Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Dinosaur, Nov 1, 2017.
Darwin awards are given to those who improve the gene pool by removing themselves from it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What's the matter no one responded to you before so you post it again in another section?
That is against site rules you know, right?
Origin: Sorry about that. I either forgot about Posting to another Thread or thought the Post did not happen.
Where is the other Post?
It was in Science and society.
I use to like looking at they Darwin awards but I've come I feel that it is wrong to be entertained by someone's death. Not to mention that with all the stupid shit I do - I just might end up getting one of those awards...
the problem is nature works in exactly the opposite direction. those who should remove themselves from the gene pool tend to have more offspring than those who are shouldn't remove themselves from the gene pool. there are morons, scum, assholes, perverts, and idiots galore everywhere, male and female.
That's not nature, that's society. Too many passengers, not enough crew.
no, that is nature. it's indicative of the low ceiling of organic life blueprint actually is. it's design is primitive. society is an extension of nature, both in it's pros and cons.
Own definitions time.
why don't you stfu with your useless one-liners? how about that?
what is so dishonest about society is how it defines itself. for instance, the pretense there is some definitive divide between typical sociopaths/psychopaths labeled on a more bolder level such as people like serial killers etc and then deem the rest of society as good and acceptable people. that latter part is self-serving bullshit.
it's literally offensive because the truth is i'm not sure if it's not even more contemptible for the usual scum that is prevalent which just are typical nasty human beings through abuse, jealousy, malice, prejudice, perversion, lies, gossip, hatred, cheating etc. humans are ugly and faulty disgusting creatures, especially character wise and that's the general public who hype themselves up to be something they are not. most people are not even better, they are just too cowardly to take their evil to a level that is flagrantly noticeable by society but that doesn't mean their evil isn't just as damaging or revolting. i grew up with a whole network of people that were part of a wider community that were scum of the earth and obviously that included the general public if they naturally vibed/related with them ( and they did) and what i learned is how sneakily and cleverly manipulative their act was and their abuse and evil was done in a way that was in intent just as nasty and malicious but that would not get them in trouble with the law. this is how most people are and most people are sociopaths, society is just not going to label itself as that, of course. meaning the only difference between general public and those in prison is usually the outlandish part of their crimes, not the evil intent itself. there are tons of nasty, dirty, evil hearted scum considered normal everyday people and they deserve to go to hell just the same.
Society is such a liar to bolster it's false ego. The idea that people are more 'evolved' is laughable. who, why and how is the question?
even starting from grade school, you notice that the evil and scum nature starts showing itself pretty early on that will be the cause of the stench, decay, perversion, dishonesty, corruption, violence and evil that will permeate society both openly and in a less qualitative state.
the bullying/abuse, prejudice, gossip, pettiness, jealousy, malice, hypocritical, dishonesty, immorality, selfishness as well as stupidity. there was nothing innocent about kids after around the third grade and that is how evil nature at root is and evolves because that must be the root of the universal laws. pfft!
it was an undeniable theme that those who were good, humble, caring or kinder were the rare or less common ones than those who tended to be just selfish or sociopathic which proves that consensus of society as a whole itself. which makes sense because the root of this universe is evil and it's proven with the patterns of life. just because most people are not out there killing eachother isn't because they have more moral scruples, it's for society's own survival, not that the general public is inherently better. puleeze.
i just find it pervertedly contemptible with the juxtaposition of the so-called clean and infallible 'logic' of science with the opposite gross, nasty, faulty, illogical, and perverse nature of organic life.
also, the idea that one can trust nature to do the right thing is insulting to everything that is right. it does have a low evolved ceiling because scum will try to tear you down for the wrong reasons, which results in an overall lower quality society. this is a universe where even a good quality can be subjugated, damaged or even destroyed by scum motivated none other than competition, without respect or consideration for the value of what that is. that is a fundamental flaw of the design of nature and it's indicative of those lower standards.
case in point and this is common, my son was bullied in school by children who were nasty and was taken out to be homeschooled and in one neighborhood, some of the local boys would taunt him because they noticed that he wasn't as scummy as they were or better than him in some way. these kids were not any better than him and in fact, they were morons and assholes. Yes, this is common primal base, scummy nature!!! thankfully, he has good quality friends and people that are on his level to associate as well as good quality friends he found later. to give so much credit to nature is as infallible wisdom is a fallacy. one could argue that is nature doing what it should but it is NOT! he is a highly intelligent as well as a good person. this proves that nature has faults and imperfections itself. that's why we have a brain to ascertain to make actions besides just relying on base instincts which would only keep one at a certain level of values. i would argue that the base nature should be overcome.
the difference between people can be so great that it can be likened almost literally to a different species. in the lower animal kingdom, you will notice there is little variance between animals within the same species (this indicates where the universal ceiling/coding for life really is) but the differences between people with not only intelligence but nature/character is phenomenally large in it's gulf. there are people who are no smarter than an ameoba and those who are super geniuses. there are those with almost saintlike nature whereas there exist humans so depraved and evil, it's almost unbelievable but it's true. the most deceptive and superficial part is that the outward shell/body and basic physical functions are similar only.
the theory of evolution is mistakenly applied to humans when that structure doesn't actually apply any longer as it's gone beyond because that blueprint breaks down as the integrity of the coding was not written past that level. this is why in human societies, you can also have scum rise to the top using the very base coding to compete against more superior qualities, because it's not recognized in nature on a primal level where simple predation is always effective at root/start, it's only on the abstract level at that point that it exists and outside of it's domain, even if it's legitimate. when people devote their brain power and energy to higher functions and values, it is not always an assurance of protection against inferior memes of competition which it's main advantage is cunning and sabotage. there are people who are not better or smarter than the next person or even may be inferior who may succeed versus another simply by chance or circumstances or present politics as well as other anomalies. the theory still applies but not with as much uniformity as it does in the lower kingdom.
one of the lamest and prevalent motivations about the majority of people i've found is they are motivated primarily by ego based attainment after basic needs are met. much of this falseness and misplaced people anywhere from certain relationships, jobs, social circles, titles etc could mostly be alleviated by not tacking on adulation or connotations of superiority to any position, person or attainment. this would create a society that would then not be superficially motivated but by actual interest and passion for what they genuinely like, care about or interested in.
i have noticed that even most people who believed they were attracted to me were not interested in me but by some aspect, for instance. even i know part of the stepfather's actual interest in me was that he was upset that i might outshine him in life, even though it was lame that he would feel in competition with a female and a child?? but people are fuking crazy! he was a horribly seethingly jealous and malignant type person with a huge ego. people like this are so dangerous , they should reach the top just so their itch can be scratched because they make everyone else suffer around them if their ego is not satisfied. but he actually liked what he was doing, it's just that he wanted to tear down anyone who 'might' (within his reach) attain higher than him simply because he wasn't going to get the kind of respect that others would in a different type of position than what his interest was which was basically lower blue collar after military etc. then since he wasn't going to be able to reach a status of superority over others, so he used religion to become a pastor to try and gain reverence from others, not as if he deserved it though.
if society wasn't like that, then maybe me and others would have been spared some of this unfair abuse that assholes whose greed for status or ego is paramount!!! fuk!!! besides that, i know many people whose sole primary achievement was based on attaining a level just for the social respect and adulation. people are actually quite lame and not what they seem. this is how most people are!!!
even without these added connotations, there would still be people reaching for the pinnacle of their chosen careers or whatever, due to actual interest or care and not just for some idea of a higher status or notoriety. this is one of the reasons why i was even abused so much is by people whose extreme need for respect by society overshadowed and secondary to any real sense of who they are, what they cared about or their values. if society didn't perpetuate a system where bruised egos or ego was such a prize, then you wouldn't have so many impostors in the world or at least a large chunk of it, as well as the people they tear down or stomp on to get it.
this is really the simple basis of a large part of the motivation for sabotaging and abusing/putting other people down, even if they are undeserving of it themselves because society perpetuates this, considering the baseness and simplicity of people's actual motivations.
i mean, people are so simple that if an advertisement tomorrow said buy or attain this, look this way, do this, act this etc and this will mean that you are someone better than or superior than or whatever, people would do that just for those reasons rather than because they actually like or agree with it.
Who are you to decide who "should" have more offspring. Evolution works the way it does, not the way you think it "should" work. Maybe morons, scum, assholes, perverts, and idiots are good for the survival of the species.
lol. that is even a ridiculous, dishonest and illogical statement. i know the only reason you made that statement is because there is really nothing you can do to change it.
if that were true, you should campaign to rescind all laws or standards. and who the hell said i should decide? i'm responding to the op. interesting, you didn't just respond to the op itself which is basically the same concept. didn't like the fleshed out version? lmfao.
you do realize what you just inadvertently revealed about your values, don't you? you just basically indicated that you have no moral values. again, typically the superficial veil of agreeing to a certain standard at a current level of society but not really holding those values. do you really want me to flesh out what you really said? that means you think there is nothing wrong with rapists, murderers etc and they are good for society. yet, i bet in another thread, you would contradict yourself and typically be in horror and disdain of the nyc killings etc. so typical. most people don't even know who the fuk they really are or are dishonest about their real deep values, they are so used to acting or pretending because it makes it easier to get along in society to be socially acceptable.
just like the stupidity of those who will say there is no such thing as evil in one thread and in another chime in that something was evil, usually with the pretense of usual social expectation. that happens a lot even on this forum when it's very honestly presented, out of usual 'polite' fashion, meaning anyone who defends wrong or evil even if presented crudely as condescending, is not really attacking the delivery as much as they pretend. that's when you get to see people's true reaction and what they really think.
Evolution doesn't care about the survival of the species, it just favors those who pass on their genes successfully.
The point I was making is that evolution has nothing to do with my values or yours.
Values are social constructs that have an impact on evolution but they aren't the only factor. Another factor is innovation. Doing something stupid may be Darwin-Award-worthy but it may also help the species to survive. Take Columbus as an example.
Of course it doesn't "care", but passing on the genes fosters survival of the species. It's a result, not a goal.
Which makes your comment "Maybe morons, scum, assholes, perverts, and idiots are good for the survival of the species." moot.
Separate names with a comma.