I'm sure this is just a grammatical error upon your part as the quote from wiki you supplied said that Darwins Evolution by Natural Selection gives the appearance of adapation, not that individuals adapt to environments as this would be Lamarckian and not Darwinian evolution.Satyr wrote:...
Evolution is about the adaptation of individuals (populations) to environments.
Since environments are fluid adaptation is never complete, and what is fit is ever-changing. ...
Teaching Satyr Evolution
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
I guess epigentics has not been taught to you in your community college courses for imbeciles.Arising_uk wrote:I'm sure this is just a grammatical error upon your part as the quote from wiki you supplied said that Darwins Evolution by Natural Selection gives the appearance of adapation, not that individuals adapt to environments as this would be Lamarckian and not Darwinian evolution.Satyr wrote:...
Evolution is about the adaptation of individuals (populations) to environments.
Since environments are fluid adaptation is never complete, and what is fit is ever-changing. ...
Swetums, you are stuck on fame and fortune.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
The "powers that be" prevent me from addressing you as you deserve.reasonvemotion wrote:Satyr gave as a reference Dr Bill, who in Satyr's mind is an authority on race. Given his opinion is almost identical to the KKK I was surprised Satyr had not used them as an example of race. After further research the answer became clear. Greeks were included with the "blacks" as inferior according to the KKK.
Dr William Shockley, professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Standord.
He preached a philosophy of ''retrogressive evolution.'' Stipulating that intelligence was genetically transmitted, he deemed blacks genetically inferior to whites and unable to achieve their intellectual level. As a corollary, he suggested that blacks were reproducing faster than whites - hence, the retrogression in human evolution.
OR
Hiram Wesley Evans, one time Imperial Wizard and Emperor, of the Klu Klux Klan.
Evans used Eugenics to point out the number of "defectives, dependents, and criminals" that require the nation's care in institutions. Evans used the figures of Dr. Harry H. Laughlin, a eugenics expert at this time, to point out that these burdens are in the millions. Evans blamed Laughlin's results on the flow of immigrants coming into the country. Evans said, "Insanity and crime are the worst manifestations of social inadequacy." The figures showed that insanity was higher among immigrants. Crime was higher among Negroes, Italians, Greeks and the Balkan peoples. (PP. 12-16)
Since censorship protects you then ...you are absolutely correct, you are right....I was wrong.
I am KKK and a Hitler follower and a racist and a sexist....and so on and so forth.
Use whatever catchphrases suit you.
Bye.
Big Brother is protecting you...be happy you have such "powerful" fucktards are looking out for your "equal" well-being.
But if you wish to REALLY test yourself against me...then you know where I live.
Where the satyr lives few dare enter...are you one?
I doubt it.
There you will not have this douche-bag, moderator, watching over you, using his own emasculation as a reference point to protect you from me.
Do you dare?
I doubt it.
Know Thyself
You, nor anyone of your kind, would ever dare.
Be happy in never-ever-land.
Here all stupidity is forgiven and all is respected and all deserved love and all is beautiful and all is intelligent and all is quality, because quality is defined by popularity/quality.
Here all that is demanded is that you have the pape4work saying you are intelligent and that you know what you are talking about.
Then all settles on debating what variant of the same bullshit takes precedence.
Like with Bible studies.
With Bible studies God is a self-evident given. All that remains to be determined and to debate over is who understood His essence and who intep-0eted His word the best.
With you. and your clan of imbeciles, the common "self-evident" facts are shared....the "debate" happens on the mundane details of interpreting what the "self-evident" means, and how it can be applied so that EVERYONE gains.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Many of you turds seem to be too afraid to think or too dumb to try.
Resorting to mind-games and word-games and placing concepts in an order to achieve the desired outcome only proves what douche-bags and cowards you truly are.
To ask a cow if she is a mammal to defend a position which demands that each individual is far too "unique" to be categorized, does not only ignore what categorization is, but also how consciousness works.
One last try, for those that demand answers but cannot answer any questions:
A category is not an absolute, nor does it deals in them when fluidity, the flux, is what reality is all about.
Categories, either formal or personal, are simply the recognition of patterns, in the turmoil, that exhibit some consistency wand predictability.
This is why science and consciousness does not deal in absolutes, nor in certainties, but only in probabilities based on ongoing experience and knowledge.
Furthermore, using ignorance to defend a position, such as: 'We do not know enough, or things are too complex, so everything is possible...', is how imbeciles try to defend a position they cannot justify.
Knowledge is the same thing as experience only it is the sum of other people's experience passed on in the form of code: language, constructing theories and hypothetical and suppositions.
Genes is also past experience passed on as a code: genetic code.
All presumptions based on sensuality are based on the past: knowledge (second hand experience) and experience (first hand experience).
It would be inefficient and foolish for a mind to seek guidance from analyzing the particular every time it came across it....which is every time and all the time.
If it did so it would be ignorant and lost every time it came across an otherness, even if this otherness bared a resemblance to a previous otherness the same mind had come across.
This would be a form of retardation, forgetfulness...the simplicity of a basic animal that cannot sample its past to determine its present nor to project the possible future.
This last is what imagination and intelligence is and why it offers an advantage: projection, based on the past (experience/knowledge and the perception of patterns).
It is these "patterns" which eventually become categories or types or species or elements or energies or races.
What the pattern says about the individual is the average potential it must remain defined by, even if it is an expectation to the rule.
Even when it is an exception to the rule, the average, it is an "exception" because of the average, the category it belongs to is characterized by.
An average height of a population means that the majority, the majority, will hover around this median level of bodily height, making each unknown individual belonging to the category determined as a potential in regards to it.
I know a horse can be around a certain height because of the median height of that species and that particular sub-type of that species.
Each sub-type makes the potential shrink, minimizing the parameters of upper and lower levels of all characteristics. The more categories I know or can place the particular makes it all the more predictable.
But this is where the straw-manning begins. It is similar to the earlier method of caricaturing race realism using the usual red-neck basis of skin coloration. They could ridicule the base by caricaturing it: straw-man.
This would be like claiming that there are no sub-species of bear because the black bears fur pigmentation says nothing about the particular bear.
In fact the fur's color is but ONE aspects defining the category, just as the average weight of the species is but ONE average that defines the group.
If you are a coward, turd, then you can use such feminine tactics as to ask:
There is a thing....it is green. What is it?
But one aspect of the phenomenon is but one aspect of it.
A category is defined by multiple characteristics and the average of all these characteristics say enough about each and every participant within this category to evaluate it, within potentials and probabilities, even without knowing it specifically.
I do not need to know anything about the specific to know that if it is defined as human it falls within an upper and a lower height potential and that the odds are that it falls closest to the average.
I would say that those advocating uniformity and the healing and correcting mechanisms of nurturing have less to say about how the average does not apply to the particular, since uniformity makes the individual most likely to be around the median, using their ideals.
The moment I know a particular creature is of a particular species I can gauge its possible height and weight and intelligence and behavior, within a reasonable doubt...not with absolute certainty but within probabilities.
Science only deals in such probabilities because it uses a sample to extrapolate a general rule about all members within a group. Then it sub-divides the category to enhance to focus the evaluation of potential.
Using the argument that the average says nothing about the individual does not make race or species or types or categories go away.
Not only that but it shows what hypocrites the ones who use that line of reasoning are, since they use it daily and their consciousness cannot function without these evaluations from a small specimen, experiential, grouping.
We all use our average experience with phenomenon to determine the possible future interactions with it, even while knowing nothing about the particular.
The average simply indicates a genetic past, passed on as possible potential.
I would not expect a human to be taller than 9 feet, nor more intelligent than 200 I.Q....nor heavier than 1000 lbs...or with more than 4 limbs and 1 head...not with a skin coloration which is red or green or orange or purple.
If he were "other than" then this would be interesting only because of the average potential.
For example, the average intelligence of a gorilla, based on experience/knowledge, would be such as to constitute its usage of language beyond a certain point, highly unlikely - not impossible but improbable.
For example, the average size of a dog would make its potential size beyond a certain measure highly unlikely, even if I knew nothing about the particular dog.
If you turds wish to denounce science and the scientific method then do so.
Trying to preserve the complexity of the individual by denying categories has certain repercussions. It makes all categories irrelevant...which, in turn, makes all empiricism and all science nonsense.
Which, in turn, makes all of you idiots.
Not only that, but it makes all experience and knowledge impossible, since all experience and knowledge is the taking of the past, the incomplete specimens, to extrapolate the probable future.
When I call the category of Tom, my friend, as funny, I take a sampling of my experiences with Tom to determine all future interactions with him.
But Tom is always changing...so if the category I call Tom is not sufficient to determine the specificity of Tom, at any given time, then I can never know what Tom is or who Tom is or what the potential behavior Tom is bound by. Every meeting would be a new meeting, since I could not use my past knowledge of Tom, nor any average experience with Tom, to determine the future behavior of Tom.
Tom is also a category because it is based on my sampling of the phenomenon of Tom (experience) and what others have told me about Tom (knowledge), including Tom himself.
Just because Tom tells me something about himself does not make it more reliable, because Tom might be insane or delusional or elective in his self-evaluation, or a liar. The only reliable thing about Tom is what I've experienced and determined as a pattern of predictability - an average.
If the average behavior of Tom, as I and others have experienced it, says nothing about Tom then the particularity of Tom is unknowable....and all knowledge is impossible.
But this is an exaggeration to expose the stupidity of the average moron who wishes to pretend that he or she is too complex to be categorized.
The truth is that all categories are based on potentials or possibilities, as these are determined by experience and knowledge of the group within which all individuals belong and participate in establishing a mean.
A category is not only about average height or weight or intelligence...but the sum of all these averages, all averages based on sensual perceptions,....and also the upper and lower limit participating in the establishment of this average.
Just as pigmentation is not the only characteristic used to define a species or a race or a breed, so too no one average can define a category.
The average merely defines a middle ground, around which the majority of a category hover around and never exceed by much, even when they belong to the exception to the rule.
If and when they do exceed it by a degree that cannot be justified then this exception must be analyzed and explained.
If we take mutations as being uniformly distributed within a population experiencing no genetic isolation then all characteristics will tend towards the uniform average with only slight divergences occurring due to random mutations and genetic drift.
If a period of prolonged genetic isolation occurs - or memetic isolation - then this distribution will be more uneven for a particular length of time.
The tendency towards uniformity is unending...making the particular member belonging to a set all the more definable by the average.
Resorting to mind-games and word-games and placing concepts in an order to achieve the desired outcome only proves what douche-bags and cowards you truly are.
To ask a cow if she is a mammal to defend a position which demands that each individual is far too "unique" to be categorized, does not only ignore what categorization is, but also how consciousness works.
One last try, for those that demand answers but cannot answer any questions:
A category is not an absolute, nor does it deals in them when fluidity, the flux, is what reality is all about.
Categories, either formal or personal, are simply the recognition of patterns, in the turmoil, that exhibit some consistency wand predictability.
This is why science and consciousness does not deal in absolutes, nor in certainties, but only in probabilities based on ongoing experience and knowledge.
Furthermore, using ignorance to defend a position, such as: 'We do not know enough, or things are too complex, so everything is possible...', is how imbeciles try to defend a position they cannot justify.
Knowledge is the same thing as experience only it is the sum of other people's experience passed on in the form of code: language, constructing theories and hypothetical and suppositions.
Genes is also past experience passed on as a code: genetic code.
All presumptions based on sensuality are based on the past: knowledge (second hand experience) and experience (first hand experience).
It would be inefficient and foolish for a mind to seek guidance from analyzing the particular every time it came across it....which is every time and all the time.
If it did so it would be ignorant and lost every time it came across an otherness, even if this otherness bared a resemblance to a previous otherness the same mind had come across.
This would be a form of retardation, forgetfulness...the simplicity of a basic animal that cannot sample its past to determine its present nor to project the possible future.
This last is what imagination and intelligence is and why it offers an advantage: projection, based on the past (experience/knowledge and the perception of patterns).
It is these "patterns" which eventually become categories or types or species or elements or energies or races.
What the pattern says about the individual is the average potential it must remain defined by, even if it is an expectation to the rule.
Even when it is an exception to the rule, the average, it is an "exception" because of the average, the category it belongs to is characterized by.
An average height of a population means that the majority, the majority, will hover around this median level of bodily height, making each unknown individual belonging to the category determined as a potential in regards to it.
I know a horse can be around a certain height because of the median height of that species and that particular sub-type of that species.
Each sub-type makes the potential shrink, minimizing the parameters of upper and lower levels of all characteristics. The more categories I know or can place the particular makes it all the more predictable.
But this is where the straw-manning begins. It is similar to the earlier method of caricaturing race realism using the usual red-neck basis of skin coloration. They could ridicule the base by caricaturing it: straw-man.
This would be like claiming that there are no sub-species of bear because the black bears fur pigmentation says nothing about the particular bear.
In fact the fur's color is but ONE aspects defining the category, just as the average weight of the species is but ONE average that defines the group.
If you are a coward, turd, then you can use such feminine tactics as to ask:
There is a thing....it is green. What is it?
But one aspect of the phenomenon is but one aspect of it.
A category is defined by multiple characteristics and the average of all these characteristics say enough about each and every participant within this category to evaluate it, within potentials and probabilities, even without knowing it specifically.
I do not need to know anything about the specific to know that if it is defined as human it falls within an upper and a lower height potential and that the odds are that it falls closest to the average.
I would say that those advocating uniformity and the healing and correcting mechanisms of nurturing have less to say about how the average does not apply to the particular, since uniformity makes the individual most likely to be around the median, using their ideals.
The moment I know a particular creature is of a particular species I can gauge its possible height and weight and intelligence and behavior, within a reasonable doubt...not with absolute certainty but within probabilities.
Science only deals in such probabilities because it uses a sample to extrapolate a general rule about all members within a group. Then it sub-divides the category to enhance to focus the evaluation of potential.
Using the argument that the average says nothing about the individual does not make race or species or types or categories go away.
Not only that but it shows what hypocrites the ones who use that line of reasoning are, since they use it daily and their consciousness cannot function without these evaluations from a small specimen, experiential, grouping.
We all use our average experience with phenomenon to determine the possible future interactions with it, even while knowing nothing about the particular.
The average simply indicates a genetic past, passed on as possible potential.
I would not expect a human to be taller than 9 feet, nor more intelligent than 200 I.Q....nor heavier than 1000 lbs...or with more than 4 limbs and 1 head...not with a skin coloration which is red or green or orange or purple.
If he were "other than" then this would be interesting only because of the average potential.
For example, the average intelligence of a gorilla, based on experience/knowledge, would be such as to constitute its usage of language beyond a certain point, highly unlikely - not impossible but improbable.
For example, the average size of a dog would make its potential size beyond a certain measure highly unlikely, even if I knew nothing about the particular dog.
If you turds wish to denounce science and the scientific method then do so.
Trying to preserve the complexity of the individual by denying categories has certain repercussions. It makes all categories irrelevant...which, in turn, makes all empiricism and all science nonsense.
Which, in turn, makes all of you idiots.
Not only that, but it makes all experience and knowledge impossible, since all experience and knowledge is the taking of the past, the incomplete specimens, to extrapolate the probable future.
When I call the category of Tom, my friend, as funny, I take a sampling of my experiences with Tom to determine all future interactions with him.
But Tom is always changing...so if the category I call Tom is not sufficient to determine the specificity of Tom, at any given time, then I can never know what Tom is or who Tom is or what the potential behavior Tom is bound by. Every meeting would be a new meeting, since I could not use my past knowledge of Tom, nor any average experience with Tom, to determine the future behavior of Tom.
Tom is also a category because it is based on my sampling of the phenomenon of Tom (experience) and what others have told me about Tom (knowledge), including Tom himself.
Just because Tom tells me something about himself does not make it more reliable, because Tom might be insane or delusional or elective in his self-evaluation, or a liar. The only reliable thing about Tom is what I've experienced and determined as a pattern of predictability - an average.
If the average behavior of Tom, as I and others have experienced it, says nothing about Tom then the particularity of Tom is unknowable....and all knowledge is impossible.
But this is an exaggeration to expose the stupidity of the average moron who wishes to pretend that he or she is too complex to be categorized.
The truth is that all categories are based on potentials or possibilities, as these are determined by experience and knowledge of the group within which all individuals belong and participate in establishing a mean.
A category is not only about average height or weight or intelligence...but the sum of all these averages, all averages based on sensual perceptions,....and also the upper and lower limit participating in the establishment of this average.
Just as pigmentation is not the only characteristic used to define a species or a race or a breed, so too no one average can define a category.
The average merely defines a middle ground, around which the majority of a category hover around and never exceed by much, even when they belong to the exception to the rule.
If and when they do exceed it by a degree that cannot be justified then this exception must be analyzed and explained.
If we take mutations as being uniformly distributed within a population experiencing no genetic isolation then all characteristics will tend towards the uniform average with only slight divergences occurring due to random mutations and genetic drift.
If a period of prolonged genetic isolation occurs - or memetic isolation - then this distribution will be more uneven for a particular length of time.
The tendency towards uniformity is unending...making the particular member belonging to a set all the more definable by the average.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
It becomes clearer and clearer the mentality of these Judeo-Christians, and the pathology of their genealogical morality.
Judeo-Christianity is strictly anti-empirical and anti-science, when it comes to the category of human.
Jews and atheists in particular, love to stress their love of science and empiricism. This is false. Their religious and spiritual mind overrules and dominates the core of the ideology: humanism. All is open to discrimination, investigation, nothing is sacred, except what it means to be "human". There are seven billion of these so called things on earth. But, what are they? What are these humans?
This is where the Judeo-Christian morality builds a wall, and erects itself, as the definition of "civilization". This is actually a lie.
If there are seven billion humans on earth, then how many are male/female? You're sexist, you're a misogynist for discriminating based on gender!
If there are seven billion humans on earth, then how many are caucasian/negro/oriental? You're racist, you're a nazi for discriminating based on race!
If there are seven billion humans on earth, then how many are tall/strong/heavy? You're heightist, you're discriminating based on size!
If there are seven billion humans on earth, then how many are beautiful/blonde/blue eyes? You're discriminating based on looks, beauty is more than skin deep, beauty is subjective, black is beautiful!
As we can all see, the Judeo-Christian poison. This disgusting, rotten, filth ideology and culture, is pro-science, until it comes to the focal matter of human existence--what it means to be human? Discrimination is turned off. Those who discriminate against humans, are wrong and evil. Those who see gender, and color, and size difference in animals other than humans, are scientific, revolutionary, and popularly accepted. Those who discriminate animals, and pose hypotheses, and categorize scientific observations based on all superficial appearances, are authorities.
Until it comes to the "human" category.
I propose to invert the inverters, one more time. I propose that the Jews and Christians of the world, and Muslims too, are the ones who are most anti-human. These ones who attempt to deny gender roles, deny sexuality, deny superior types over inferior types, deny inequality, are wrong and evil. These ones who attempt to praise "equality and rights for all", are evil.
Not all are deserving of rights, or respect, or even tolerance. Stupidity and selective reasoning, compartmentalization, cannot be tolerated forever. Those who refuse to face truth, because it is too hard or too negative, need to be silenced and defeated. Those who are cowards, ought not dominate these online "philosophy forums". Cowards do not belong in any association of philosophy. This is the one, and perhaps only realm of human thought, that exists to destroy these Judeo-Christian dogmas, and any other dogma that desires to pervert and suppress, the human spirit.
Discrimination, superior/inferior, unequality, these are all methods which must be applied to humanity. Otherwise, these fools cannot claim to be pro-science, or worse, to hoist science alone, as their authority, especially for any "scientific morality" that Jews, atheists, and the secular humanists so yearn for.
It is a time for a rise in pagan and polytheistic values, to counteract and bring balance to the monist, monotheistic, Judeo-Christian dominance. The lies must end. The fools who believe in this lie, must be confronted, and silenced or defeated.
Judeo-Christianity is strictly anti-empirical and anti-science, when it comes to the category of human.
Jews and atheists in particular, love to stress their love of science and empiricism. This is false. Their religious and spiritual mind overrules and dominates the core of the ideology: humanism. All is open to discrimination, investigation, nothing is sacred, except what it means to be "human". There are seven billion of these so called things on earth. But, what are they? What are these humans?
This is where the Judeo-Christian morality builds a wall, and erects itself, as the definition of "civilization". This is actually a lie.
If there are seven billion humans on earth, then how many are male/female? You're sexist, you're a misogynist for discriminating based on gender!
If there are seven billion humans on earth, then how many are caucasian/negro/oriental? You're racist, you're a nazi for discriminating based on race!
If there are seven billion humans on earth, then how many are tall/strong/heavy? You're heightist, you're discriminating based on size!
If there are seven billion humans on earth, then how many are beautiful/blonde/blue eyes? You're discriminating based on looks, beauty is more than skin deep, beauty is subjective, black is beautiful!
As we can all see, the Judeo-Christian poison. This disgusting, rotten, filth ideology and culture, is pro-science, until it comes to the focal matter of human existence--what it means to be human? Discrimination is turned off. Those who discriminate against humans, are wrong and evil. Those who see gender, and color, and size difference in animals other than humans, are scientific, revolutionary, and popularly accepted. Those who discriminate animals, and pose hypotheses, and categorize scientific observations based on all superficial appearances, are authorities.
Until it comes to the "human" category.
I propose to invert the inverters, one more time. I propose that the Jews and Christians of the world, and Muslims too, are the ones who are most anti-human. These ones who attempt to deny gender roles, deny sexuality, deny superior types over inferior types, deny inequality, are wrong and evil. These ones who attempt to praise "equality and rights for all", are evil.
Not all are deserving of rights, or respect, or even tolerance. Stupidity and selective reasoning, compartmentalization, cannot be tolerated forever. Those who refuse to face truth, because it is too hard or too negative, need to be silenced and defeated. Those who are cowards, ought not dominate these online "philosophy forums". Cowards do not belong in any association of philosophy. This is the one, and perhaps only realm of human thought, that exists to destroy these Judeo-Christian dogmas, and any other dogma that desires to pervert and suppress, the human spirit.
Discrimination, superior/inferior, unequality, these are all methods which must be applied to humanity. Otherwise, these fools cannot claim to be pro-science, or worse, to hoist science alone, as their authority, especially for any "scientific morality" that Jews, atheists, and the secular humanists so yearn for.
It is a time for a rise in pagan and polytheistic values, to counteract and bring balance to the monist, monotheistic, Judeo-Christian dominance. The lies must end. The fools who believe in this lie, must be confronted, and silenced or defeated.
-
Kuznetzova
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Yeah okay that's fine.Atthet wrote:Discrimination, superior/inferior, unequality, these are all methods which must be applied to humanity. Otherwise, these fools cannot claim to be pro-science, or worse, to hoist science alone, as their authority, especially for any "scientific morality" that Jews, atheists, and the secular humanists so yearn for.
It is a time for a rise in pagan and polytheistic values, to counteract and bring balance to the monist, monotheistic, Judeo-Christian dominance. The lies must end. The fools who believe in this lie, must be confronted, and silenced or defeated.
But have you actually looked at the world scientifically? From the perspective of science, Nature is neither good nor evil. It is neither nurturing nor competitive. The fungus gets by equally well on this planet as the Nordic viking raider in his boat.
There is no dichotomy. The nurturing feminist ethos is as equally unsupported by science as Pagan Masculinity cults. Science shows a world that is woefully indifferent of political, racial, national, and religious boundaries. Symbiosis is found all over ecosystems on this planet and even within the bodies of organism's themselves. Symbiosis was not rewarded by nature because Faery Godmother came down and told them to stop fighting and hold hands in a giant multicultural inter-species love fest. Symbiosis is manifested because those organisms who engaged in it simply out-reproduced those who did not. They took over by simple statistics and dry mathematics. These varying species don't kill that "which is different and inferior to myself" but they utilize each other instead merely because they can reproduce more if they do so.
Is there a moral lesson here? I don't see it. I see only math and time.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
YesKuznetzova wrote:Yeah okay that's fine.
But have you actually looked at the world scientifically? From the perspective of science, Nature is neither good nor evil. It is neither nurturing nor competitive. The fungus gets by equally well on this planet as the Nordic viking raider in his boat.
There is no dichotomy. The nurturing feminist ethos is as equally unsupported by science as Pagan Masculinity cults.
Sometimes the inferior are utilized, sometimes they are avoided, sometimes they are killed off. It depends on the particular species and the peculiar characteristics of any superior/inferior judgment directed against an other organism. Science is utilitarian. Does this organism have a use to me? And if not, is it a threat?Kuznetzova wrote:Science shows a world that is woefully indifferent of political, racial, national, and religious boundaries. Symbiosis is found all over ecosystems on this planet and even within the bodies of organism's themselves. Symbiosis was not rewarded by nature because Faery Godmother came down and told them to stop fighting and hold hands in a giant multicultural inter-species love fest. Symbiosis is manifested because those organisms who engaged in it simply out-reproduced those who did not. They took over by simple statistics and dry mathematics. These varying species don't kill that "which is different and inferior to myself" but they utilize each other instead merely because they can reproduce more if they do so.
Is there a moral lesson here? I don't see it. I see only math and time.
Do I understand science and the perspective of objectivity? Yes, absolutely
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Satyr:
Do I dare venture over to Know Thyself? Am I afraid to?
If the level of the Forum was such that it challenged my thoughts, or sought out truths, I would contribute readily. Fortunately, I am aware of your modus operandi and I see you toying with Ephemeron and a Lyssa quoting copious amounts, so much that after 7 or 8 paragraphs, I gave up.
and then there is from you:
Does that mean because on this Forum you are restricted from using expletives in your responses, you are rendered mute?The "powers that be" prevent me from addressing you as you deserve.
Do I dare venture over to Know Thyself? Am I afraid to?
If the level of the Forum was such that it challenged my thoughts, or sought out truths, I would contribute readily. Fortunately, I am aware of your modus operandi and I see you toying with Ephemeron and a Lyssa quoting copious amounts, so much that after 7 or 8 paragraphs, I gave up.
and then there is from you:
As it was not in quotes, do you take the credit for this? If so, how can you come to this sordid conclusion. What is it with you people over "there".Blacks are harmless pets for the Jews.
A people who are "victims" just like they are, but stupid, harmless on a global scale, and disciplined.
Niggers are the Jew's opposite yet infected with the same.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
And what is your sordid conclusion, allemotion? Isn't it that all are born equal, made equal, and are always equal? There is no competition, no slavery, no mastery, in nature? Isn't it your belief system, your feminine, willful ignorance, and willful irresponsibility, that none benefit, and none suffer? Isn't it your mind, that proposes complete self-annulment, end of competition, end of violence, end of all masculinity?reasonvemotion wrote:As it was not in quotes, do you take the credit for this? If so, how can you come to this sordid conclusion. What is it with you people over "there".
What makes you think slavery ended, vagina? What makes you believe, that there are not billions of human slaves today, teeming to fulfill their master's commandments to them?
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
That would be you Miss Atthet.teeming to fulfill their master's commandments to them?
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Don't avoid my questions, female philosopher. If you are in fact, the first female philosopher in world history, then you should readily answer all my questions fully, with authority, and with complete confidence that your answers represent absolute truth, along with your own, personal, subjective judgment.reasonvemotion wrote:That would be you Miss Atthet.
Now, try again, vagina.
By the way, are you implying that "miss" is an insult? What does this say about your gender?
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
The question was directed at the author of the comments.
Which was not you.
Which was not you.
Blacks are harmless pets for the Jews.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
That doesn't matter, vagina. This is a philosophy forum, is it not? Answer my fucking questions, you female philosopher. Look me straight in the eye, meet my gaze directly, and do not avoid answering with complete confidence, and without hesitation, otherwise I will see the ignorance and lies inside you. I will read your mind instantly, and where you hesitate to answer, to know this world we live in, I will not hesitate.
And I will show you what it means to think, for the first time in your entire existence.
And I will show you what it means to think, for the first time in your entire existence.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Let me rephrase for the slower minds, and those who are lost, and for our first female philosophers in world history.
Are there, or not, billions of human slaves on the planet today? Or, are all humans equal, and how did we get this way, how did we all become equal?
If this vagina cannot answer, immediately, then her "female philosopher" status can be revoked. She is a coward, like all vaginas.
Are there, or not, billions of human slaves on the planet today? Or, are all humans equal, and how did we get this way, how did we all become equal?
If this vagina cannot answer, immediately, then her "female philosopher" status can be revoked. She is a coward, like all vaginas.
-
vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
I heard that there are lots of misogynistic gay men out there and that they are more vicious and bitchy than any female ever is. I wonder why that isAtthet wrote:Let me rephrase for the slower minds, and those who are lost, and for our first female philosophers in world history.
Are there, or not, billions of human slaves on the planet today? Or, are all humans equal, and how did we get this way, how did we all become equal?
If this vagina cannot answer, immediately, then her "female philosopher" status can be revoked. She is a coward, like all vaginas.
