I couldn’t possibly do this job without you, Mr. Fluffykins.
(Barack Obama)
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: smarti22 via Advanced Lol Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous EVERYBODY WAS KUNG FU FIGHTING | Cleverness Here Next »
» 200 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
MacFeegle on Prop 8 Ruled Unconstituti… MacFeegle on Awww Yeaahhhh Boffo97 on Tim Gunn Eyeroll airkerma on Prop 8 Ruled Unconstituti… Richard Smith on Vandals Cashing In MrsQ of Philadelphia on Real Classy The Dragon on Osombie Arcane on Cool Front Moving In airkerma on The Running Man MrsQ of Philadelphia on Cool Front Moving In 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Meme Animals: Interspecies OMNOMNOMS!
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Getting told there's no homework until next week.
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
Actuallty, She Self-Represents...
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Changes For Cheezburger!
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
High Five Cat
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
VIDEO: Puffin Play Time
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
CTHULHU'S UNKNOWN SISTER
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Pedobear Does Not Approve
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
I'm Really Only Posting This Because I Lol'd For No Reason
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
2012 Grammy Nominated Albums of the Year... Wif KITTEHS!
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Puppet from Ikea Totally Looks Like Trogdor the Burninator
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
I'll Feed You Red Panda
So true. No matter your political background, gotta admit the pressure he’s under right now.
Whew, I barely made it through. Never realized it was that hard not to say it before, y’know?
I praise your restraint. I, however, will rejoice.
WOOHOOOOO!!!! Front page again! Hooray for me!
Needs a word balloon from Mr. Fluffykins saying, “Print another trillion dollars! None will oppose you!”
hahah, but really this is a major discovery. We’ve been trying to figure out who was working Obama’s strings, here is our answer…
It’s his new National Security strategy, Teddy Bears for terrorists.
Your comment is made of win.
Weeeooo. Grammar police. It should be “none shall oppose you”. Although what you said works too. So, really, there’s no problem here.
You no other than the fact a teddy bear is telling him what to do…
Droyd, dude, please learn to type out the word know. Please.
Did it really matter that much to you that you had to write a post about me not using the word know correctly?
Maybe it’s my own private pet peeve. I doubt it, though.
nope, it’s mine too.
Mine too.
Mine also, but I was chalking it up to an occupational hazard.
When he says know, does he really mean yes?
Only once he’s onto the shots.
That’s it. The blonde has spoken.
Good we can finally stop this part of the tread…
It may seem unfair, but educated people judge others by the way the write. Learning to use proper spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammar will serve you well in life.
No one ever said life was fair.
Well, maybe someone has said it, but they’re wrong.
“Life isn’t fair, where is that written?”
i have dyslexic fingers, please don’t judge me by my handicap
I think Seth said “Life won’t be fair unless we make it fair”. Which I agree with wholeheartedly.
We can’t make it fair though, can we? Some things are outside of our control.
Most things, probably.
Well, we can at least make it fairer. Most everything is outside of our control, true, but we’re still responsible for what we do with the things we can control.
/preachy hippie rant
True dat.
/gansta speak
Hippies vs Gangsters. I can only see that ending one way, and it ain’t gonna be pretty.
Man, nonviolence can be hard work sometimes.
Word.
*passes the doochie on the left hand side*
That’s the solution! Give the gangsters cut rates on ‘medicinal herbs’. They’ll be too stoned to do anything about us!
SB, you’ve saved countless hippie lives. Take the purple leaf award, and wear it with pride. No, DON’T smoke it, we used lead paint.
Well, truthfully it sort of causes a slight anuerism because I don’t like to have to try and decipher what you really mean.
-
So while you think it’s trivial, it does cause people’s thinking to lurch a bit.
Now Eddie, you know that’s only because dirt calls you Daddy
Yes, and I also fart dust.. Still, I’m too old for an anuerism.
You’re never too old for an aneurysm! The first surgeon to figure out how to repair aortic arch aneurysms had one at around age 90–and his lifesaving surgery was done by one of his former students. He lived another 6 or 7 healthy years, by the way!
the irony is making my butthurt flare up viking.
Better butthurt than than aneurysm hurt, according to the doc. I read an interview of him, where he said that he just wanted to die from that pain, called 911 and laid down to do just that–and woke up in recovery to see his former student. (couldn’t find a link for the Esquire magazine interview, but it was fun!)
I know, the story’s cool, but the irony is so strong it’s making my eyes bleed. Could we water this down a little?
That’s really cool!
Umm…the story about the surgeon. Not so much the butthurt. Heh.
Pfffft, you know it’s cool.
Actually, from what I’ve heard, butthurt is pretty damn hot.
Previous administration: Standing: Dick Cheney; “Mr. Fluffykins”: Dubya
Perhaps the polyfil in Mr Fluffykins head explains the recient presidential decisions?
And the polyfil in Lam’s head explains his “recient” inability to spell…
Awwwwww….Pundit Kitchen goes Cute Overload
Hey now! He is a Dad with little girls… EVERYONE knows that daughters make Dads do stupid things that they are powerless to resist. Little girl-thing daughters are like the Borg or something.
Aw, Janie’s gotta sweetie for a Dad.
She can be a little Borg-like at times — well always.
HEY! I might possible resemble that comment. But you shouldn’t be telling people! ;P
I have photo evidence that I had this effect on my own father! “Resistance is futile!”
Yeah, but I can still say no to the whole weird optical device thing.
Dr. Bearington will assist…
BY BEING SO SNUGGLY. :3
Family Guy FTW!
Mr. Fluffykins/Cheer Bear 2012!
Strawberry Shortcake/Rainbow Brite 2012!
Tenderheart/Pooh 2012
Screw this hippie crap!
Mumm-Ra/Skeletor 2012!!!
Care Dog/Pee Bear 2012
Too obscure?
Too obscure for me at least.
Mighty Mouse/Huckleberry Hound 2012
Optimus/Ultra-Magnus 2012?
Charlie the Tuna/Flipper 2012
-
I’m actually extremely disturbed at the thought process that brought that pairing about.
Bruce the shark/SpongeBob Squarepants 2012.
-
I was inspired by froofrou’s thought patterns!
Marlin/Squidward 2012
‘Cos VG’s pairing sounds like too much fun.
Tom Terrific and Mighty Manfred the Wonder Dog?
Thrall/Jania Proudmoore 2010
………….
You are beyond amazing. But isn’t it Jaina, not Jania?
indeed, Jaina it is.
also, shouldn’t it be 2012 unless it’s a senate run?
Pft, I would sprint to the voting booths to elect THAT ticket no matter WHEN the next president is supposed to move in. Once WoW becomes real, politics won’t matter.
Ace/Gary 2012
Sorry, Froo. We don’t want conservatives with good taste…
“We want conservatives who taste good!”
–Bruce the shark.
“Care Dog Meets Pee Bear” is one of Paul Mavrides most twisted and disturbing short comics. Link in my name. Fnord.
Oops, Ivan Stang and “Palmer Vreedeez” are the authors.
I love his Fabulous Furry Freak Bros comics. I *think* I own the whole set, but I keep hoping there’s some obscure title out there I haven’t found yet.
“Hey, Fat Freddy! Take this money and go cop for us. AND DON’T GET BURNED THIS TIME!”
Okay, finally finished reading that, Seth (slow loading pages).
Loveditloveditlovedit.
Thanks for the link.
It is… truly disturbing. Well worth waiting for the page loads. There’s a text only version on the Church of the Subgenius site, but the illustrations are just too good to miss. I think the comic was published in “Bob’s Big Book of Fables for Sleepyheads.”
“I love his Fabulous Furry Freak Bros comics.”
`
I think that’s Gilbert Shelton and Dave Sheridan.
i can’t believe i read the whole thing – now hand over the brain bleach. i know you have a stash and you should share since you posted that link and made me look at it ;o
Republican candidates?
Sarah Palin and Vladimir Putin?
Palin/Plumer
**Plumber
Chuck Norris/Chuck Norris’ Beard 2012
You got my vote
Who is Chuck Norris’ Beard? Christy Brinkley?
I was actually gonna go with Angelina on this one.
Can anyone explain this?
Most liberals agree in Darwin’s theory of evolution rather than creationism. Darwin’s theory of evolution espouses survival of the fittest and adaptation to the environment in order to ensure survival of the species. Species who are unwilling/unable to adapt and survive should and will not do so according to Darwin’s theories. Homo sapiens are a species. Most liberals believe homo sapiens should receive equal resources regardless of their ability to adapt to the environment and survive on their own without the intervention of other homo sapiens.
So do elucidate — how is it that liberals, who believe in Darwinism, also believe that I should support members of the species who should realistically be culled from the herd?
I know the PC rhetoric, I’m not asking to rehash that. I am asking how these divergent philosophies fit within the same head without said head suffering from MPD. Not a slam — the voices in my head argue constantly about when the alien will land…
Good point, but I think what would probably sew our head back together would be this- humanity is the first species to be able to produce our resources for ourselves, while at the same time maximizing our efficiency- essentially, we are the first species to produce mass amounts of food, more than the Earth or habitat the human lives in would normally contain. I think that this would put us at least a little ahead of the game in avoiding the consequences of evolution, at least until the world goes all out doomsday-starvation time. Although you are right in the base of your point, the argument is weakened quite a bit by how far homo sapiens has come in preventing our evolution. (I know what i said there. It was a deliberate compliment to your point. You like?
)
But tyler, going against the consequences of evolution cuts to the very heart of the no-creationism, all-Darwinism philosophy. Why would we, as a species, want to violate the very tenets of origin of species, when it’s the fundamental basis of our very existences?
…and I see what you did there.
Most species have now been observed to practice what is tentatively being called altruism. They do so mostly within family groups, and almost never to other species. But they take actions which require energy/risk to themselves, which favor members of their own species who are not their own direct line.
Link provided.
Again, Viking Gal, altruism is defined exclusively by homo sapiens. I am aware of the mentality of the pack, which ensures the survival of future generations by caring for the weakest until they achieve maturity.
However, pack mentality also includes the destruction of the very young deemed threatening to the group as a whole, as well as the shunning of the unfit/unwilling to contribute.
Please be aware — I am responding before reading your link, but I will do so now. I wanted to share my thoughts prior to examining your info, and I hope this does not offend you.
No, altruism is seen in many species. It is genetically advantageous for many reasons.
Stephen Hawkings would be a great example of this – someone who wouldn’t normally survive in the basic interpretation of “survival of the fittest” but still managed to push society forwards through the strength of their mind, not their body.
Just thought I’d throw that in there. There’s exceptions to every rule, ya know?
Sober argues that, even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists. On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e., who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism.
Intriguing, Viking Gal. I will need to internalize this information.
One note: how much of biological altruism is actually innate, instinctual behavior? I didn’t note that in the wonderful article you provided. My apologies if I missed it: I wanted to reply before a full analysis of said information.
Thank you for an interesting concept for further exploration.
What interests me in ‘biological altruism’ is the source of instinct. Surely instinct comes from genetic makeup? So, if our instincts lead toward the propagation and survival of our genes, how is this altruism?
The argument from care for those beyond the bloodline does seem to hold some water. However, it’s easy to look at this as incidental to the instinct to protect family. Or as ‘reciprocal altruism’, which only exists when some return is guaranteed. Helping because you know it’s in your own best interests, in the long run, hardly seems like ethical (as opposed to pragmatic) behaviour to me.
Why do we necessarily have to subscribe to Darwinism for all parts of existence? Can’t we use it to explain how our species exists without necessarily using it to describe our social habits? Wouldn’t it possibly mean that our species thrives BECAUSE we help out the weakest? We may not be weeding out the weak ones in our species but we’re making our species survive better this way. Maybe. I dunno, it’s late.
By definition, if it survives and breeds, it isn’t weak. Evolution has no direction, there is no better and worse, no more or less evolved. There is what works, right here right now, under these conditions, and what doesn’t. Conditions change.
Darwin was creating a theory explaining the existing evolution of life based on observation of historic facts. He was in no way putting forward a moral or political theory. The people that did so are sick puppies, and most intelligent people find them despicable.
Most liberals believe that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. These can be difficult things to get when living in a gutter.
Basically, they don’t see darwinism as applicable – it’s scientific theory, nothing more. They instead see the guy in the gutter’s right to a better life trumping the guy making millions off the markets’ right to buy a second ferrari. Move the guy in the gutter and the guy with two supercars closer together economically as you move further out to the left.
Nicely written, purple.
I don’t understand. How does the guy in the gutter have a right to a better life, any more than the lion that refuses to hunt and provide its own sustenance?
Because his rights to not come from the brute facts of reality. Things like the UN’s Charter of Universal Human Rights lay out the basics of what all people can agree on, regardless of personal opinions. You might talk about human dignity, or a duty of care, as the things lying behind these values.
Believing in liberal ideals or being godless don’t necessarially make someone a nihilist (having no belief in right and wrong). Ethics are available to all.
Ethics are defined by man, purple switch, at any given time in history. So are human rights.
Neither are not defined within the parameters of Darwinism, and thus it just doesn’t make one lick of sense to me that homo sapiens who exclusively believe we originated from the basic tenets of Darwinism (and ridicule those who believe otherwise) will argue, and enact social policy, that we MUST violate the very basis of said beliefs to ensure the survival of the unfittest.
It’s perplexing, and no amount of discussion of the human origination of social norms adequately defines it for me.
Apologies. Neither are DEFINED. Remove not.
Unfittest? No such thing. Today’s ‘fittest’ is tomorrow’s failure. Evolution is not directed, there are no ‘more’ or ‘less’ evolved creatures. We do not ensure the survival of the unfittest, we change the fitness criteria.
Again, Seth, you are defining “failure” within the parameters of current homo sapien ideology. You are also defining “fitness criteria” within the parameters of today’s thinking. If it were all about the “fittest” to survive, you’d likely not be among those who would survive to procreate. No offense intended, it’s just reality for those who do not directly produce their own consumer goods. And I know you’re curious; I actually do eke out a living from the earth.
I am merely defining it from a biological, removed-from-morals perspective. I thought that’s what those who believe exclusively in Darwinism/evolutionism espouse as an ideology.
You’re leaving out an important tenant of “survival of the fittest”. If you’re putting people in animal terms, the one with the bigger brain, the one who can outwit the bigger meat eater, will be the one to survive, not necessarily the strongest of the two. This doesn’t exactly follow the “strong will live” part of Darwinism, as humans are a special case.
Brain size isn’t correlative with intellect, froo. I have read studies, but don’t have one readily available. I’ll look.
And I will reiterate, I didn’t say strongest, I said fittest.
However, just to be devil’s advocate here, frontal lobe development/size can affect intelligence and ability to adapt.
Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with which individuals have a right to propagate; or rather, that’s an incidental mechanic that merely describes one way that evolution operates.
SotF describes which *species* survive over others. In human history, there have been both cultures who prey on the weak and those who spend community resources taking care of apparent genetic losers. For what seem to me to be obvious reasons, those who eliminate the weak (Sparta, and Nazi Germany come to mind) do not survive. Those who place a higher value on taking care of the weak among them are the ones who ultimately thrive, despite the additional burden on the well to do among them.
The short reason for that is that humans aren’t successful because we’re strong, or have big brains, or use tools, or run quickly. We’re successful primarily because we have found a way to organize our societies in a way that allows us to work together for the common good. Societies that forget that are committed to the “ash heap of history”.
Define “fittest” for me just so I’m clear what the precise criteria for that mean.
“Survival of the fittest” really sounds like circular logic when it’s explained properly, but it isn’t actually: the fittest are those that survive to reproduce. Let’s say somebody is born with mental retardation. Bad news, right? They aren’t very fit. But that’s the thing: you can’t tell. Perhaps the mutation that, expressed in their brain makes them stupid, also gives them a very strong resistance to swine flu. Most mutations are like that, because most chemical pathways in organisms serve multiple functions.
Alright, if no pandemic sweeps through the community, the mutation is bad. If a pandemic does sweep through the community, it is very, very good. It’s only after the fact, looking at an organism’s breeding success, that one can tell whether they were fit or not, for that particular environment.
Quote time…
“It’s not stupid. It’s advanced!”
I think I just figured out why I didn’t get the swine flu!
it’s time for the Doom song!!
Seth is correct, from a biological standpoint. Evolution is not considered to be directional by modern scientists. Evolution is a descriptive term for the change which we witness when organisms encounter the forces of nature: opportunities to mate and reproduce–and whether that female will respond to one’s attractions/efforts, sources of food and water, predators, climate, rockfalls, disease, plus the random gene shuffling and mutations and the extreme gene shuffling under certain stressors. All of these can cause one’s genetic line to die out, to alter, or to succeed and expand in population, depending. And unlike your high school textbook, scientists do not expect ‘new and improved’ as the result–only ‘altered’.
Viking and Seth, you like this new(er than me) guy? He seems fairly logical and is a good debater
plus, he raises good questions.
I like this new guy, and you. Always nice having more intelligent folks around.
Oh, I concur. I didn’t say “improved,” I merely said “fittest.”
I recently read an intriguing article regarding horse evolution that agrees regarding “alteration” in evolution.
However, that would still be regarded as the fittest, as the current iteration of the horse emerged without REAL human intervention (well, until the last hundred years or so
).
I have included the link for the article I recently read.
Let me reiterate: fitness criteria are constantly changing. Sickle cell anemia is bad, right? If you have it, you are less fit? Not necessarily. In Africa, malaria is a worse problem than anemia, and the mutation that creates sickle cell anemia also provides resistance to malaria.
I think I just figured out why I didn’t get malaria!
I see where the confusion is coming from. Most people who think that Darwinism is an accurate (or at least fairly accurate) description of the origin and development of species don’t expand it’s role like that.
They simply don’t apply darwiniam logic to ethical problems. The two are separate, like linguistics and computing. You wouldn’t analyze prose in C+, and you wouldn’t fix a corrupted hard drive with verse. Similarly, the logic of ‘those best suited to their environment survive and reproduce’ is only used to figue out where species came from.
I agree that ethics are defined by man. What I would also say is that, whatever man’s origins may have been, we have grown beyond them. We can now choose to define, for ourselves, how we will understand our lives. It may be where we came from, but it doesn’t have to be all we are or will be.
It’s called “compassion”, and is the same thing that makes 3 otherwise intelligent adults jump into a raging torrent to try and save a pet dog, and is the basis of the US and UK elite military forces (that’s real elite, not just marines [and yes marines are above average]) “not one man left behind” doctrines.
Given that, do you still think it doesn’t fit with Darwinian evolution?
purple switch, I…think I love you. But I wanna know for sure…come on over an’ post all night….
I love you.
Wild Thing!
*swoons*
I fall asleep at the worst times…
As a youth, I dreamed of one day owning an ice cream truck which would play Wild Thing and Purple Haze, exclusively. Groovy!
I think today I would add Savoy Truffle to the playlist, to keep things funky.
There’s one not too far from me that plays an ice-cream jingle bell version of “Fur Elise”.
I have never understood why ice-cream trucks don’t play Boston. Maybe that’s just me, but I’d sprint for Rock ‘n Roll Band, while eating, so’s to not miss the next verse.
As I further consider the ice-cream truck playlist, I have to rethink having only a few songs….the repetition might make me homicidal. I think a funky classic rock truck would be best, then we could throw in some Boston, and maybe some Bowie and Cream.
That neighborhood would have the luckiest kids to have ever been born. Good music and snack treats? It doesn’t get a whole lot better than that.
It sure doesn’t.
Interestingly, artificial simulations of evolution have independently developed altruism, without any overt interference by the experimenters. As near as we can tell, humans (and perhaps other tribal primates and pack animals) are genetically predisposed towards altruism as it increases the survival rate of the tribe overall, even if it doesn’t increase (and possibly decreases) the survival rate of the individual. So even though a family might decrease its chance of survival by sharing with another family that isn’t as well off, in a tribal situation the two are likely quite closely linked by blood so doing so increases the overall survival rate of the blood line, carrying forward the altruistic trait.
Humans got to where we are today not by working seperately, but by working together – our capacity to communicate complex ideas and thereby co-operate more fully is the single most defining trait of our species. Ignoring our traditional advantages does not, to me, seem like a good plan.
@Markus – “Most liberals believe homo sapiens should receive equal resources regardless of their ability to adapt to the environment and survive on their own…” I’m mostly liberal, but I also believe in personal responsibility and so do all the liberals I know. To our way of thinking, only people who are truly unable to provide for themselves due to handicap or disability should get assistance in obtaining those equal resources. Those who are unwilling to provide for themselves can go piss up a rope.
1- You’re making a straw man argument here. I don’t know anybody who believes that “darwinism” is a moral code. In fact, be careful of the word “darwinism.” It’s really a word meant to imply that people who believe in evolution are dogmatic and follow the leader blindly. In fact, any real scientist will tell you that Darwin was wrong on some accounts; though the underlying theory has survived, not all details have.
2- Evolution does not dictate that a species needs to be perfect; in fact, it simply states that a species will survive if it has the MINIMAL charactoristics required to do so. All species have individuals with deformities, and humans are no different.
While I encourage everyone to ask questions that allow them to better understand the other side, such questions need to be posted in proper forums. This is not one.
I would also encourage you to do at least SOME research on your own. The fact that you set up a straw man this severe shows that you are not just uninformed, but that you’re actually ignorant of what the other side believes. Being uninformed is ok; nobody knows everything. But don’t bash a position when you don’t ACTUALLY know what the position is.
Wow. You’re an arrogant a@@hole, aren’t you. People are having polite, civilised discourse and you have to swoop in and call someone ignorant and say they’re bashing when clearly they’re not.
Nice work, dickhead.
Markus here is claiming that those who support evolution should all be cruel to those with disabilities, and you’re saying that I’m the one in the wrong here?
- He is creating a straw man argument.
- He doesn’t understand the disconnect between science and moral standards.
- He has not done prior research to have an informed position on the topic, and is therefore ignorant by definition.
- He is bashing those who support evolution by saying that they also support the cruelty to those who are in some way incapable of benefiting those who make a less-than-average contribution to society.
Those are my stated positions. Instead of throwing ad hominem attacks at me, why don’t you actually argue my point?
He’s not claiming that, you jag-off.
In refutation:
1. You are a straw-filled dick.
2. You are still a dick.
3. You are an ignorant dick.
4. You are an inferring dick.
Did I mention, you’re a dick?
Oh James you must be such a big strong conquerer of a man!
Nope. I’m a total nerd. Wanna see my RAM?
Actually, I’d like to see your civility.
Can’t help it. I’m not PC. When I see dickery, I call dick.
Your choice. See if you’re taken seriously here.
Meh. Zzzall good.
Dick.
The fact that you do not reasonably argue my point seems to show that you CAN’T argue my point. If you believe that you are correct, certainly you can support your position, yes?
You’re doing a fine job of supporting it for me
But do keep belaboring your dickery. It’s SO amusing to witness.
James, c’mon man- I know you’re better than this. Please don’t start the mudslinging contests, we both know that can’t end well, and Chordus, while his post may have seemed rude, just needs a little clarification/response from markus himself, that’s all.
Actually, I’m not. Holier-than-thouites need slain.
End of discussion.
-sigh- Well maybe instead of slaying them, you can act just as “holy” and reasonable as they claim to be and watch them flounder once they realize they’re not the ONLY person intelligent enough to argue coherently?
Chordus- that wasn’t aimed at you, just a nice solution to James’ problem.
By the way, James, the score is now Applejacks to Water bottle and I’m playing with the paddlestick bandito mango-fruits, I’ve collected all three and am about to win.
I have removed your mask and placed it in the opposite zone. Thusly, you fail, and the score is mackeral – Pi#.
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
Spam, Spam, (Lovely Spam, Wonderful Spam!) Spam, Spam
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
Spam, Spam, (Lovely Spam, Wonderful Spam!) Spam, Spam
You’re mistaking trolls for rational beings. Arguing a point is just a touch over their heads.
Markus seems to genuinely not understand, which is fine. We’re attempting to clear up his confusion just above; your input would be welcome.
Wrong. Chordus is the troll, and it’s bull@h!t.
While I encourage everyone to ask questions that allow them to better understand the other side, such questions need to be posted in proper forums. This is not one.
Coming in here trying to stir up trouble with someone who is clearly rationally discussing a topic is trollism. And dickery.
Purple isn’t calling Markus a troll- he’s saying Chordus has mistaken Markus FOR one, James. And Chordus, go somewhere else. If it’s not a proper forum for discussion, why did you feel the need to read ALL the way down here and comment? You just pissed people off when Markus was merely asking a question, not bashing anyone.
I know, right? My favorite part — “People who don’t understand an argument shouldn’t bring it up.”
Is this pinhead also against public education?
You are correct in saying that he legitimately doesn’t understand. And, in my original post, I did indeed put up some points that would perhaps get him thinking about the situation. To call somebody ignorant and then NOT give them the facts would be ridiculous.
However, I maintain that this is not the place for this conversation. There are plenty of science forums whose members would be more than happy to explain the situation, and in much better detain than can be done here.
I also maintain that, buy building a straw man argument like the one he did, Markus is in fact showing that he is ignorant of the position of those who support evolution. It’s my belief that people who do not understand an argument should not bring it up. I will concede that this is the one point of my argument that is opinion-based, and as such, I must apologize for what may have been seen as being too harsh.
James, however, is another story. By failing to address even one of my points, and instead throwing insults, I have to conclude that he is more interested in trolling than becoming involved in this argument.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Spit your dick out and act like a human being, bridge-boy.
I dunno, his human impression is more convincing than your adult impression. Humans make an awful lot of foolish mistakes, but adults don’t cuss someone out for them.
A dick is a dick is a dick. No arguing that
Well… that depends. You can always argue that a dick isn’t a real dick, because it’s malformed, or fake, or something…. >.>
Unless it’s a strap-on. Know much about those, James?
Meh, to address James first, he’s usually pretty nice- I think you just got him a little angry with this one “He is bashing those who support evolution by saying that they also support the cruelty to those who are in some way incapable of benefiting those who make a less-than-average contribution to society.”
I mean, I can see why that would make him angry, but Markus was just wondering how people can both believe in Evolution and try to prevent Darwin’s Theory of Evolution from affecting humanity by helping the “weaker” members survive. He’s not right, by any means, for example- if money was a definite indicator of an advantageous trait, then he would be right in the sense that it would be *technically* the right thing to do for the species, but that doesn’t make it a moral code, and I think Markus knows that.
Oh, are you a PK admin? No? Then don’t tell other posters what topics are acceptable for discussion here, please. Well, unless you want to start a debate as to whether the topic is appropriate or if, in fact, all topics are appropriate if there is anyone who cares to discuss them.
Look, we discuss a lot of different topics here; some political and many not. It keeps things lively. This one was evolution and altruism; sometimes it’s coffee, sometimes gaming; the next might be something as abstract as whether free will exists or as prosaic as whether ziploc bags are better than plastic wrap.
Truth. And also, it’s a fine place to bring questions Chordus- there are a LOT of intelligent, reasonable people that post here all the time. Sure, we have our trolls and general morons (noone specific that I’ve noticed), but overall, PK is a fine place to discuss something- there’s legitimate debating and discussion about everything, and sources cited every time provide new information for whatever you needed. So, please please don’t tell the readers and commenters here what to write- we can take care of our own business, and if you haven’t got an avatar, you probably don’t read enough of these comments recently to be speaking in an educated manner about it.
I wrap you in plastic before I nibble your skin. Over and over, under and in. With a hand to spank away your chills. Over and over until we don’t question free will.
-shiver-
I see you shiver with antici… pation
But maybe the rain is really to blame
So I’ll remove the cause
But not the symptom.
-Urinates in fear-
Your pants have had a tough day! That’s assuming you’re still wearing pants.
Especially since it is just a quote from Rocky Horror Picture Show. I, however, am only quoting myself.
Well, suicide, i keep hitting the home so much that I don’t have time to go to the bathroom and plastic wrap scares me. And no, I’m not wearing pants. Happy?
At least your pants are happy!
You will find my skill to be a tantric hallucination
For which you won’t be the same
As I put your pulse into acceleration
Just to start our little game
Tyler, aren’t you like 15 or something?
Not a slam, of course.
Be careful, DWN.
Since I am replying to Diss and Purple, Tyler’s age is a bit irrelevant to me. Besides, I’m just flexing some writer’s block out of my system.
Yeah, 16
Death isn’t responding to my comment, nor has he anything to worry about legally from me.
All’s chilly.
Digging the blockage removal.
Lol, and I missed my cue completely. Sorry, DWN! Nice stuff.
@Diss: I can’t flirt with you and molest your brain if you aren’t here, woman! Now I will sit here and sulk in my emo corner.
MY EMO CORNER!
BAD Death!
@dwn: It’s been a busy week, is my only excuse. I wasn’t on at all yesterday.
@Diss: You’re forgiven cuz you’re adorable and kick legal ass for your president.
Let me give to a tip here. You’re not getting anyone to actually argue the point, likely because you’re acting pompous and aloof. I do the same thing sometimes, and it’s as harmful to debate as cussing.
Tone down the high flautin’ lingo, and you’ll have a lot more success.
Survival of the fittest means that the fittest species survive. Culling off members of a society looks good on paper but consider the groups who have done so. Where are they now? Are they even a recent memory?
We aren’t a herd of deer who needs to be culled lest we all starve. A lot of animals care for their ill members and when those members are well again, the whole group prospers. Same for us.
Consider Rome and Sparta, which society lasted the longest? Which society took better care of their ill?
It is human instinct to care for each other, it is the tribal mentality. A human who is unable to run might have other skills for the tribe to exploit.
Taking at face value, we are in this as a species, not individuals. Ergo, we provide for others so that they may contribute in other ways.
We cannot use wealth as an indicator of fitness. Just look what happened to basically every society that prizes wealth and station over everything else. Besides, inheriting wealth isn’t a sign of fitness. Perfect dolts and incompetents can get wealthy by quirk of birth and it proves nothing of their societal usefulness or even usefulness other than consuming oxygen to help a random plant.
Humans are goal and tribe oriented. As individuals, we want to succeed and be comfortable. As a tribe, we don’t want to sit alone as that would not be comfortable. So we help others so they may contribute further.
Oh boy. Fluffikins will be the new czar of somthin
The new Czar of Smackin’ Down Dumbass Trolls, methinks.
i second that motion!
(non-ordinal post fyi
)
Czar of Cuddles! Awwww….
Czar of fabric softener?
More Obama heavy petting? Wheres the funny?
You’ve gotta stop saying “Obama heavy petting.” It’s making me randy!
Excuse me, it is not Obama heavy petting, it’s clearly teddy bear heavy petting!
Respect the bear.
Or you’ll get no cuddles.
I’ve always said that the world would be a significantly better place if we all hugged a plushie at least once a day.
Awww… he’s making da scrunchy face!
By the way, does anyone know how to make a customized avatar come up? I have a username and password and everything, and am logged in, but Mr. Grumpy Pentagon keeps appearing.
Do you have a WordPress account or just a Cheeznet account? I think you need a WordPress account and to log into that before hitting the Cheeznet, if you want to use a custom avatar.
Or you can go to gravatar.com, follow the instructions and then post the link into the “website” field of the reply box.
Ah! Fascinating. thanks! You may now return to your regularly scheduled hilarity.
That explains a LOT….
The bear is smarter