It all began with a farm...

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by WANDERER, Mar 7, 2005.

  1. -Bob- Insipid Fool Registered Senior Member

    Dr. Lou:

    I imagine you could. But that still doesn't change the fact that the docile gene changes the ears and spotted coat.

    Yeah. I guess nature makes urges that overflow into other effects, that might have nothing to do with the primary reason behind the urge, but in the end the urge works to an evolutionary advantage.

    Nature only says that the strongest survive. That means that the people with the nuclear missile (or the gun, computer, whatever) will survive, and eventually become natural. Like I said before, the whole human race is descended from a bunch of nerdly freaks, who basically slaughtered the jocks with the equivalent of nuclear missiles at the time.

    Good point.


    I was only pointing the benefits of not simply shooting in the head people who get teased. If you got teased, that would have included you.

    Of course you're right... the kids who got it the worst in my school were all either retards or total queers, or the ones who squealed loudly and stupidly. The smarter kids usually find a way to adapt, remove themselves or just blend in.

    Alter Ego-

    "Two things come from Canada, beer and queer"

    - You got that right.

    Not to mention they're fuckin' pussies that are endlessly trying to overcompensate for the fact that they're jealous of America's success.

    Canadian beer is a little better than American beer, its true. At least they got that. But that's because American beer is complete piss. European beer is way better than Canadian beer. You don't see Europeans talking about how their beer is so great. But why do Canadians like to gloat? Because it's one small thing that they think they do better than Americans. Same with healthcare.

    Of course I'm attending the University of Toronto, so I'm well aquainted with Wanderer's pathology.

    Well, I like talking about my feelings sometimes.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xev Registered Senior Member

    He said "who reports bullying" not "who is teased"
    I think every child is teased at some point.
    Reporting bullying is another matter. That's basically saying to an adult that gee, they can't cut it.

    This young smelly kid, Micah, took a shitload of verbal abuse for months before he got fed up and had his older sister escort him too and from school.

    What a bad choice! If he was mocked a lot before that, the admission of weakness just intensified the abuse by a factor of ten.

    Come to think of it, it's like the internet.

    Kids were teased at first not out of hostility, but to see how they'd react.
    Depending on their reaction, they were accepted, respected or, if they didn't respond adequetely, berated even more.

    Dr. Lou Natic:
    Only in the loosest sense. I think there were one or two kids who came close, but if bullying occured, it was a group action and not an individual action.

    Now there were outsiders, and there were kids more likely to pick on outsiders, but not the sort of "hey twerp, hand over your lunch money or I'll pound you" bullies.

    You're British, though? Americans are more uptight about that sort of thing. I went to primary school before the Columbine shootings, and even so there were all these "zero tolerence" policies.

    "Bullying" as our teachers defined it would result in a public apology to the person you "bullied", and we even had a "no excluding" rule for games. If a smelly kid wanted to play freeze tag, you had to let him in on the game or lose recess privleges (however it's spelled)

    Which backfired, because it was generally better to break up the game than to risk the social dishonor of playing with the smelly kid. I imagine that must have hurt their feelings more than simple exclusion.

    We also had school talks about inclusion and diversity, and about how Martin Luther King wouldn't like us to mock other children for being broken.

    I can't imagine what it's like nowadays.

    Indeed. Especially with girls, there was a high turnover in popularity.
    For a long time, the most popular fifth grade girl was this chick named Jenna or Jessa or something like that. Athletic, parents who understood the need to buy the right sort of clothes and snacks, etc. She ruled supreme until she, or her body, made the mistake of developing breasts a year earlier than everyone else.

    Oh hooo, then she was just shit. Jessa/Jenna/Janna became the school 'slut' who would try to lure boys by exposing her bra strap, or maybe they weren't real and her parents had paid to have an operation so that she could seem better than everyone else, that shit didn't stop flying. Breasts and menstration were a huge deal, you could instantly raise your status by having them or fall from grace completly by seeming different. Somewhere around a small 'b' cup was ideal, flatchested girls were mocked behind their backs and full-chested girls were excluded as sluts. I had the bad luck to grow from an a cup to a c cup in the summer separating grades six and seven. None of my erstwhile girlfriends would speak to me and I ended up being sent to the principal's office repeatedly for striking boys who'd hoot at me.

    Good times, good times.

    Back to the abstract, I think bullying is basically a myth.
    Even the fingerless girl made friends eventually. Some children lacked friends because of their poor social skills, but I doubt they suffered overmuch.

    Really a pity. Children have probably the most fine-tuned sense of eugenics of anyone in our modern world.

    Oh well, off to buy brandy.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    If you just sit there and let everyone do and think as they please, for we are all equal, supposedly, -- then don't be surprised that idiots get to rule the world.

    That is to say, I think we should interfere with eachother's lives more than the modern "all are different, all are equal" philosophy dictates (!).

    It must be my native culture and the fact that we have only one word -- Slovene žrtev and German das Opfer -- for what the English call either victim or sacrifice -- I see it differently.

    I see your point, of course, the duplicity, the staging.

    But to call someone a "victim of robbery", for example, is relatively new here. It's now common in the publicistic language, in the popular psychology. But otherwise, it is odd. If you were robbed, you are not a "victim". There is the robber, the robbery and the robbed one. We would normally use a verbal phrase pertaining to the act, but not the term "victim". Until lately.

    To say that someone is a "victim" is to assign that person a certain identity.
    This helps to explain how our concept of sacrifice works: sacrifice is something final, and it is for an important reason. As such, identity of the sacrificed is meaningfully derived from the reason of why he was sacrificed.
    The present situation here, when the concept that actually means sacrifice is, by using the word žrtev/Opfer, applied on a daily basis to all sorts of violent acts is confusing, to say the least.
    I should think that only some kind of violent acts can be sacrifices, but not all. Now, it is all one.

    But anyway, to keep to the English distinction: The surest way to tell that someone has took on the identity of a victim is when they say things like, "I will devote my life to prevent street crime, since I have been robbed and stabbed in street XY.", even worse when you hear "I *have devoted* my life to preventing street crime ever since I have been robbed and stabbed in street XY."

    People don't take up the identity of a victim for no reason -- it is how their hurt makes sense to them, and how they justify their morals and further actions.

    Our conceptualization, however, until the break-in of the English use, allowed for no such identification. You were simply robbed, raped, murdered -- and that's it. But in English, one can make a career out of being raped!

    The identity of a sacrifice was reserved for someone or something where the act of sacrifing was final, ending that person's or animal's life, and the identity of a sacrifice was then ascribed later on, by others.
    Now, it is as if we have no morals, and the same word is used for describing Jesus, and a woman whose handbag was stolen.

    Actually, he hates America/the West because he fears it. And he fears it because they are strong and successful -- and thus threatening to him. It is natural to hate what you fear. But one ought to have the decency to say so -- to admit it to oneself.

    Those who propose this for the blacks, who want "to prove that black people are as good as white" -- they are doing it in order to prove they are right, and if it comes at the cost of the identity of their objects, the blacks, so be it. Point is, they will be proven right in and with their "humanitarian strivings", and these strivings will be fully justified when black people prove to the white people that they are as good as white people. And if the blacks fail to live by the agenda set by the whites, ah, then the whites will come up with something, just as long as they are right. In all this, it is the whites (proposing those solutions for the blacks) that are having identity problems, not the blacks.

    Strange you should say this.

    That is not fair. Motivationally, it usually causes the person being told such total statements to take a defensive mode.
    I don't know if you are actually trying to help him in some way, by pushing him into a "No, you'll see that what you said isn't all I am capabale of" position. I think it takes a state of mind more positivistic than Wanderer is in now to react that way.
    Or you are beating a dead horse.
    Or you have a malignant intent.
    Or you really don't like him.

    * * *

    Also note the prevailing psychological pattern in defining oneself: exclusivistic individualism.
    The phenomenon has a parallel in the atomistic theory of meaning -- that the meaning of a unit is something inherent to that unit and independent of context. As if something can have meaning all by itself, without any relation to other units.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Alter Ego Banned Banned

    That dude needs help, man.
    Let’s organize an intervention and save that motherfucker from himself.

    I think only the most healthy amongst us should help this guy.
    I nominate Gendanken, Bob, Xev and Baron Max for the job.
    They, obviously, got their shit together.

    water you are truly an original.
  8. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Analyzed, that's nonsensical.

    To define something is by definition to draw limits, to exclude (to close, to shut out) and thus to end up with an individual, distilled to an essence.

    You cannot define but by being exclusive.

    A human may find a role or a place in the crowd, but to do so is to lack barriers - not to draw limits - but rather to flow and be-with. You have a very stereotypically feminine attitude, complascent and fluid rather than rigid and creative, ready to delineate and assert.

    The individual exists because the individual is exclusivistic.
    The individual is the spur of history.

    "A majority can never replace the individual. ... Just as a hundred fools do not make one wise man, a heroic decision is not likely to come from a hundred cowards."
    -Adolf Hitler

    Again, a typically feminine attitude. We should focus on helping others rather than on finding quality.

    I do not want to seem 'down on women'. I very much respect women who act like women and are conscious of their place.

    You and Wanderer would make a good couple...has he private messaged you yet? You might have to message him first, for Wanderer craves an overt display of interest before he cedes his own.
  9. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    The term has come across wrong; it has also happened before that we had to clear this up (in a Love thread).
    By "exclusivistic individualism" I mean the kind of extreme individualism where the individual thinks himself completely set apart from society, as if the individual had no connection whatsoever to it.

    To use the terminology of systems theory: "Exclusivistic individualism" would then be the conceptualization that supposes that society is merely a group of elements that exist next to eachother without any kind of interrelations between them (and that those that do exist are of little importance for the identity of the individual element); it supposes that society is not a system where the meaning and the roles of its elements would emerge from the special interrelations between the elements.

    This understanding comes from the old romantic conflict between society and individual, where society is usually seen as a mindless, threatening, shapeless crowd, and the individual is thrown into it, and has to prove his character in it, be he a fool or a hero.

    When I say "individual", I mean thereby 'one element of the system called society'; while it seems that you think of "individual" in terms of the opposition individual vs. society.
    We are bound to clash, we come from different theoretical backgrounds.

    I wonder why you are saying this.

    Yes, and this "finding quality" will bring the end to this world ...

    Ah. You truly are a mother of invention, a Klatschbase.
  10. Alter Ego Banned Banned

    Ladies, ladies please.
    You are embarrassing yourselves.
    Fighting over who doesn’t want the Wanderer is pointless and shameful.

    If every man, woman and child allowed themselves the luxury of expressing their disdain for this pitiful creature openly and with no inhibitions, then this thread would be drowned in a torrent of postings and insults concerning just that and nothing else besides.

    I don’t want Wanderer either, but you don’t see me fighting over it.

    The thought of his flabby-assed hands groping my tender white flesh, his blubber pushing me down on the hard ground as sweat drips from off his ugly mug and onto the back of my neck, makes me sick.
    The mere suggestion of him penetrating my gaping orifice, his tiny member barely making me flinch while I dig my nails into his plump thighs, him ramming me over and over and over again, making me smile at the absurdity of a mouse attempting to make an elephant scream, fills me with nausea.
    And then…disappointment.

    Not that the thought ever crossed my mind.

    I suggest we start an anti-Wanderer anti-fan club.
    Whoever hates the Wanderer the most, can post a short essay describing how they envisage him in all his miserable glory, and prove it.
    It'll be fun,as well.

    I personally despise the man-whore.
    A Canadian in all his socialist attire of destitute insecurity and altruistic gayness; an insect feeding off the excrement of lions and thinking himself clever because of it.
    Who says stereotypes are always false?

    This guy probably never got laid, and if he did, it was probably with a crack-whore that over-charged him for it and then spent the rest of the night washing his smell off her body.
    This would explain his misogyny.
    All these girls turning him down or ignoring him must have filled him with bitterness and anger; his disease making him an insecure nobody, struggling to get noticed and never managing it.
    His every dream crushed under disappointment and the cruel world never living up to his expectations.
    Inward, in his imagination, is where he hid. Then he turned to books and fancied himself a thinker; his every essay a manifestation of helplessness, a cry for help, a vindictive outburst of vanquished hostility.

    Now, he lashes out at both women and society to explain his past and to make him self feel better; a loser, living on the edges of civilization, feeding off of it and hating himself for it; a bug knowing what he is and wanting to overcompensate by presenting himself as what he is not, so that not all is lost.

    Wanderer is a miserable defeated, nobody, who let his childhood abuse turn into bile and vomit. He was probably picked on in school and suffered much in the hands of boys that were bigger and stronger than him.
    He overcomes this by going to the gym and assuming the outer appearance of strength and power to hide the inner feelings of weakness and powerlessness.
    His self incrimination must have cost him in sexual relationships.
    Who wants to be with a loser anyways?
    This in turn resulted in a deepening resentment for any woman with the power of choice and the mind to see him for what he is.
    Only an imbecile can feel anything but disdain and pity for this fool.

    Wanderer’s overstated machismo and posturing, probably a consequence of a prior event that must have made him doubt his manhood.
    A rape incident, at the hands of authority – explaining also his anger towards all forms of authority - or some feeling of attraction towards other males that created confusion and shame in him.
    He is Greek, isn't he?

    This cancerous cell, known as Wanderer, deserves our indifference because even our anger and hatred is too good for him.
    He should be quarantined, ignored and belittled at every opportunity and his every attempt to blemish this little piece of internet heaven, should be dealt with a firm hand and with no pity.
    He should not be tolerated when he seeks to feed off our attentions by creating miserable threads like this.

    I look at the timeline of this thread, from the start to this point, and I see how he made every effort to redirect the thread unto his favourite subject: Himself.
    You can see how he asked to be made the center of our attentions.
    Sad fuck that he is.

    The one thing I know about disease, is that all its forms are contagious and, if allowed to grow or shown respect or tolerance, they can lead to the entire body being damaged.
    In know this because those red spots on my penis turned out to be something that took me a year and a lot of money to get rid of.
    The end result is I learned that having sex with a goat without a condom, might sound exciting and kinky, but it is a BIG mistake
    God bless our American healthcare system.

    Now I personally recognize this place as a haven of free-thinkers and intellectuals – be they professional or amateur - a well spring of clean, easy thought provoking intercourse that should be protected from the likes of Wanderer and his ilk.
    I would hate to lose one of the few places where bright, healthy, minds gather to exchange insights, wisdoms and – why not? – friendship or love.

    In a world filled with disgusting morons and pessimistic cynics, we need some upbeat, positivism and camaraderie.
    Perhaps we even need a place to meet people of the opposite sex to exchange flirtatious comments and, perhaps, numbers that might lead to more intimate encounters.

    Thank you and thank God I was born American.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2005
  11. Perfect Masturbation without hands Registered Senior Member

    Couldn’t enter the site, seemed like a ban… can’t see why, though.

    Anyhoo, let me put a gun to my temple.

    Maybe it was a bit miscomprehended, but the point is that by advocating the mental state of ’ownership’ etc... You will ignore the aspects that are connected with the metaphysical; as well as the things that have progressed past it. You neglect things that make you function in your environment, things that are not dependent on codes and laws, but reside in your mind. Ownership is an external factor that is only implemented if you let it affect you.
    The key point here is not to be overly self-conscious about it. Sure... Buy a fucking house, but don’t evolve around the fact that you now own it.

    My preciousssss…

    You become a slave to your mental models. In this case, you become a slave to the things you own.

    I’m not quite sure when this conversation turned into an “Ownership is required in our environment. It’s a concept which must be present inside our social structures. What say you, yay or nay?” kind of thing.
    I was talking about the effects of the mental models which reside in the facet of our individuality. I’m not raising ‘ownership’s’ as basic elements of my functioning. I grand you that my point may have been articulated quite ambiguously... still, this is an argument about definitions- so I’m out.
    Plus the point has passed.

    And the scene changed

    People who have read each others’ books trying to find inconsistencies and inane comments from each others’ repertoires to be used as diversions.
    Divert the attention back to thy enemy; since you can’t be a peeping tom in your opponent’s therapy sessions, you try and make conclusions about the workings of your enemy trough mechanized chatter.
    You gather information from bits and pieces that your ‘absolute’ opposite has allowed you to see. Stepping into a mine is not an aptitude.

    “you said this.. blah blah.. and this.. see fucker?”
    “you don’t think that.. you think this.. blah blah”

    Yadi yada. Most of the time people can’t even figure themselves out.

    And when you think your deductions have unraveled aspects that fit in with the self-image of the other, you add another notch in your weapons handle, without realizing what you used as a contrast.

    You use yourself as a launching pad from where you came up with these deductions and conclusions. The better you undress another being, the more you are like them. You think you have nailed an analysis- An analysis so hurtful so witty and it’s only you that you’re facing.

    You think you’re special, but in reality you are all the same. Construct a scenario in your head and improvise, cast your counterpart in the leading role and take notes.

    People with something to prove are using different mechanisms and techniques to become aware of someone else’s values and ideas (god forbid they would listen or believe what they’re saying), without realizing that the feelings and the revelations are the exact same for each and every last one of you. It’s all good, open up some more.

    Post in threads containing the exact same messages and information, use nuances and emphasize different things. You see different points forming in your head; you cling to different views and contribute accordingly, but you only express thoughts which are generally identified with your ‘persona’, all this while keeping in mind, of course, that the others in the thread must be “cool” in order for you to agree with them.
    Ah fuck it... You won’t even reply because then some fucks get a hard on about you contradicting yourself. People are so afraid to expand or open the vents for their thoughts, that they don’t evolve beyond the variety of lines that have proved to contain just the right mixture of rebellion and coolness.

    Next thing is to condemn various topics as ‘not worthy’ and continue the path of the hypocritical fuck.

    Are the lot of you really so unimaginative, so uninventive that you can’t modify your thought patterns enough to find flowers growing in shit? Enough to realize, that it doesn’t matter what you spout out? It’s all the fucking same, the motives of the people who strip shit out of context won’t budge. Your every line is ambiguous and reflects your fears and hopes.
    Chew the spam motherfuckers, chew!

    People are gangbanging and exploring their online personas like 9 year olds discovering the penis.



    The individual was there before society, society does not define the individual. When you are aware of your surroundings you do perceive and absorb elements which do affect your functioning. Still your individuality is a filter that shapes and assembles these views and conflicts into your character.

    You are not an element inside social structures; you rather mold the system to fit your self-image.

    Give a person lots of knowledge and a variety of ideas and views to study and to choose from, you see how this person organizes these assets to fit in with his individuality.

    And the people who are stuck in a mold of their ‘theoretical backgrounds’, do - like you said – clash with the society rather than valuate, study and use certain features residing in the opposition.
  12. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Then that is foolish. Why are you strawmanning?

    Again, why are you strawmanning?

    Again, why are you strawmanning?
    Are you such a dumb slut that you can't argue without misrepresenting the other person?

    The individual is certainly born within the context of society, but he is not simply "a unit within it"

    Society is an aggregate of pettiness and trivial concerns. An individual - not every individual, but some individuals - are able to direct their experiences with it in such a way as to create something from it. It is the organizing will of the individual that matters.

    This is not necessarily in opposition to society, but it is certainly not the result of an overarching supersystem.

    How so?
    And would that be so bad a thing?


    In fact, those who form their opinion of themselves wholly as one "in opposition" to "society" are generally those who are most dependent on it.

    Their own opposition is constructed with the components it offers - whether it's "punk rawk! anarchy!" or "I am a brooding, serious intellectual who understands the merits of the film 'Fight Club' on a much deeper level than anyone else could so pay attention to my verbose meanderings and you might learn something"

    The truth of the rebel lies in what he's rebelling against. He's nothing without opposition.

    A creative mind doesn't need opposition.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2005
  13. -Bob- Insipid Fool Registered Senior Member


    1. Abstract and generalize your statement about others.

    2. Apply it to yourself.

    Alter Ego:

    So true... So true...

    WANDERER even ignored me when I was talking about his theories about eugenics and the 'feminization' of the human race and telling him why his ideas are full of shit.

    He seems more interested in gibbering with the females, which he gets off on (either that or he's really a homo), and talking about himself as you already pointed out.

    And his theories are just a weak edifice designed to support his fucked-up Canadian pathologies.

    It's pathetic. He'll probably start preaching about the Canadian healthcare system now; meanwhile little girls in Canada have to wait three years to have a leg operation and end up paying to go to private clinics instead. Fuckin' bullshit.

    I'm up for it. Although, most people are idiots around here. Wanderer is smart... in a twisted, fucked up sort of way. And such forced, one-dimensional attempts at humor and sarcasm. That's why its fun to poke him.
  14. Alter Ego Banned Banned

    Couldn’t have put it better myself, sister- if I am allowed to be presumptuous enough to call you that.
    I would say that the truly creative are in touch with paradise where opposition is nonexistent.

    You are right.
    Creativity exists in the vacuous eternal, where it feeds off itself. It isn’t really a reaction to confrontation or to an obstacle.
    Someone told me once that creativity, sensitivity, imagination were the mind reacting against opposition from without, a vehicle of compensation and a necessary tool of weakness, but he was an idiot and not as smart as you folks.
    Bravo again!

    I would say that ingenuity, imagination, invention are self contained phenomena that do not require external pressures or obstacles to become necessary.
    For example, I can imagine –because I’m weak and reliant on others - of an individual being brought up with everything and lacking in nothing and being threatened by nothing, being able to be just as creative and imaginative as one that was brought up in need and in poverty where only his wits could save him.
    I can imagine it but I can’t believe it.

    Of course we must also say that an individual doesn’t entirely construct opinions of self based on what he chooses to debate about or what he chooses to confront the other, at any given moment, about.
    People relate to others and to groups based on previously established experiences.
    I, for one, can bitch-slap my woman and call her a slut, in one moment, and then cower like a miserable coward in front of my cousin’s fat mother, with the mean left-hook, the next.
    Sometimes how the other relates with us determines how we act and react and what areas we focus our attentions on.
    Then again, I’m a country hick with two front missing teeth, a fondness for overalls and chewing tobacco and a limp, leftover from my days in prison with Crusher.

    I bet the Wanderer can draw some very interesting conclusions from the comments that were made thus far.
    I only wish we shared a brain to know what they were. That miserable fuck!

    He’s off somewhere licking his wounds and feeling sorry for himself. I hope that motherfucker never comes back here.
    Look what a nice constructive, imaginative, creative conversation we are having without him focusing the subject on himself and making broad personal assessments of the others.
    You’re a moderator, can’t you have that fuckwad banned or something?
    What we need more of, around here are down to earth types, the cream of the American land like Bob and Baron Max or pure, healthy, strong minds with no ulterior motives or pathetic insecurities they play out online, like Gendanken or Mephura, or Fenris Wolf or invert_nexus or, dare I say, you.

    Glad to see the thread being taken back from that miserable loser.
    Kepp on...keeping on.


    Perhaps it’s true, Wanderer should have ignored the assaults and wonderful, enlightening, inspired and constructive, childishness and just discussed the subject with those that remained on topic.

    But, I believe, the Wanderer is easily distracted and soon loses interest when too many bugs crawl up his leg and make him itch, begging for attention.
    Plus, there are underlying storylines and historical sciforum events that you may not fully appreciate.

    Nevertheless he is a fuckwad who should know that it’s better to belong to a society where some are cared for than one where little girls wait for months to get operated on.

    If I were in a tribe, where one of the members required medical attention at the same time as I did, I would demand that my needs be addressed first because I’m me rather than place the tribe before my self.
    Funny how we preach social harmony and love and then act in purely selfish ways, isn’t it?
    Nothing wrong with selfishness, it’s the American way, but let us not forget it when we’re patting each other on the shoulders and commending our just and civil ways.
    Let us not pretend when reality contradicts us and let us call a spade a spade instead of making ourselves and our traditions the ideals worth dying for that they are.

    Kill ‘em all.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2005
  15. WANDERER Banned Banned


    So let’s see, we have two options:
    1- Waiting lines.
    2- People dying in the streets and selling their dignity to get well, then becoming bitter and anti-social as a consequence.

    The mistake people make is that they misconstrue selfish gene strategies for selfishness in general.

    There is an evolutionary phenomenon called ‘The tragedy of the commons’ in which the issue of unrestricted access to resources is abused by all, if not rules and social restrictions prohibit it.

    There is also a phenomenon called ‘Tolerated Theft’.
    For instance a capable hunter is mostly robbed of his prey, by the group.
    There are many reasons why this occurs in nature and many advantages gained by tolerating the groups hunger and giving in to their need.

    A capable hunter, studies show, will hunt game in excess of what he needs.
    One of the reasons he does so is for the ‘show off’ effect that advertises his quality to a group; a distinctly male trait.
    Another reason is that he needs to excess food to give away in return for other things.

    In anthropological studies with the Yanomamo, I believe, the age of the male hunter and his hunting prowess determined the size of the prey he would go after.
    The younger and more capable the hunter the larger and less frequent the kill.
    The young hunter did not focus on smaller prey with better cost/benefit balances, for him, but chose to go after larger prey that took longer to find and kill and entailed greater risks.
    Even after the kill was made, it was found that the hunter consumed much less calories from his own efforts than did the rest of the group who only took from what he freely gave.

    It often happens that the hunter partakes from his own hunt only a fraction of what the others do. Primarily because he gains other benefits from his altruism.

    The concept that selfish genes leads to selfish behaviour is an outdated, short-sighted one.
    The benefits of a sacrifice are not always readily noticeable.

    So, when you think about the health care system and the lines, maybe you should consider the side benefits of suffering waits as opposed to not having people cured and dying uninsured.
    Immediate benefits are easily perceived but long-term return require imagination and risk.

    I’m all for selfishness and immediate gratification and ‘every man for himself’ but then let us not pretend we belong to a just and noble civilization when we are merely glorified bushmen.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2005
  16. Alter Ego Banned Banned

    You miserable, disgusting disingenuous fuck!
    Have you come back here to hijack this thread?

    We all know what you are thinking and why.
    Gendanken told us and so did Xev and water

    They have access to your inner thoughts and know what you are all about, you loser, guru, fiend!

    Everyone thought you were starting a thread based on an interesting ‘Evolutionary Psychology’ book you just happen to be reading these days, but we were told, and now we know, that it was because you think rebelliousness is kewal and because you want to impress the masses by posting threads on interesting subject matter.

    How dare you sir?!!!!

    Can’t you see we are busy exchanging insults and degrading ourselves?
    Can’t you see we have more interesting things to discuss? Like ….well look around!
    Can’t you see we like small talk, gossip and idle chatter?

    Do you think you are being original or cutting-edge with your inane threads?
    We’ve heard it all before.
    We’re interested in unique perspectives, not your old and tired dribble.

    Can’t you see what subjects we are involving ourselves with?
    All unique, cutting-edge exposes of pure unaffected objective thinking.

    Thank our Lord Jesus Christ for genuine talents like our Forum queen and our resident princess and thank goodness for Miss Freud.


    You, sir –and I use that term loosely – are an imbecile and I will soon tear you apart and take you down!
    I hate bullies and I will become one just to prove my point.

    Be warned.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2005
  17. -Bob- Insipid Fool Registered Senior Member


    I understand that people might have plenty of 'selfish' reasons to be 'altruistic'.

    Nor will I attack the principle of public services and state-owned institutions, for they are necessary on some level (at the base level, for police). It's only that I think there's a fine balance to be had. It should be easy for you to understand this, after all aren't you the one claiming that man is becoming domesticated by his own institutions (the purpose of this thread)? That the all-powerful system provides everything she needs and therefore makes her lazy, feminine?

    What happens when the system becomes large, inefficient and horridly bureaucratic, as they tend to do? It collapses, or it rots and stagnates, and the people who sacrificed the most in the end wind up wasting their meat for something that is ultimately not more beneficial to them than the alternative.

    All that being said, the primary purpose of my comment was only referring to the aforementioned pussy-like Canadian inferiority complex and their tendency to represent their healthcare system to Americans as if it was a superior system (carefully ignoring the fact that it's degenerate and failing). When in fact the situation is not very different, Americans have medicaid, medicare, social security, and many employees of the state already hooked in to a healthcare system. Hey, nobody's perfect.

    The lines were not supposed to be there. If it was just a tradeoff, that would be a different issue. The lines get bigger, the system is collapsing under it's own pressure. More taxes? Besides, people die on the lines too. It's not just a hassle, it has real effects on people. Waiting those few extra months for an MRI can mean the difference between life and death.

    The long-term benefits of state-run healthcare are yet to be observed, it simply hasn't been around long enough. And this argument is bound to be inconclusive.
  18. Xev Registered Senior Member


    Was that supposed to be a parody?
    Creativity is often a reaction to obstacles. But not always, nor should it be always. A mind that is forged only in opposition is an unhealthy mind.

    War is the father of all things, but if one can only be creative when faced with an obstacle, then one is ultimately a reactive and not a creative mind.

    As usual, you've ignored the substance of my words in favor of grabbing your crotch and trying to mock them.

    Screw it, I'm out.

    Unless any of you guys are hot (send pictures -- preferably nude) and want to watch me piss on various things and challenge the dominent male.

    We'll court like bald eagles, on the fucking internet because that sort of thing is really significant when it occurs on the fucking internet.

    The problem here is that most posters have developed relationships with each other through email. Hence it's personal to them.

    You're Scandinavian, are you blonde? If you're blonde, do you want to watch me use witty phrases in order to display my prowess and readiness to mate? Look, I'm clever! I read Stirner and Foucault! I have a d-cup! I work out and have a supply of Viagra!

    I should stop watching Animal Planet.
  19. Alter Ego Banned Banned

    Name one creative process not sparked by opposition, then.

    All life is, simply, reactive.
    The subject defined by the object.

    The recognition of self is only in relation to something, seemingly, external to it.

    From where would a non-reactive creativity come from?
    From where would it draw its images and its concepts?
    Against what would it create?

    When God saw the darkness, he created light. And he was happy.

    I was so looking forward to you tearing this Wanderer character apart. Just for us all to see the depth of your contempt for him.
    To see what a true warrior spirit looks like in comparison to that weakling half-man.

    I’ll say one thing for our resident Queen: she knows how to support her friends and knows where the lines of decency and loyalty lie.
    Look with what wonderful praise she paints her man Meph.
    Makes me want to do him.
    One would almost believe he is infallible. Almost, if I weren’t so aware of certain past events that paint a different Mephura than the one presented.
    Yet, her loyalty is praiseworthy and touching.

    I suspect that she might even apologize for her indiscretions, in private.

    I’m not much to look at and my two inch penis, excludes any possibility for fulfilling sexual encounters, but I can cook up a mean stew and I’m willing to be your man-slave, if you wish.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2005
  20. -Bob- Insipid Fool Registered Senior Member


    Sorry no pictures at the moment... But I'm 5'8", 180 lbs, and I maintain a symmetrical face with minimum of blemishes. Naked, I have much chest hair (I am Italian) and a medium-size penis.


    I prefer to court by means of ritual love poems. D-cups and Blonde hair mean very little to me.

  21. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Yes…A fine line.

    But my opposition isn’t against selfishness but with the hypocrisy that often accompanies it; this incessant moralizing and justifying what is simply raw instinct.

    Speak you r mind and state the motives, without trying to sugar-coat them.

    Say it up front: ‘I like sending desperate, stupid automatons, who’ve bought into the entire nationalistic bullshit, to fight for my comforts and interests.’

    When you try to find moralistic arguments to support purely instinctive motives, you make me sick.

    Or has part of you bought into the nation-state mythology?

    Then the question is obvious.
    If larger populations demand larger institutions, what is the answer?
    You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    The ‘if’ it is failing and the ‘why’ it is, if it is, is a more complicated issue.

    Do you believe the Soviet Empire collapsed due to internal problems only, or was there pressure from the outside?
    An idea is much more dangerous than any weapon. Cause an idea to fail and youhave made a good point against it.

    My father was operated twice in a span of four months, and he didn’t wait at all.
    What Canadian health care system do you have experience with?

    Yes, and yet that is the sacrifice needed to coexist with millions of people who are, supposedly, part of your tribe.
    You want to protect your individual interests while defending the group ones as well.
    This isn’t always possible, as group interests often confront singular interests.

    What ends up happening is that elites form.
    So your bullshit nation of equality and justice for all survives on a lie and a clever spin.

    Nothing wrong with that, but when discussing issues truthfully it’s appropriate not to blow smoke out of your ass and call it daisies.

    And yet you wish to throw it all into the trash, at the first sign of trouble and without looking at what the problem really is.
  22. Alter Ego Banned Banned


    I’m afraid that your Italian heritage will exclude you from her perspective mates.
    She calls southern Europeans white-niggers.
    She’s charming that way and so very right…..always.

    Are you into redneck, dyslexic retards with hairy asses and scars on their faces?
    If you are, let me know.
    I can drive my truck to Toronto, if need be.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No dufus, she wants you to be blonde.

    Besides, can’t you tell she’s into the more intellectual types like Perkele?
  23. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    No problem, got ya covered on that one.

    Actually WANDERER, your alter-ego sounded like fun but is very inconsistent. Is alter-ego funny, serious or just your outlet for your homosexual feelings? Stop talking about yourself, it is boring as hell. You are attacking alter-ego with your extravagant "attacks" on wanderer, and alter-ego is nothing at all. What a waste of space.
    You're not completely intolerable... but one of you is enough.

    Xev - you sound "cool", I tend to date bitches that treat me nice, that way you know they really like you, haha. Seriously though (but that was serious), I'm only one-eighth danish, and none of it blonde, so, oh well. I'm not into Hitler anyway.

Share This Page