin-ups, or the ability to shoot a man between the eyes from 400 paces.

Produce offspring and you're fit in terms of evolution, period.

Furthermore, what you're describing is not natural selection. You said yourself that soldiers can't pass on their genes because they made a conscious choice to volunteer for military service. That's human artifice at work, not nature.

For the philosophical naturalist, all is nature. Anything else would be supernatural. Under that world view, the distinction between human intent and the laws of nature is artificial and illusory.

Beyond that, there's nothing directly related to breeding in military service in Iraq. A soldier who plays around at every stop along the way has the chance to be spectacularly fit compared to stay-at-homes who survive yet do not reproduce. That was really the main flaw in the original argument. That plus the fact that the vast majority of the soldiers will come home and may well propagate themselves (and may well be more successful at it than stay-at-homes)

In addition, natural selection passes on genes, and thereby traits. There's no trait that I know of for volunteering for military service. What trait do you claim they're passing on? Just because non-soldiers pass on their individual genes doesn't make this an example of natural selection at work. Natural selection is an interaction between the environment and genes (producing traits) competing to survive in that environment.

Just because Paul doesn't know of a pacifist gene doesn't mean that there isn't one. Any change in the frequency of alleles over time is regarded as evolution, and it's fair to call "natural selection" any set of human behaviors that is not consciously geared toward reproduction (and thus allele frequencies).

LaClair is such a joke.

Most important, maybe, I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

The truth comes out! Sound the alarm! LaClair emitted a truth!

You sound as though you're saying that our soldiers deserve to die because they volunteered to serve their country, as they saw it. I trust that's not your intent, but then what is your intent? Could you elaborate on your answer?

76988[/snapback]

Yes, please! This should be good!

[Guest Guest]

And to think all this BS was started with a simple, "As you enjoy your long Veteran's Day weekend, please take a moment to thank a war veteran for their service. It will mean a lot to them and requires little effort on your part".

Most of you are just looking for anything to start a debate (arguement). Give it a rest. None of this gibberish has anything to do with the Town of Kearny.

[Bern]

Fitness is defined purely as the practical outcome of propagating one's genes.  That's it.  Nothing directly to do with push-ups, chin-ups, or the ability to shoot a man between the eyes from 400 paces. 

Produce offspring and you're fit in terms of evolution, period.

For the philosophical naturalist, all is nature.  Anything else would be supernatural.  Under that world view, the distinction between human intent and the laws of nature is artificial and illusory.

Beyond that, there's nothing directly related to breeding in military service in Iraq.  A soldier who plays around at every stop along the way has the chance to be spectacularly fit compared to stay-at-homes who survive yet do not reproduce.  That was really the main flaw in the original argument.  That plus the fact that the vast majority of the soldiers will come home and may well propagate themselves (and may well be more successful at it than stay-at-homes)

The truth comes out!  Sound the alarm!  LaClair emitted a truth!

Yes, please!  This should be good!

77035[/snapback]

Your definition of fitness is correct.

I'm not so sure about ex-soldiers being at an advantage in our society. I've heard too many stories of dysfunctional Vietnam vets. So in percentage terms, they may have had less of a chance to propagate vs non-soldiers. And there are cases of discrimination. I had a manager tell me that he didn't want to hire a Viet Vet we interviewed because he may have issues. Then you have to decide either to override the manger or let it go. We let it go. We figured if we force the manager to hire the kid, he'd have an attitude and just make the kid miserable. It wouldn't work out and we wouldn't have done the kid a favor. It really pissed me off. Later I found a reason to fire the manager.

That is, assuming all these horror stories of the high number of dysfunctional are true. I think a lot of these stories were exaggerated for political purposes.

In this war, the Iraq war, the relatively low number of killed or seriously injured does not really affect the gene pool for the US.

[WilliamK]

Just because Paul doesn't know of a pacifist gene doesn't mean that there isn't one.  Any change in the frequency of alleles over time is regarded as evolution, and it's fair to call "natural selection" any set of human behaviors that is not consciously geared toward reproduction (and thus allele frequencies).

77035[/snapback]

Ah, so you do recognize that Paul's use of "fitness" in this context refers to the ability to pass on one's genes, despite your attempt to imply that he had confused it with the ability to do chin ups.

But, once you got past that and addressed his actual meaning, you did make a couple of good points. It is possible that one or more genetic factors could influence one's likelihood to sign up for military service. It actually seems rather likely to me. And, as you also pointed out, there are other factors (ex: attractiveness to/opportunities for mating) that call into question the assumption that military service reduces the odds of passing on one's genes. I'm sure there are specific battles/wars in which it was an overwhelmingly negative factor, but it would take some actual research to determine whether it is in this case, or in general.

LaClair is such a joke.

77035[/snapback]

His post was actually very intelligent. He simply doubts that there's any significant genetic influence for signing up for military service. Absent actual data, this is no more unreasonable than the opposite assumption, so long as certainty is not claimed.

[Strife767]

And to think all this BS was started with a simple, "As you enjoy your long Veteran's Day weekend, please take a moment to thank a war veteran for their service. It will mean a lot to them and requires little effort on your part".

Most of you are just looking for anything to start a debate (arguement). Give it a rest. None of this gibberish has anything to do with the Town of Kearny.

77041[/snapback]

Concerning your last sentence, do you realize that the original post also has nothing to do with the Town of Kearny particularly?

The entire thread from its inception wasn't about Kearny specifically, so I don't see what that last complaint is about, since you don't seem to have any issue with the original post.

Just curious.

[Guest Paul]

Your definition of fitness is correct.

I'm not so sure about ex-soldiers being at an advantage in our society. I've heard too many stories of dysfunctional Vietnam vets. So in percentage terms, they may have had less of a chance to propagate vs non-soldiers. And there are cases of discrimination. I had a manager tell me that he didn't want to hire a Viet Vet we interviewed because he may have issues. Then you have to decide either to override the manger or let it go. We let it go. We figured if we force the manager to hire the kid, he'd have an attitude and just make the kid miserable. It wouldn't work out and we wouldn't have done the kid a favor. It really pissed me off. Later I found a reason to fire the manager.

That is, assuming all these horror stories of the high number of dysfunctional are true. I think a lot of these stories were exaggerated for political purposes.

In this war, the Iraq war, the relatively low number of killed or seriously injured does not really affect the gene pool for the US.

77046[/snapback]

Bern,

There’s no specific gene for “tendency to volunteer for military service.” Obviously, a specific military service gene would tend to be selected out of a population, not selected in.

Instead, genes that render people more likely to volunteer for military service are more general. Probably they are genes for sociability factors of various kinds. It stands to reason that such genes increase reproductive success overall.

So in order to analyze natural selection in this context, we would have to identify the genes that are statistically associated with a tendency to volunteer for military service, and then consider their effects both for increased likelihood of reproduction and for decreased likelihood of reproduction. In the case of the Iraq war, we have lost nearly 4,000 soldiers, plus tens of thousands of injured --- out of how many who served? Even counting for the numbers of wounded soldiers who will not reproduce as a result of their injuries, we’re still looking at a relatively small percentage who will fail to transmit their genes. If we could balance that against the reproductive advantages of the same genes, would the gene come out a net positive or a net negative? We can’t isolate the genes we’re talking about (yet, anyway), so we can’t be sure. Still, when you consider our evolutionary past, it’s likely that the genes that predispose people to volunteer for military service are (1) quite far reaching across the spectrum of human behavior, (2) numerous and (3) powerful in their effects on human behavior. In fact, it’s entirely possible (I think likely) that if we eliminated the genes responsible for this tendency, we would probably produce organisms we wouldn’t recognize behaviorally as human.

Short answer: If we want to talk meaningfully about gene selection, we can’t consider only the most obvious short-term effects of a human behavioral trait. We must instead identify the genes associated with those traits, and consider all their long-term reproductive effects, not only the obvious negative effects in the short term.

[Bryan]

In this war, the Iraq war, the relatively low number of killed or seriously injured does not really affect the gene pool for the US.

77046[/snapback]

That about sums it up.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Bern,

There’s no specific gene for “tendency to volunteer for military service.” Obviously, a specific military service gene would tend to be selected out of a population, not selected in.

Instead, genes that render people more likely to volunteer for military service are more general. Probably they are genes for sociability factors of various kinds. It stands to reason that such genes increase reproductive success overall.

So in order to analyze natural selection in this context, we would have to identify the genes that are statistically associated with a tendency to volunteer for military service, and then consider their effects both for increased likelihood of reproduction and for decreased likelihood of reproduction. In the case of the Iraq war, we have lost nearly 4,000 soldiers, plus tens of thousands of injured --- out of how many who served? Even counting for the numbers of wounded soldiers who will not reproduce as a result of their injuries, we’re still looking at a relatively small percentage who will fail to transmit their genes. If we could balance that against the reproductive advantages of the same genes, would the gene come out a net positive or a net negative? We can’t isolate the genes we’re talking about (yet, anyway), so we can’t be sure. Still, when you consider our evolutionary past, it’s likely that the genes that predispose people to volunteer for military service are (1) quite far reaching across the spectrum of human behavior, (2) numerous and (3) powerful in their effects on human behavior. In fact, it’s entirely possible (I think likely) that if we eliminated the genes responsible for this tendency, we would probably produce organisms we wouldn’t recognize behaviorally as human.

Short answer: If we want to talk meaningfully about gene selection, we can’t consider only the most obvious short-term effects of a human behavioral trait. We must instead identify the genes associated with those traits, and consider all their long-term reproductive effects, not only the obvious negative effects in the short term.

77106[/snapback]

I wonder if there's a Loony Left gene ?? Now there's a subject for some

serious gene selection studies.

[Strife767]

I wonder if there's a Loony Left gene ?? Now there's a subject for some

  serious gene selection studies.

77184[/snapback]

You really have no idea how foolish you are, do you?

[Bryan]

Bern,

There’s no specific gene for “tendency to volunteer for military service.” Obviously, a specific military service gene would tend to be selected out of a population, not selected in.

Let's say you've got a country with a population with no military service gene. In the country next door, the military service gene runs rampant. One day, the nation that has plenty of the military service gene goes to the first country and kills all of them.

Now let's review:

"Obviously a specific military service gene would tend to be selected out of a population, not selected in."

Wrong again, Paul. It depends on the environment. You know as much about evolution as you know about the oil economy, apparently.

[Guest Guest]

And to think all this BS was started with a simple, "As you enjoy your long Veteran's Day weekend, please take a moment to thank a war veteran for their service. It will mean a lot to them and requires little effort on your part".

That's because we have a leader who's a uniter, not a divider