costard Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Because no one is willing to take collective responsibility any more ("its a socialist concept") it is an each-man-for-himself world that we have created. And the species advantage granted by altruism is trumped by the propaganda that no one is to be trusted and no one is to be helped, because, after all, they won't help you. Consequently we have the new darwinian rule: In a dog eat dog world, the dog with the biggest litters, wins. And the lie that is told best of all is that it has always been this way. History retold, revised, pandering to the incomplete psyches of the malicious and bored: i.e. those that would eat dogs instead of walking them Heh, I had no idea the third reichists were believers in reincarnation. This bloke, for some unknowable reason, hopes for the second coming? Face it, the human race has no need to look to its past to find monsters within - we're perfectly capable of throwing up the best yet. Again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugged Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Tero, there is nothing more significant than children. Why do you hate children? Because they grow up to be adults. Forward thinkers like Tero are just nipping the problem in the bud. Or perhaps I'm projecting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 So, Tero, you're writing this from your laptop in Darfur where you are busy feeding orphaned waifs as you type? What a guy! Charity starts at home. Hence I am busy keeping my own litter fed and generally trying to keep them out of the more negative statistics. The devastation here is too real to worry about places like Darfur. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Eh, let them eat cake. Followed by "Off with their heads" party ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Because no one is willing to take collective responsibility any more ("its a socialist concept") it is an each-man-for-himself world that we have created. And the species advantage granted by altruism is trumped by the propaganda that no one is to be trusted and no one is to be helped, because, after all, they won't help you. Consequently we have the new darwinian rule: In a dog eat dog world, the dog with the biggest litters, wins. The movie Idiolution is quite perceptive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Charity starts at home. Hence I am busy keeping my own litter fed and generally trying to keep them out of the more negative statistics. The devastation here is too real to worry about places like Darfur. OK, sounds like you've your hands full for now. We'll expect you to be the first to volunteer for the next post-genocide wrapup and country-building exercise, however. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Because they grow up to be adults. Forward thinkers like Tero are just nipping the problem in the bud. Or perhaps I'm projecting. Sounds more like your biological clock is ticking LOUD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_UXcva Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Walmart * Save money. Live better. Nazi cakes no problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Too much stupid people on this planet, seriouslly, why oh god why can every moron have childrens? That is statistically inevitable, sadly. So is this kind of wacko. I wonder what kind of amusement we'd see if the kid started wearing a Charlie Chaplin moustache..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugged Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Sounds more like your biological clock is ticking LOUD. Hmm, strange. I'm not sure how you could completely misinterpret my post to conclude that, rather than hating children, I actually somehow want them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Hmm, strange. I'm not sure how you could completely misinterpret my post to conclude that, rather than hating children, I actually somehow want them. A man's biggest and worst mistake is to EVER think he can read a woman's mind. At best, he is lucky to see her finger tighten on the trigger before she takes him out of his misery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Hmm, strange. I'm not sure how you could completely misinterpret my post to conclude that, rather than hating children, I actually somehow want them. None of us can escape the biological facts pertaining the preservation and continuation of our respective DNA strings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 A man's biggest and worst mistake is to EVER think he can read a woman's mind. At best, he is lucky to see her finger tighten on the trigger before she takes him out of his misery. Very true. For each sentence there is an infinite number of subcontexts. No man can follow a womans train of thought. And that is the beauty of it. Misunderstanding what a woman says is a craft of its own to be used selectively and with care. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 A man's biggest and worst mistake is to EVER think he can read a woman's mind. At best, he is lucky to see her finger tighten on the trigger before she takes him out of her misery. fixed that for you gunnergoz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 I know you are wrong Tero. There are quite a large number of nuns still who would tend to give the lie to your observation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7227629.stm Whilst not all may be childless I expect the big majority are. This also leaves out Buddhist monks and other religions 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 By dieseltaylor There are quite a large number of nuns still who would tend to give the lie to your observation Have you thought why the catholics have been so vehemently anti-contraception ? Becoming a nun or a monk means you devote your life to the service. That means having a family and offspring is detrimental to the service as it diverts attention (and resources) from the service to the family. Giving up the possibility of having a family is a prerequisite for joining. Whilst not all may be childless I expect the big majority are. And lets not forget the catholic church monks and nuns were not always THAT chaste and abstinent as they would have us believe. This also leaves out Buddhist monks and other religions And all told they add up to what, 1% of the entire human population ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Becoming a nun or a monk means you devote your life to the service. That means having a family and offspring is detrimental to the service as it diverts attention (and resources) from the service to the family. Giving up the possibility of having a family is a prerequisite for joining. You can join a religous order after having a family. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 TeroNone of us can escape the biological facts pertaining the preservation and continuation of our respective DNA strings. I think its your use of the word "None". However if by none you mean 99% or some other percentage of your choosing ........ : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Tero I think its your use of the word "None". However if by none you mean 99% or some other percentage of your choosing ........ : ) OK, OK. I thought the "preservation" was a dual reference primal instinct self preservation part but apparently was not obviously excluding deliberately suicidal and/or Darwin Award materiel. I was not thinking about religion induced (artificial) denial of the sex drive and the need to pass on your genes since that is not irreversible (or even absolute within the service). And lets not forget that dropping out of the nun/monk order is not unheard of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 You can join a religous order after having a family. True. But that means that your genes have been passed on and the task is done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Actually your message suddenly reminded me off an experiment reported a decade or so ago that when rat population density increased more homosexual behaviour was observed. Is there a self-limiting mechanism at work ? http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm Obviously not all will be childless but it is an interesting conjecture how many of these will pass on their genes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I didn't click that link but somehow the idea of rat homosexuality is disturbing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I didn't click that link but somehow the idea of rat homosexuality is disturbing. Penguines do it too, you know. And when you think about it logically: sex is a basic need and to relieve tension creatures resort to all kinds of methods. In animals alpha males hog all the action with the females ad unless the beta males figure out a way to get a piece of the action there is not much they can do but to enjoy themselves among themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Actually the link was about human gayness and the guesstimates as to % of population. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted December 23, 2008 Author Share Posted December 23, 2008 Hold on; how did we get from Adolf Hitler to gay rats? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.