Flaming_Maniac wrote:
MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
He sounds like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Evolutionary principles do not apply when firearms are in the equation or other equalizers.
You think evolutionary principles do not apply when tools are in the equation?
Explain me that please.
Evolutionary principles do not apply when the person neither made the tool nor was smart enough to make the tool. Taking essentially an incredibly cheap shot does not prove one's physical superiority, at best it shows mental cunning. In this case however there was no mental cunning involved, he killed those who didn't realize they were in competition with him with the pull of a trigger.
IF he killed them with his bare hands then the argument for evolutionary would be stronger, but he didn't and hand to hand combat changes the situation entirely. I would be willing to put a lot of money on him not having the balls, much less the physical skill to kill that many people. Then really the entire evolutionary advantage thing is ruined by the fact that he killed himself.
IF he proved some sort of genetic superiority over the rest of us he still didn't pass on his genes, the sole goal from an evolutionary perspective and he failed at it.
So you have clearly never studied evolution. Not identifying yourself to a group of people with a common goal (by violating societal rules) is not an evolutionary advantage, no matter how strong you are you need friends to back you up because your enemies will have friends to back them up. Mental sickness is a random event and not an evolutionary trait, and for all intents and purposes these people might as well have been struck by lightning. Random events do not facilitate evolution.
That argument works only if you take natural selection as a process that only applies on "positive" (as in survival) of the fittest. The way I see it is it was natural selection because the dumb shooter killed himself (and therefore removing the possibility of the dumb gene being passed on).
The problem is that you think I see the shooter as superior, when in fact I don't, I see him as an inferior organism (and nature had it the dumb fucker killed himself, thankfully).
Now, the innocent bystanders that died I've got no explanation, only that it was bad luck on their part (not the product of an evolutionary process).
Maybe natural selection was not the best name to give it, since natural selection like you imply in your post is the process in which favorable traits are passed (and obviously stupidity is not one of them), but it is in the same wagon.
Now on to mental disorders. They ARE cause by genetic vulnerabilities, so your assumption that they are random events and not an evolutionary trait is wrong.
Anyways MGS Grayfox, you sir are an idiot. How is it natural selection when one nut with a gun goes and starts shooting up a school. How does that help benefit of society. I bet most of those kids are getting good as hell grades. Any retard can grab a rifle and start mowing people down. MGS3, just get out.
Natural selection is not a process to facilitate society, its to ensure evolution. Oh, and no.
