what the fuck is wrong with people.

now they're talking about going after mtv because after watching the show jackass, some kid decided to emulate the show and become a

JACKASS.

this jackass lit himself on fire and is now in the hospital in critical condition.

why do we fight so hard to keep stupid people alive.

the one part of evolution i do follow is survival of the fittest.

and to ensure the survival of intelligence stupid people have to die.

the kid who eats the most marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own.

if this JACKASS survives, he should be sterilized so as not to contaminate generation after generation with his stupidity.

DUMB MOTHERFUCKER LIGHTS HIMSELF ON FIRE.

I JUST CAN'T FUCKING BELIEVE IT!!!

I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY'RE BLAMING MTV FOR IT!!!

THAT JACKASS SHOULD BE GIVEN A GUN, AND PUT OUT OF OUR MISERY.

IGNORANT SON OF A BITCH.

i totaly agree with what your saying - wouldnt have quite said it in the same way as you but...

something has to be done about ppl like that its kinda funny though - wot a dumb ass.

You're right! I can't beleive that some idiot would think "I can light myself on fire, but I'm not going to get burned."

IDIOTS! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

I for one think it's about time we started weeding out the population ourselves. Natural Selection is an excellent idea, but it takes too long. We need to do it by hand.

------------------
ENSLAVE THE WHALES!

Yes, cull the stupid people. You can start with everyone who likes, watches, works for or produces MTV.

Then you move onto people who like, or in anyway contribute towards the production of pop music

wot the hell is rong with mtv?

see spelling in above post for your answer.


one thing that really pissed me off about mtv and when i started to hate them.

was in 1992 with their support for bill clinton, whose running mates wife was the head of the pmrc.

for those who don't know the pmrc was the Parents Music Resource Center, and the ones responsible for the parental advisory sticker on music.

but i really believe that pmrc stands for
People Mutilating Rights of Constitution.

I need some KMFDM..

Who doesn't?

MTV is to blame for feeding the idea to that poor boy. That boy would not be in burn hospital if it not for MTV. MTV bad people and should pay for injuries. Next stop Panasonic which allowed TV tube to show bad idea. Mediaone bad company deliver bad show to burn boy. Bad. We need to save the less sensical from bad influences with good laws and good lawyers.

------------------

you're kidding.

right?

I'm glad MTV gave him the idea, otherwise he might have bred.

*scripts out "The Vasectomy Game Show for MTV*

"Evolution and Social Darwinism

War and oppression have always been components of human history, however with the advent of Darwin's theory of evolution man had a new justification for his cruelty. Recall that the prime component of Darwin's ideas revolves around the notion that life progresses by natural selection - the survival of the fittest. Couple this with the racist teachings in the scientific world of his day and you have the rational to pursue any exploitive agenda. "Might makes right", so why not declare yourself the master race and conquer others?
Both sides of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 used Darwinism as a rational. When Cecil Rhodes established the famous Rhodes Scholarships it was for uniting English-speaking peoples for greater racial development. Theodore Roosevelt maintained that a racial war to the finish with the Indians was inevitable and there should be a spread of English-speaking people all over the world (Morris 1989, 68-70).

The notions of racial superiority were more pronounced in Europe. Friedrich Nietzsche of the "God is dead" fame adapted Darwin's ideas and promoted a "superman" or "super-race" philosophy. He took the idea of natural selection further, suggesting that warfare, eugenics, and the merciless extinction of inferior races was appropriate. Nietzsche would later go insane.

Another German of influence was the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). Haeckel is known for his "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" (the embryo re-traces evolution) contribution to the field of evolution, a theory which is now discredited but still lingers on. (Incidentally, the illustrations that Haeckel used to show embryonic development were fabricated.) Haeckel established the Monist League (monism is the philosophy that bases all reality on matter alone) and "became one of Germany's major ideologists for racism, nationalism, and imperialism" (Morris 1989, 73). One could argue that the ideas of Darwin, Nietzsche, and Haeckel were the seeds of World War I - British Anglo-Saxonism vs German Teutonism.

The ideas of racial supremacy and the survival of the fittest race reached it's zenith with the National Socialist party of Nazi Germany. The legacy of Haeckel and the Monist league turned many German scientists to monism and atheism. Adolf Hitler himself was a evolutionist. His book "Mein Kemp" (My Struggle), which sold 11 million copies in 1944, has a strong theme of the necessity of struggle, a struggle between the races. "The Jews formed a sub-human counter race, predestined by their biological heritage to evil, just as the Nordic race was destined for nobility" ... "History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendor, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself". (Morris 1989, 78 - quoting Gann). One has to ask - would Hitler act the way he did if he were a creationist?

Others in Nazi Germany were evolutionists as well. The notorious head of the Gestapo, Heinrich Himmler stated that "the law of nature must take its course in the survival of the fittest" (Morris 1989, 78 - quoting Schaeffer). Joseph Mengele, the "angel of death", infamous for his gruesome experiments on humans at Auschwitz was indoctrinated in evolutionary racism in school. One biographer notes that Mengele was influenced by the notion that "some human beings afflicted by disorders were unfit to reproduce, even to live" (Morris 1989, 79 - quoting Posner and Ware).

And finally, Benito Mussolini was an evolutionist who mocked perpetual peace and asserted that "the reluctance of England to engage in war only proved the evolutionary decadence of the British Empire" (Morris 1989, 81 - quoting Clark).

References:
Morris 1989, 68-82"


That's just great lostmind. Please...be the one that leads the world to WW III. Do you have any morals at all?

without war and strife we'd be a bunch of primitive nomads.

what the fuck?

i don't have morals.

i don't believe in evolution.

hitler was strong into what we consider occult practices; he used astrologers and the like.

thought the aryan nation was descended from atlanteans;

since this was the most advance race in history;

since the catholic church(in rome; who was hitlers biggest ally in wwII; italy; jesus go figure) portrayed jesus as a white man(which is impossible if he were truly born in the middle east)

since the jews claimed jesus was not the messiah;

since the jews claimed they were the chosen ones;

which contradicted the nazi's belief in aryans as the superior and chosen race;

there's the cause for genocide.

survival of the fittest is a basic law of nature and has nothing to do with evolution.

what the fuck did this have to do with some jackass who lit himself on fire.

RALLY BEHIND ME PEOPLE I'M STARTING WWIII; AND IT BEGINS WITH THE GENOCIDE OF IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY.

person101 i believe we have an appointment at the ovens.

if squeezed within these standards, your war will wipe out the humanity as we know it.

I just think that its freaking stupid for you to say that all stupid people should die when like sckbch said that would like kill the whole world.

Did you ever realize that it takes stupid people to make some people seem smart?

Its all relative.

If there weren't stupid people, then everyone would be on the same level.

Because if everyone weren't on the same level

then someone would have to be "more stupid" than someone else.

Did you ever think that maybe the reason they are stupid is because you are doing nothing to stop that?

You are posting stupid crap about "stupid" people at some website just for the sake of i don't know what--man, that makes you a genius!

AND ARE YOU FREAKING RETARDED SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION IT IS THE WHOLE BASIS OF HOW EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!

"survival of the fittest is a basic law of nature and has nothing to do with evolution"

that is the STUPIDEST comment I have EVER seen in my life from a "SMART" person!

If evolution does not have ANYTHING to do with survival of the fittest, why don't you go on and explain to me how YOU think evolution works?

i don't believe in evolution.

if you can show me definitive proof of evolution i'll believe it; i don't want to post my reasons for not believing because i've done so numerous times.

you post why you believe; and i'll knock it down.

we went through this whole thing numerous times in the my god can beat the shit out of your god.

check it out.

i said survival of the fittest has nothing to do with evolution.

i did not say evolution had nothing to do with survival of the fittest.

a fan has something to do with baseball; baseball has nothing to do with the fan.

the game can go on without them(and if you look at some teams it usually does.); but without baseball you can have no fan.

you can have survival of the fittest without evolution; evolution could not survive without it though.

and stupid people should not expect to be rewarded for their ignorance as in the case stated above.

i'm not saying kill them all; i'm saying if they are that ignorant i've got better things to do than babysit someone whose commonsence goes down the toilet when they take a shit


"Did you ever think that maybe the reason they are stupid is because you are doing nothing to stop that?"

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I HAVE TO DO ANYTHING;

that jackass had his whole life to find out fire burns.

that jackass had his whole life to learn to differentiate television from reality.

but i suppose it makes it alright then because nobody told him; he didn't know better.

you seem to take this pretty personal;

what were you one of these people who would lay down in traffic after seeing that one flick and somebody ran over you and paralyzed you from the waist down.

and now you feel society owes you something; because in all your experiences learned throughout life common sense always seemed to elude you.

keep it coming.

Theories exist when there's no solid proof; evolution is a theory because there is no solid proof, and there likely will never be solid proof, since some link or another between species will probably have been obliterated through the ravages of time.

My roommate's girlfriend is visiting, and since he was working, we went to the museum. There's not much in it, but one thing we saw was a skeleton of an "ape-man"; I use the term because I can't recall the latin name. It was a creature approximately three to four feet in height, which stood on its rear legs, erect like a human; however, all of its facial characteristics were that of an ape.

You see a monkey, and you see a human. There are similarities, but questions about how the latter is descended from the former are reasonable. What they had there is evidence of a middle ground.

You don't have to take this as any sort of proof, but that's not what this post is for.

My point is only this: You said once that you think evolution is going to die out as a legitimate scientific theory in ten years. No way. It is *extremely* unlikely that evolution is going to fall by the wayside for quite some time to come, if ever. The only reason I don't say it won't is that I don't believe in making statements that claim anything as 100% fact when it's any less of a sure than than 2+2=4.

[This message has been edited by Spiffy McBang (edited 03-14-2001).]

Stupid by nature, stupid by nurture, or stupid by nature via nurture?

"a fan has something to do with baseball; baseball has nothing to do with the fan."

Maybe you need help with your english. When you say "something to do" do you mean "dependant upon"? that would make more sense, but you would still be wrong.

Modern baseball is entirely dependant upon the fan. If nobody watched, all the teams would loose drastic amounts of money, and the league would crumble. If nobody liked the fucking sport, why the fuck would they play it?

Baseball creates fans....that is a connection, baseball has something to do with fans.

As for evolution, I prefer to think on a more basic scale. World records. In almost every case, the world record for physical acheivements are all more recent. Humans are becoming faster, stronger, smarter and generally better at what they do. You could blame that on technology if you want, but so what? We created the technology we use, it improves us. To me, this is evolution, improving over time, I don't care what methods we use to do it.

hey,

have you ever played baseball with your friends.

did you have fans?

major league baseball may be "dependant" on the fan.

but the game itself is not.

and as for your theory on evolution; you still speak of "human" evolution; not one species giving birth to another.

spiffy; what was the dna evidence on that skeleton; was it human or simien?

a quote from mission to mars "there is such a small variance in dna from man to monkey; yet that difference gives us mozart; washington; michael jordan; hitler; stalin; napoleon; alexander the great; genghis khan; abraham lincoln; what has it given them mighty joe young and king kong..."

and let's not forget clyde from the clint eastwood movies.

how did this "addition" to dna just happen; parental dna was overwritten by it's offspring which is controlled by the parental dna?

the exhibit you saw was of 1, ONE, not two but one creature.

in 50,000 years if evolution is still around they're going to find the skeleton of the elephant man and put up in some museum saying
this was a representative of a man throughout the course of evolution.

i hope in 50,000 thousand years if they find my skeleton they don't say this what mankind looked like.

not that i'm deformed i just don't want to be a spokesmodel for the human race.

You are eroneous, My beliefe is that the most evidence favors evolution therfore it is the theory I hold. I will abandon the theory When you can propose and amass evidence on a better one.

what evidence?

the only evidence i've seen on evolution all stem from theories.

and none say how it happened just that it happened.

science can pretty much explain anything; how the earth and stars got here;

why 2+2=4;

why things cannot travel faster than light;

etc; etc;

but when it comes to what caused the big bang and evolution;

they seemingly turn into religious leaders and tell you to take it on faith that they know what they're doing.

well the world knew what it was doing when they killed gallileo for having the audacity to say that the earth was NOT the center of the universe.

i find it almost easier to believe that an old man in the sky with unending knowledge and power willed life into existance so to speak;

than i can believe that despite the fact dna is there pretty much to ensure the continuation of a lineage; and every now and then from out of nowhere a new gene is created that didn't exist in the parental line(even if through gradual changes; bacteria don't have hair; i do; bacteria doesn't have the gene for hair; i do can come into being from parents who don't have it.

i do not argue with variance within species; you can see evidence of that in everything.

but by being a realist i understand also that something can never come out of nothing; and there has to be some cause to add to the already existing.

and the only evidence that i have EVER SEEN OR BEEN PRESENTED IN MY LIFE has been variance within a species.

they show fossils and say this is where it branched out; considering it some kind of missing link.

but then i ask what were it's parents; and if that doesn't do it; what were it's grandparents; and back until the answer is there;

you can take that in this direction as well what was the offspring; what were there offspring.

did you actually find a missing link; or did you find a species who was unsuited for the changes in climate that came with the comet impact that killed the dinosaurs or the ice age and just became extinct.

how come there are no links between species that survive today;

wheres the cousin of the cat and dog that would show divergence between these two animals;

yet a species with whom both of which could mate;

where's the missing link between animal and plant life;

surely if evolution is correct there should be some animate creature who survives on photosynthesis;

or some plant that has a lung.

to me it's way to hard to believe in;

this supposed "gene from nowhere" is like the kid who says the cookie just appeared in his mouth; when one is missing from the cookie jar; but because you didn't actually see it you can't discredit it;

so you run around telling people that cookies randomly appear out of the ether and one appeared in your child's mouth.

parents know better and so do i.

the evidence has shown me nothing that is easier to believe in as opposed to god doing it.

this evidence you recieve surely must give some explanation as to where these extra genes come from?

i'm still waiting to be enlightened.

Let's ignore genes and DNA and all the little stuff. Boil it down to the nitty gritty. Evolution is variance within a species, taken to its logical conclusion.

You have a species. Over a thousand years, the species changes, adapts to its environments, and after the thousand years has passed, you can see obvious differences. That's variance within a species.

Take that same species, and extend the time frame to three million years. That's a lot more time for the species to change, and for the environment the species must adapt to, to change. Slowly, it evolves, and the variance from one end of the three-million-year time span to the next becomes so great that, when placed side by side, it becomes clear that the creatures can no longer be logically considered of the same species. In most cases, were the two to try and mate, they would fail.

Yet, one came from the other.

Evolution is a VERY slow process. You never get the proof you seek because the proof you want is based on a belief that isn't true. There is no father = ape, son = human. Scientists can make no clear deleanation (sp?) between the ancestor species and the offshoot species because there is none to make.

You can hold onto your arguments of "where did those genes come from", and I can't give you an answer for that, because I don't know. All I can tell you is how the, yes, theory of evolution functions on the surface.

[This message has been edited by Spiffy McBang (edited 03-22-2001).]

that's exactly what i'm talking about;

when generalized evolution makes perfect sense.

when you discard such trivial things as dna and genes.

but dna and genes albeit "little things"; produce man; monkey; dinosaur; bacteria;

the full range from the very large to the very small.

these cannot be ignored;

and unless bacteria has difinitive genes for black hair or blond hair; then these things must have come from nowhere;

if the parent did not have them they cannot pass to the young.

did i hear somebody say mutation?

although i do understand your point of view now, lostmind.

ps (off topic): that is exactly how i feel about capitalism - why should people just accept the system as it is instead of trying to find something that works better? at least i think what you are saying about evolution is that you think that there could be a more logical explanation that would fit the facts better....

thank you;

and i do agree with you on capitalism;

but as long as it is the best;

take advantage of it.

i personally think that the best form of government would start with the elimination of money.

but again pure utopian dream of mine.

[This message has been edited by lostmind (edited 03-26-2001).]

** crickets **
** crickets **
** crickets **
** crickets **

hello

** crickets **
** crickets **
** crickets **
** crickets **