• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Sick sick world what is wrong with people

Crab.C.Nesbitt said:
Weapons grade bs!

She was doing a three point turn and turning away from the officer. She was doing less than 5 miles per hour and clearly did not drive straight at him ( his own footage demonstrates she was turning right not driving straight at him ).

The only time the car accelerated was after she’d been shot at 3 times including being shot in the head. She was unconscious/dead at that point.

Let’s have a look what the lefty lib tards at the times (owned by Rupert Murdoch) think.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...
She was doing a 3 point turn when she had been told to get out of the vehicle.

So she's clearly not planning on being arrested. Let's not forget she nearly runs her wife over too.
 
Lost Mango said:
No such thing, scientifically, as 'more evolved'.

It doesn't have a direction or destination so has no 'relativity'
Click to expand...
I'd say opposable thumbs are more evolved than not. Larger brains are more evolved than not.

Everything that got selected out (like empathy, hopefully) is less evolved.
 
scaramanga said:
I'd say opposable thumbs are more evolved than not. Larger brains are more evolved than not.

Everything that got selected out (like empathy, hopefully) is less evolved.
Click to expand...

Nope. Just different evolution. Somethings get more complex, larger, some simplify, some shrink, it all depends on the environment at the time. Some are selected for, some disappear or become vestigial (silent) within the DNA code. So 'more', or any comparative, is not the right description.

Ironically, all evidence suggests that the bigger brained mammals have the most empathy - e.g. humans and other great apes, cetaceans, elephants.
 
Lost Mango said:
Nope. Just different evolution. Somethings get more complex, larger, some simplify, some shrink, it all depends on the environment at the time. Some are selected for, some disappear or become vestigial (silent) within the DNA code. So 'more', or any comparative, is not the right description.

Ironically, all evidence suggests that the bigger brained mammals have the most empathy - e.g. humans and other great apes, cetaceans, elephants.
Click to expand...
There's certainly randomness heavily involved, and there are plenty of signs that some mutations came and went before getting selected in longer term.

But as a whole, better traits stick around longer than worse ones - otherwise we'd all be single cell organisms floating around in the sea.

I get that it's a tough concept to like - especially for those afflicted with "permanent" empathy, but not liking it won't stop it.
 
scaramanga said:
There's certainly randomness heavily involved, and there are plenty of signs that some mutations came and went before getting selected in longer term.

But as a whole, better traits stick around longer than worse ones - otherwise we'd all be single cell organisms floating around in the sea.

I get that it's a tough concept to like - especially for those afflicted with "permanent" empathy, but not liking it won't stop it.
Click to expand...

Which the vast majority of life is, as in single-celled organisms, not necessarily in the sea though. And, in fact, even you are made up of more single-celled organisms than 'Scara' cells, all examples of how life does not need to be "more" evolved than they were 3 bn years ago or whatever.

Humans have in many ways been domesticated by various bacteria and fungi and it could be argued we are just vehicles, vectors, for them rather than Masters of the Universe that we like to see ourselves as.

In terms of better traits, again comparative rubbish. Better than what? Opportunities existed that allowed variation to occur. Certain organisms changed to take advantage of those opportunities, others didn't change and are still doing just fine.

No idea what your last line even means. It isn't about liking concepts or not. No evidence that empathy is a evolutionary selected trait that is disappearing or any reason why it would be. Plenty of evidence that shows collaboration (which requires empathy) has been key to human evolution (and many other species.

This idea that competition is the main factor that drives natural selection, evolution etc (basic neo-Darwinism) has been shown to be schoolboy wet dream stuff rather than science.

For someone who claims not to believe in fairy tales (except for your economic theories ;)) you seem to have a religious hard-on for the manifest destiny of mankind as some sort of super being. Humans will be extinct within the next 1 million years, just like 99% of all life forms that have ever existed.
 
Lost Mango said:
. Plenty of evidence that shows collaboration (which requires empathy) has been key to human evolution (and many other species.
Click to expand...
The whole basis of survival is based on empathy right? Collaboration as you say, ability to form bonds, ability to provide a basis for team work, averting danger. Even bring kids into the world and nurturing them requires huge levels of the stuff.
 
Lost Mango said:
Nope. Just different evolution. Somethings get more complex, larger, some simplify, some shrink, it all depends on the environment at the time. Some are selected for, some disappear or become vestigial (silent) within the DNA code. So 'more', or any comparative, is not the right description.

Ironically, all evidence suggests that the bigger brained mammals have the most empathy - e.g. humans and other great apes, cetaceans, elephants.
Click to expand...
That explains a lot.
 
Lost Mango said:
Which the vast majority of life is, as in single-celled organisms, not necessarily in the sea though. And, in fact, even you are made up of more single-celled organisms than 'Scara' cells, all examples of how life does not need to be "more" evolved than they were 3 bn years ago or whatever.

Humans have in many ways been domesticated by various bacteria and fungi and it could be argued we are just vehicles, vectors, for them rather than Masters of the Universe that we like to see ourselves as.

In terms of better traits, again comparative rubbish. Better than what? Opportunities existed that allowed variation to occur. Certain organisms changed to take advantage of those opportunities, others didn't change and are still doing just fine.

No idea what your last line even means. It isn't about liking concepts or not. No evidence that empathy is a evolutionary selected trait that is disappearing or any reason why it would be. Plenty of evidence that shows collaboration (which requires empathy) has been key to human evolution (and many other species.

This idea that competition is the main factor that drives natural selection, evolution etc (basic neo-Darwinism) has been shown to be schoolboy wet dream stuff rather than science.

For someone who claims not to believe in fairy tales (except for your economic theories ;)) you seem to have a religious hard-on for the manifest destiny of mankind as some sort of super being. Humans will be extinct within the next 1 million years, just like 99% of all life forms that have ever existed.
Click to expand...
It will happen in a lot shorter timespan than that, IMO.

I plucked this eloquent quote from an article I was reading tonight from Prof Kevin Anderson....
"Humanity may yet prove itself resilient and adaptive. Or we may simply degrade into a genetic cul-de-sac: a brief, unmistakable stratum in the fossil record, marking a civilisation that could chart its own collapse with exquisite precision, issue increasingly urgent warnings to itself, and "still choose, again and again, not to listen.
 
Last edited:
Sociopaths and the wholly unempathetic have interests driven only by one thing; their own needs and narcissistic tendencies. They have no interest in others unless it benefits them in some way. As they pick off those around them, their numbers grow stronger. Until one day, they have only each other to eradicate. If that is evolution, then let my knuckles drag on the floor and my stupidity grow ever greater. But never, ever, ever think that empathy is a one-song band, and never mistake empathy for weakness.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back