|
The mechanism for such a thing is quite simple to explain: intelligent, charismatic male, is successful, marries and has children with a beautiful (healthy, fertile), good (probably will not cheat given opportunity) woman. Children inherit those traits, in whole or in part.
Of course, population wide statistics don't tell you much about any specific individual.
This reeks of pseudoscience. The kind of thing that "sounds about right" but actually has very little factual basis. And considering the kind of pseudoscience you presented before about human relationships which were hilariously false and simplistic, I'm going to remain skeptical until presented with the evidence. Your testimonial is not enough.
|
You do realize that if weren't fucking around in the Middle East we wouldn't have had 1/10 of the terroists/enemies we do today?
This is the biggest horrible idea wandering around politics as if it is actually true, and it has been since the Soviets straight made it up as part of their orthodoxy about class struggle 90 years ago.
|
I'm sure there's some truth to it, but I'd hesitate to say that it's direct causation.
Good healthy nutrition promotes both healthy physical and mental development. So someone that eats well is in general going to be more physically attractive, and probably smarter.
To boot, society treats beautiful people way better than ugly people. Merely being attractive gives you tons of advantages in opportunity and experience. I think we've all just internalized it to the point where we don't realize it. I was a total bitch to the fat girl in middle school, and I'm sure she struggled greatly with confidence and school being made fun of every day.
|
On January 10 2012 06:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You do realize that if weren't fucking around in the Middle East we wouldn't have had 1/10 of the terroists/enemies we do today? This is the biggest horrible idea wandering around politics as if it is actually true, and it has been since the Soviets straight made it up as part of their orthodoxy about class struggle 90 years ago.
Ehhhh at the same time, take a look at pictures of what a family home in Afghanistan looks like after US or UN bombs blast it to pieces during dinner. Children splattered across the wall, etc.
1/10 may be a major exaggeration, but to think that we aren't antagonizing a population by our military involvement is absurd.
|
On January 10 2012 06:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You do realize that if weren't fucking around in the Middle East we wouldn't have had 1/10 of the terroists/enemies we do today? This is the biggest horrible idea wandering around politics as if it is actually true, and it has been since the Soviets straight made it up as part of their orthodoxy about class struggle 90 years ago.
Really?
I've read testimonies by Bin Laden and guys like that. The no.1 reason they state for their "terrorism"/hatred of America is because of murdered civillians in various Middle Eastern territories. They're not quite as insane as we like to portray them as.
(Okay, he might be insane for interpreting the Quaran in certain forms, but that's not what I mean)
You know why the Iranians hate us? Because we had their President killed and put our friend in power.
(I think we've done this for something like 11 or 12 countries now, but I don't feel like listing each one out)
edit: I'm not saying we shouldn't intervene in certain cases, but the amount we do it is absolutely ridiculous.
And nah, I don't think 1/10 is really an exaggeration. Do you know how much shit we've done since the end of WWII? (Again, we might not be as "rich" or as "powerful" as we are if he hadn't, so I guess it depends on how you value quality of life vs potential deaths in other nations)
|
You trust Bin Laden?
Personally, I wouldn't trust a murdering terrorist like Bin Laden as far as I could throw him, much less trust that he is telling the truth as to why he did the things he did.
I'm pretty sure Bin Laden and all of his cronies are exactly as insane as they have portrayed themselves to be. But I guess that's just my own opinion. Never met the guy so I couldn't say for sure.
|
On January 10 2012 06:53 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
You trust Bin Laden?
Personally, I wouldn't trust a murdering terrorist like Bin Laden as far as I could throw him, much less trust that he is telling the truth as to why he did the things he did.
I'm pretty sure Bin Laden and all of his cronies are exactly as insane as they have portrayed themselves to be. But I guess that's just my own opinion. Never met the guy so I couldn't say for sure.
Trust him? Yes...
Support him? Obviously not. 
He believes what he's doing is right, so why the hell would he lie about it? And well most of his thoughts are ridiculous, the one I'm specifically talking about does make sense if you actually use your brain.
|
I refuse to believe that Bin Laden thinks murdering thousands of innocent people is "right". He may say that he believes it is right, but I have no doubt in my mind that he absolutely knows how evil and disgusting that was. Look at me talking about him in the present tense. Ha... hard habit to break.
Actually, it makes very little sense, even if you accept his premise. Basically, Americans bomb and kill my people. (This is so not what they think, but whatever...)
Let's make that idea: A.
A = Americans kill and bomb my people.
Now let's introduce: B.
B = Americans use things like attacks as excuses to bomb and kill people.
So you're saying that Bin Laden thought adding A+B with an attack against America would do anything but continue A+B? Honestly, how could you argue that attacking us on 9/11 was in any way designed to stop us from attacking them? That makes no sense whatsoever, and I am "us(ing) my brain" thank you very much.
|
On January 10 2012 06:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You do realize that if weren't fucking around in the Middle East we wouldn't have had 1/10 of the terroists/enemies we do today? This is the biggest horrible idea wandering around politics as if it is actually true, and it has been since the Soviets straight made it up as part of their orthodoxy about class struggle 90 years ago.
Well that is part of the issue.
If we Weren't messing around in the middle east we probably would have ~1/10 of the hostile theocracies/islamic fundamentalists as enemies.
However, we would probably still be in the middle of a Cold War as the Soviet Union would have Its hands all over the Middle East. (those theocracies and islamic fundamentalists would be fighting the Soviets instead of us because we left them alone.)
Basically staring in WWII we began a process of "lesser of 2 evils" Help the Soviets to beat the Fascists, Help the Islamic fundamentalists/military dictators to beat the Soviets... not sure what lesser of 2 evils will be used to bring down islamic fundamentalism (the military dictators seem to be falling to it).
|
On January 10 2012 07:01 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
I refuse to believe that Bin Laden thinks murdering thousands of innocent people is "right". He may say that he believes it is right, but I have no doubt in my mind that he absolutely knows how evil and disgusting that was. Look at me talking about him in the present tense. Ha... hard habit to break.
Actually, it makes very little sense, even if you accept his premise. Basically, Americans bomb and kill my people. (This is so not what they think, but whatever...)
Let's make that idea: A.
A = Americans kill and bomb my people.
Now let's introduce: B.
B = Americans use things like attacks as excuses to bomb and kill people.
So you're saying that Bin Laden thought adding A+B with an attack against America would do anything but continue A+B? Honestly, how could you argue that attacking us on 9/11 was in any way designed to stop us from attacking them? That makes no sense whatsoever, and I am "us(ing) my brain" thank you very much.
Bin Laden may be a nut, but you can't deny that seeing your family/friends killed in front of your eyes by foriegn attacks wouldn't piss you off.
They're not just going to roll over and accept whatever we're doing. If your family was brutally killed by bombs from any foriegn country, you would absolutely hate those people with every fiber of your being.
|
On January 10 2012 07:01 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
I refuse to believe that Bin Laden thinks murdering thousands of innocent people is "right". He may say that he believes it is right, but I have no doubt in my mind that he absolutely knows how evil and disgusting that was. Look at me talking about him in the present tense. Ha... hard habit to break.
Actually, it makes very little sense, even if you accept his premise. Basically, Americans bomb and kill my people. (This is so not what they think, but whatever...)
Let's make that idea: A.
A = Americans kill and bomb my people.
Now let's introduce: B.
B = Americans use things like attacks as excuses to bomb and kill people.
So you're saying that Bin Laden thought adding A+B with an attack against America would do anything but continue A+B? Honestly, how could you argue that attacking us on 9/11 was in any way designed to stop us from attacking them? That makes no sense whatsoever, and I am "us(ing) my brain" thank you very much.
He doesn't consider them innocent though, and if he does, he believes they go straight to heaven.
Yes the guy is (was) deluded, but he doesn't (didn't) believe he is evil, nor do his followers, and thats why he has so much support over there.
And honestly dude, if someone came and bombed your family would you just sit on your ass and not try and get revenge? If you would then your honeslty weirder than him.
Whatever, this is offtopic. The point is though, if we didn't start so many wars we wouldn't have as many problems or enemies. Don't even see how this is questionable.
|
Oh he knows how innocent that are. He didn't attack a military base, or the Capital. He attacked a civilian center.
He knows how evil he is, and so do his followers. And they don't have as much support over there as you think they do. Nothing is so black and white.
If someone bombed my family, I wouldn't decide that I should go kill people who had nothing to do with it other than the fact that they were citizens of the country that did the bombing. That would be insane. That would be like shooting you because your brother hurt me. And even if I did think that you personally were responsible, revenge is not acceptable.
Besides, what evidence do you have that Bin Laden watched his family get bombed, or has even lost a member of his family to an UNPROVOKED bombing?
I don't see how you could possibly debate it either, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
On January 10 2012 07:19 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Oh he knows how innocent that are. He didn't attack a military base, or the Capital. He attacked a civilian center.
He knows how evil he is, and so do his followers. And they don't have as much support over there as you think they do. Nothing is so black and white.
If someone bombed my family, I wouldn't decide that I should go kill people who had nothing to do with it other than the fact that they were citizens of the country that did the bombing. That would be insane. That would be like shooting you because your brother hurt me. And even if I did think that you personally were responsible, revenge is not acceptable.
We're not just talking one incident. Not just "you lost a family member to a random attack", but bombs going off in your city *every day* while occupied by foriegn troops. And it goes on for years.
|
On January 10 2012 07:19 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Oh he knows how innocent that are. He didn't attack a military base, or the Capital. He attacked a civilian center.
He knows how evil he is, and so do his followers. And they don't have as much support over there as you think they do. Nothing is so black and white.
If someone bombed my family, I wouldn't decide that I should go kill people who had nothing to do with it other than the fact that they were citizens of the country that did the bombing. That would be insane. That would be like shooting you because your brother hurt me. And even if I did think that you personally were responsible, revenge is not acceptable.
Besides, what evidence do you have that Bin Laden watched his family get bombed, or has even lost a member of his family to an UNPROVOKED bombing?
I don't see how you could possibly debate it either, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
You're looking at it too one dimensionally. He belives American's support the concept of invading Middle Eastern countries because we put the people that do it in power.
It'd be more like you shooting someone who helped my brother, which well I wouldn't condone, is more reasonable than just shooting some random dude.
I don't have evidence his family is killed, nor did I ever say his family was killed. Like I said, he talks about innocents in various countries, and beleives himself their protecter/etc.
Again, just to reiiterate, the dude is batshit crazy in his beliefs and thought process for the most part, but I can see why someone, (at least say, one of his suicide bomber followers) who has watched their family die would be attracted to his cause and believe it to be right.
|
On January 10 2012 07:19 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Oh he knows how innocent that are. He didn't attack a military base, or the Capital. He attacked a civilian center.
He knows how evil he is, and so do his followers. And they don't have as much support over there as you think they do. Nothing is so black and white.
If someone bombed my family, I wouldn't decide that I should go kill people who had nothing to do with it other than the fact that they were citizens of the country that did the bombing. That would be insane. That would be like shooting you because your brother hurt me. And even if I did think that you personally were responsible, revenge is not acceptable.
Besides, what evidence do you have that Bin Laden watched his family get bombed, or has even lost a member of his family to an UNPROVOKED bombing?
I don't see how you could possibly debate it either, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
That somehow sounds really stupid:D:D yes a Paul supporter here, the one thing I would like to answer though is this:
"If someone bombed my family, I wouldn't decide that I should go kill people who had nothing to do with it other than the fact that they were citizens of the country that did the bombing. That would be insane."
Of course it's insane that people kill people, and that people counter kills the first people, heck it's a crazy world. But their way of thinking, is totally logical, like this: a country attacks me, the country is democratic eg it represents its citizens will and the citizens decide it's future, so if I terrorize the citizens enough they recognize that their actions have a blowback, and stop it, or something like this. Also what's this bs about revenge is not acceptable? LoL try to tell that to anyone who's lost someone important.
|
MasterBlasterCaster it is kinda funny how you dont even bother reading what the others write so you can make your naive good vs evil world view work.
The facts are
a democraticly elected president in Iran got overthrown by a CIA coup because he broke the Oil monopoly the UK had in Iran. Think about how desperate you have to be in order to ask the pope to get rid of your current president. Then you might be able to grasp how bad it must have been in Iran when the Shah was in power.
Osama Bin Laden and similar people were financed and supported by the US government and the pakistani government to build up an army of mercenaries who were recruited on the basis of defending a muslim country against the evil communist attackers which would of course attract religous extremists. While at the same time the moderate forces inside Afghanistan were left alone while the soviets occupied the country and even after they left there was no help for Afghanistan to rebuild. Which lead to islamist extremists taking over.
The US has stationed a lot of military in Saudi Arabia. This is THE most holy place for any muslim because of the cities of Medina and Mecca. Normally a non muslim would have massive problems even getting into that country. Christians being there and even worse soldiers is an insult to any religious muslim. How would you feel if lets say Iraq stationed an army outside of your churchdoor for the sake of "peacekeeping" when everybody knows that's not the reason.
I dont want to defend what terrorists do, but it pisses me off to no end when people like you come around and say that everything they do is unprovoked or that the US did not do anything against them. History is not something that started 20 years ago. All of theses conflicts which surface today have much older roots.
|
On January 10 2012 06:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You do realize that if weren't fucking around in the Middle East we wouldn't have had 1/10 of the terroists/enemies we do today? This is the biggest horrible idea wandering around politics as if it is actually true, and it has been since the Soviets straight made it up as part of their orthodoxy about class struggle 90 years ago.
The whole Iran situation is a direct result of our CIA coup there back in the fifties, where we replaced some elected dude with someone who wasn't elected, which got a lot of civilians killed. Which caused massive, massive blowback in the seventies, like the pursuit of nuclear capability and a theocratic quasi-dictatorship which got a lot of civilians killed. Just to make sure a foreign country never fucks with them in the same way again.
Iraq and the rest of the Middle East/Central Asia is largely of imperialism from the late 1800s and early 1900s. Very similar to Africa, where western powers carved up boundaries without respect to people or culture and favored some ethnicities over others. Except in this case, NATO and the Soviets decided to hand them first world weapons for free. They even threw in "training" and "motivation" without additional charge. Granted, the whole imperialism thing in the area is mostly Europe's fault, not the fault of the United States.
And then there's Israel. Where we exchanged Zionist bombings for radical Islam bombings plus a sweet Middle Eastern military base immediately after WWII. Enough said.
I guess this can all be seen as blowback from the Cold War and the whole proxy war thing, using other countries as battlegrounds and military spheres of influences. To what extent that it was justified is debatable; the end of humanity as we knew it was, of course, a very real threat back then. But what is true is that much of the problems in that region are of direct consequence from the actions of first world nations. It's not pure black and white. Not the way it's portrayed nowadays.
If anyone reads Naruto, it's pretty much Pain's country in a nutshell, without talk-no-jutsu.
|
when you say "iraq posting military units outside your church", that makes it sound like the US built an airbase next to the Masjid al-Haram.
|
On January 10 2012 07:53 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
when you say "iraq posting military units outside your church", that makes it sound like the US built an airbase next to the Masjid al-Haram.
It didn't? o.O
|
Are Americans really this batshit crazy?
I've tried to read through this thread and its a complete shit-storm. The republican nominees are either biggoted, stupid, bible-thumpers or all of the above. Not a single one seems like a logical choice to vote for if you love freedom.
I thought the democrats were imcompetent but seriously wtf republicans.
Gingrich should just be renamed to Grinch based on his opinions lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
