Friday, 1 August 2008

You Might Be An Idiot: The Circular Idiocy Theorem

Mood: Sad
[Toot!] Index: 0.2
Communism Bit: On
Location: Nakulabye


I just got this idea. See, if it were a good idea, maybe I'd have resisted it. But this was just too bad to leave alone. I'm going to make all of you watch my attempt to start this company. You'll watch it sink or watch it float. I'll be noting the stuff worth telling, until it is clear which direction things went. And I'll be honest, the best way I can be. *blinks solemnly*

Whenever I write a post, I subconsciously choose the audience. Some are meant for friends (and non-friends won't understand them or finish them). Some for enemies. Some for those who are reading here for the first time. Some for the three people who read everything I put up. This one is for those, the last group. I know who you are (one of you told me she prints it, if she can't sit through it immediately). This is for you, for I want to trim our numbers. :o) You always read my tripe? Behold I punish you for this sin, visiting mine wrath upon thy seed, even unto the third and fourth generation. Honestly, though, thank you, and here is a verbose one for us. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. And sisters.

Now, on to the post. It should get long, and even angry. I'll call every last one of you names. I'll be a mean, generalising little twerp. I'll call you names of body parts, and one rear one in particular. Some things just never change. You can blame the mood, this time, on the fact that I've come to the end of my savings. :o) My point, if it has eluded you thus far, is that you're not one of the three people I know who will manage to read all this. Go away now. Thank you.

First, the theorem. Jude has recently developed and tested his Circular Idiocy Theorem. It says:
The farther you try to get from being an idiot, the closer you get to being an idiot.
So, here is some news for you: you might be an idiot. I recently saw some comedian funny enough for me to doubt he was an American. He has some lines that end in "you might be a redneck". (If you're not sure if it's your mother or sister that died, you might be a redneck.) My version is "you might be an idiot".

If you've been employed for long and you still run broke, you might be an idiot. (That "long" is subjective.) You know, The Educated Jew noted that it is outside of the intentions of the capitalist lord to make his employees wealthy, since he'll have no employees, then. It is his Intention, rather, to keep them alive (to rear the next generation of wage slaves), and poor (to stay dependent on his wage); for once I'll let you be the one to infer that this is what the West is doing to the Rest, and not even hint at it myself.
Now, if you're clear-headed enough to work through this paragraph—and one that cites Karl Marx, no less!—and you still wake up to report to your fetters in the slave galley, you might be an idiot. Why work hard to make someone wealthy (and assuredly stay broke), rather than work to get wealthy (and probably get rich)? In both cases, the worst that can happen is that you'll be broke. So, why pick the option that has less light? I know why, actually. You're clinging to the sense of consistency and assurance. You're, in short, trying hard not to be an idiot—and therefore being one. Ever heard of retrenchments? New bosses? Have any habits that may upset your boss (and earn you a sack)? You might be an idiot.
I realised it was sinful to waste my most-productive years making other people wealthy, only to get to the other side of maturity and see withered hopes and dreams, as I stand with impotent men in the pension queue, wondering what could have been if I had only tried and tried again and tried one more time. Sinful. My grandpa, the philosopher, would have slapped me for even considering working for anybody else. I'll try to make up for the wasted time.

If you support Besigye, you might be an idiot. Because the alternative to Museveni, in case you didn't know, is not some angry, bulldog-ugly retard. If you really want an alternative to M7, and parties like Bidandi Ssali's PPP don't impress you, you'd rather stand for President than support a stupid, vengeful, lying, angry, bulldog-ugly bag of pus like Besigye. If you're willing to concede that there are problems with Museveni (and there are more than you can ever know about), you should be willing to stand for President. And isn't it stupid to say the guy you're replacing M7 with is the one who once did M7's business? And also, Besigye paints himself as the opposite of M7. That's the problem: you should be smart enough to know that if you don't want your tea too hot, you don't want it frozen either. The worst, though, is that, even if you're not an idiot, many others are. I am, for example. You can't win! The numbers are on our side! Hence why Besigye even has an audience. If someone is too dumb to know that you can't blame fuel prices on the government—any government outside of the American one—that someone is too dumb to lead anything, leave alone a country. Museveni is smarter than Besigye, and that should matter when you're supporting.
In trying hard not to be an idiot (ie., showing "indignation and anger" about M7, since it is what smart, educated, democratic, idealistic people do, these days), you might be an idiot.

If you do as the society expects you to, you might be an idiot. Because that may require you to, for example, wear suits into the equatorial sun. Sure, you're trying to not be an idiot, and I understand that. But that means you might be an idiot. Do only as you want to; where you concur with society, good for society. Otherwise, it can go to jahannamah. (That's how the rules you're following were made, after all.)

The sweetly-paradoxical part about this Circular Idiocy Theorem is that it means that if you concede to being an idiot and stay put, you'll be less of an idiot than the one who runs away from (to!) idiocy. Hehe. Circles are interesting. They have a property that implies that everyone is equally idiotic, as per this theorem. Don't worry. We are all idiots.

If you believe in evolution, you might be an idiot. You're only trying to believe what you've been told is smart to believe, right? Trying to not be an idiot, and therefore being one. We have the monkeys. We have the humans. We don't have the middle "early men". Why? Weren't they fitter for survival than the monkeys from which they evolved precisely because they were fitter for survival? I know, I don't want to go there, but I can't resist. It's Friends Only night, after all. I might as well spill forth. You know, it takes like billions of members of a species before "speciation happens" (new species coming up). That's why, with at least six billion humans around, not one is a mutant that is a different species. Therefore, if we came from, say, six billion "early men", why do we have only one tooth remaining? Are you too spineless and lacking confidence in your brains to take a stand and concede to not knowing? This is one of many questions nobody has answered for me (gimme answers, if you can). Until then, if you believe in evolution, you might be an idiot. (For evolutionists, there is no possibility of an intelligent designer who makes things that are similar. There is no possibility of an intelligent designer who makes things that are similar, for evolutionists. None, whatsoever. None, whatsoever. Similarity, to them, implies evolution. To them, similarity implies evolution. I feel my respect for someone ebb fast, once I discover that he/she is an evolutionist. I feel my respect for someone ebb fast, once I discover that he/she is an evolutionist. Fearing theism so much as to pick idiocy? Fearing theism so much as to pick idiocy?)
You know, one of Isaac Newton's most-famous lines is not even one of the thoeries. It's a confession of ignorance: Hypotheses non fingo; Latin for "I feign no hypotheses." One looks to these scatterbrains in coats for a sentence that approaches that in honesty, and there is none forthcoming. And their intolerance for dissent is the biggest problem here.

I noticed, in the Saturday papers, that Betty Nambooze was coming out of jail to cheering supporters. And she had an Eminem t-shirt on. Now, that's gangsta. Wear the guy who rhymed on Renegade, and the government will flee from thee. And, is it me, or does Eminem just sound better on other people's tracks? Renegade must be the tightest rhyme since Forget About Dre. Man, that kid might be a prophet! Oh, and since Eminem is arguably White, I'll get in a racist mood.

If you're a White person writing about Africa, you might be an idiot. (Don't knock this, you. Racism is everywhere. Everybody be doin' it. Least I ain't lynchin' 'em. At least there ain't no crystals in the night, outside of White establishments. Them racists are even still relaxed enough to be having sex in South Africa! The racists, if you want them, are the Whites over here. I'm glad Baz doesn't read this far, though; I'll admit that. Exit the damn brackets.) After all, no Whites are going to read this far; remember, this is not one of their blogs. So I'm not offending anyone (which is in line with my intention).

I can prove that they are not reading this: you done seen Global Voices? Good. In my time here, I've seen like three Global Voices correspondents in Uganda. Uganda, if you're an American, is an African country. (Yes to both those questions, American.) These GVO correspondents, they are diverse and interesting. A rich mix of backgrounds and cultures that reflects the country they are reporting about. But they have one thing in common; can you guess? Okay, apart from being Americans? (We skipped that consideration, as "one thing in common" sounds better than "two things in common".) Good. Correct. They are White.

That may be because all other Ugandans turned down the offer to help. I know I'd never work for a blog like that; it's against much of what I hold dear. That would be a post for another time, but I'll likely not say such again. In short, GVO is another pseudo-activism portal to burden us with deluded idealistic paranoids who will take over all 365.25 days with "International Blog For [something] Day". More in my "Blog for Human Rights" post. And it loves stereotypes: result of using only one mindset there. Et cetera; all the problems, in short, that show up when White people write about Africa. Point is, it is where White people write about Africa. Little wonder White people read it. My Africa is some book I saw in Aristoc. Interesting cover: blue-eyed girl with lions. Same week, someone asks why we generally don't blog about politics in these blogs. Well, we have White people to do that for us. Politics, lions, child soldiers (politics reloaded, I know, but nude, hapless Blacks look good on American TV, you see), Evil Politicians™ (politics revolution, because evil Blacks are also an American favourite), spiritism, dust, the city chaos, and other similarly-expected things. These, the Whites will write for us. (And "mediocre" is a mediocre word for this.) When we write about the night in the club, leave it be: it's what the Whites don't believe exists, and therefore the only thing they leave for us. Still, if you are White writing about Africa, you might be an idiot.
(Yes, the non-Whites I know who write for GVO about Africa—and I know them because they stand out, as is expected—are based in the West. I'll not mind a list that proves me wrong.)

You're White and writing about Africa. You try hard not to be an idiot by filing Yet Another Thing About Child Soldiers and Evil Politicians™, since that is the safe way to play. You're only trying not to be an idiot. Therefore you might be an idiot.

Before I exit my racist mood, I'll note this. When Dennis wrote his call for recolonisation, many White people said it was an interesting read. You know, things like "uncomfortably-honest [...] daring". He said it was his most-controversial. You see, White people will read when you tell them to be the master. Is this a stunning revelation? But tell them that, with recolonisation, you want the massacres of the times as well. They shut up. What is it, anyway, with people thinking the Jews had it rough with the Nazis? At least there were some survivors. The Reich believed it was possible to exterminate a race after seeing what the Americans had done there, what the British had done here and in Australia, after seeing what the Iberians had done in Latin America, what the Gauls had done in the parts of Africa they had taken. Blame for the Jews' plight is better placed on the Americans than on the Nazis. Next thing, governments will be doing arbitrary arrests, sending people to bays of pigs, doing unilateral anschluss, choosing which leaders run which countries, and we'll blame them, not America. Or should we blame the Nazis, from whom the Americans learnt? When I lynch the Whites in Uganda, I'm only aping Great America, okay? Besides, I'm curious if there would be blog badges for WithoutSanctuary.org, maybe from GVO, if it had White people, instead. (Don't visit that site, if you love me.)

Ange noticed a trend: when White people try to exterminate you, they are about to get fanatically-supportive of you. This is largely in the same way that school bullies are supportive of the kids they've beaten and broken in; a kind of rite of passage. It's why the Aryans, after what they did to the Jews, became the guarantors of their dramatic aliyah. (And because of what these selfsame Whites did, the rest of us are not allowed to crack Schlemiel jokes anymore.) These days, the remnants of the Australian Aboriginals are being spoilt by government cash, after returning from the brink. So, Ange expects that Africa's moment is here any time soon. She points at the Western Aid™, and Jude says "but that is part of the extermination attempt!" You know, until they have convinced themselves that they are the Masters, they'll keep trying to exterminate us, and then turn around, as soon as they are convinced of their Power over Us. Luckily, the World (as we know it) won't stay around long enough for that.
(And it is funny how Americans rush to say it is "this administration" that is evil, not their country. Stupid. Idiotic. American. Retarded. At least "this administration" waits for the Hurricane, before it starts on ethnic cleansing. The "administrations" that founded that country were run by slave-drivers and lynchers. "This administration" is the worst, sure. Save for all the others. And I quote "administration", because that is correctly a regime. They say regime when they talk of any non-White leader, and "administration" for them. Plus, it's one regime since the founding, but different leaders.) Phew.

If you are Microsoft Windows, you might be an idiot. My friend installed Windows Vista, recently, and he loves it. I'm happy for him. I've always had qualms with Windows. Not with the system itself—I nearly never use Windows—but with the icons there. You know, these icons that depict human busts, in cartoony form? A good example is if you go to Control Panel and see User Accounts. All of them are white heads covered in brown and yellow hair. In other words, the icons are White. (Yes, we aren't done—it's been centuries of silence, you see.)
Well, they were White. In Windows XP, before Vista, I once went through these icons looking for a non-Aryan icon. None to be found. It seems it was more than one person who noticed this, because that has been remedied in Windows Vista. If you compare that User Accounts icon, you'll see that there is now a—gasp, choke—Black man in the icon. Here it is:

So, let's recap. Windows XP is oblivious of non-Aryan icons. They notice, and try hard not to be idiots in Windows Vista, and therefore get closer to being idiots. Because, you see, the prevailing attitude towards a black man in your User Accounts in America is Shoot To Kill. As though Windows doesn't know that? They could have portrayed more of the less-than-comfortable truth by putting the Black man icon to take out the Recycle Bin. Or where they need an icon for Potential President.
I just had to note. It was funny. Sorry.

Before the last one: if you are Andrew Mwenda, you might be an idiot. You see, that dude opened his mag. Politics, naturally. The first cracks show when he publishes false shit that could have been verified with a two-minute phone call. Many people forgave him, myself included. You see, while I don't like him, I want his role to be played. His role is vital to good governance, you know. You don't have to be against the government to want it to suffer hard opposition. Indeed, if you like a government, pray for its competition. If you like an athlete, pray that his/her training is obscenely-hard. It is how we keep things in tone. So, I like Mwenda's role, and I think he plays it with genius. My beef is with his publication.
He has sold out to selling out. As in, he wants to sell copies so much, that he has abandoned much of what makes him relevant. Now, he let a stupid story through and (consciously or not) ignored to put it up to rigorous testing, because it would make for good headlines and sell out copies. We forgave him, for many reasons. But what I can't forgive him for is this shit of putting headlines that belong in The Red Pepper. You know, "Museveni assassination fails ...", "Is Kayihura meant to silence the opposition ...", and such-like tripe. Next thing he knows I'll be calling the editorial to ask where the nude girls have gone. Seriously, though, Mwenda should be told that a mag is more than its headline. Tabloids are where the headlines are the story. He should wake up immediately. In trying hard not to be an idiot, he might be an idiot.

You read this far? You might be an idiot.
Did I write all this? Heh. I might be an idiot. Nay, nay. I am an idiot. Takes one to know one. To close with an Eminem line, Ahaha. Cummon, wage slaves, Besigye supporters, social conformists, everybody, evolutionists, White people writing about Africa, Microsoft Windows, and Andrew Mwenda, you know I love you.

24 comments:

Chanel said...

What the hell is this? A manual to some sort of internet sortware? Who are the other two people supposed to understand this.

Joshua said...

who exactly is the educated jew?

The Dark Knight said...

Wow.

Comrade, this is a brilliant post! I actually thought I was reading an archived post until I saw the date on the comments before this.

You articulately voice a lot of what some of us believe but can't let out, for various reasons.

Plus, your take on post-colonial racism and pseudo-activism reminded me of my time at Emin Pasha last night, watching Kwela play.

It's a beautiful place, but the whole colonial outfit thing... very disturbing.

Phew!! Too much to comment on, might end up posting in your comments!

Deep. Very.

DeTamble said...

I'm coming back...and I'm gonna kick your butt!!

Nah, just joshin :P

But I am coming back!

Scarlett Lion said...

I read that far.

But then, I also read as far as the end, where you say you may be an idiot for writing this and the reader may be an idiot for reading this.

The truth is probably both.

BTW, I'm with you on GVO, most of the time, and whites writing about Africa, most of the time.

The thing is that you say things like ALL and ALWAYS that make it hard for your legitimate views to be taken with the weight they deserve. There are a lot of bazungu who want to learn to speak Lugandan, but there are also others who actually know how to say more than webale. And though I don't know that much Luganda (or Lugandan for that matter), I think that not all bazungu writing about Africa are bad, nor, for that matter, are all Africans writing about Africa good.

One of these days, I'll start my private shit-talk blog where I will list all haters who say things like mesungo and ask me if they're going to get Malaria if they come to Uganda. I'll also list Africans who say that only South Africa is a real country and propagate any beliefs anywhere on the spectrum from Radio Katwe to Mwenda's pub.

To the malaria question, I've started to always say yes. That I almost died the last time I had Malaria, and that person inquiring most certainly will.

DeTamble said...

Go Glenna! Have I mention recently how cool you are? Cause you are! COOL! Cool like the ice cube in my glass of palidity milk. (That's pretty cool!)

When can you start the private blog? And if you don't let me read it I shall sulk, moan, whinge and whine whereverest I find your name on the internet!

Telling people that about malaria, isn't that sort of like a passive aggressive way of telling them to get fucked and shut up already and just get sick cause you don't give a crap cause they're annoying little fuckers like me? I'm going to get malaria...and die. And my Mother will get my awesome life insurance money and Rev and Antipop will split my DVD collection and I shall be buried in one of those awesome Ugandan street side selling coffins. And all the Blogren will be invited and Rev will have to sell a kidney to pay for the funeral and the massive after party I'll be demanding in my will and...am I getting carried away?

Princess said...

I'm an idiot for reading this through to the end, admittedly. But your takes on some things ARE brilliant, and to sort them out, I've gotta read it all. :D
It's never a good thing to make blanket opinions on a group of people though...

*On Mwenda and The Independent, it's gone to the dogs since he started publishing weekly. I can't stand to read it anymore.The initial flavour and novelty of his 'candid' approach has disappeared!!

leos child said...

read till the end but boy am i confused you must be angry with alot of people.
about being employed by someone else not all of us are that brave so congratulations and some people are better followers than leaders even when they own roads they never seem to have a sense of direction be glad you got one!

Mudamuli Ntikita Ntikita said...

I read everything just to see if Space is fine. I hope she’s fine.

I’m one of those who would gladly sell my birthright (like Esau) because I’m afraid. No wonder I’ve failed to be my own Boss after all these years of working for others in the same organisation.

Same reason I fear to look for another organisation to work for. The same reason I fear to give in, etc.

Salam Taki said...

Comrade,

Welcome back from wherever.

One thing, Jah in his idiocy did not create you to job! Good you have realized that fact! Reclaim your prime of youth. Work!

And for your post, I wonder what to do with a Baileys! I raise the bottle, and it is mid way ... will reread the post with the better vision ... when my alcohol has enough blood in it ...

antipop said...

imagine the pain of having to read this on phone! phew. thank goodness MTN has not been charging for internet!
Now now comrade what is all this hate for grandpa besigye? now you can be sure that come 2011, when i have become first granddaughter, you shall not get a slice of the coveted national cake

so i did not the whole post, coz clearly i am not one of the three, but i did read the end, where you are sucking up to all of us. not so bad ass, are you?

heir hitler!

baz said...

I'm not an idiot. I stopped reading when I saw the words "White" and "Africa".


I already knew what you were going to say.

Minzo said...

"We have the monkeys. We have the humans. We don't have the middle "early men". Why? Weren't they fitter for survival than the monkeys from which they evolved precisely because they were fitter for survival?"

That is a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. It would help if you would do some reading first.
1. You cannot disprove evolution by pointing to the fact that monkeys still exist. That's not how evolution works-it does not ensure that all species of one 'convert' to another. Since it occurs because of mutation in species DNA, not all the members of that species will undergo that mutation.
2. Evolution is not 'survival of the fittest'- it is survival of those species most adapted to their environments.
3. People do not believe in evolution because it makes them look smart. They believe in evolution because most of the evidence points in that direction.

Cheri said...

See, I wasn't among the three...Baz and I. I stopped when he said "go away now".

Intellectual posts do my brain in.

Rev, write one for us...those that read posts about SPACE (how is she by the way?)

Minzo said...

Erm I may have been a tad harsh on you up there...I only saw the 'just kidding' line after I'd posted my comment!

The 27th Comrade said...

Guys, not much time. Thanks for the comments. No cookies for everyone. Just a few. Those who didn't follow my example and wrote short things, mostly. You know the problems.

@joshua: The Educated Jew? Maybe you, maybe the other Goldstein. Emmanuel, I mean. Maybe Karl Marx.

@baz: Heh. There was a part that thanked the heavens that you'd not read past the first occurrence of "White" and "Africa". :o)

@minzo: "Erm I may have been a tad harsh on you up there...I only saw the 'just kidding' line after I'd posted my comment!"
Not really. You were not harsh. I hear your line often. It's not harsh. It represents the general idea that people have of evolution, and why they think evolution is worth space in the dictionary.

"That is a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. It would help if you would do some reading first."
I spent all my adult life reading this stuff, actually. All of it. I was trying to believe evolution. Don't be fooled by the deliberate elision of jargon here. Now, let me descend to your main rant.

"You cannot disprove evolution by pointing to the fact that monkeys still exist."
Not at all. I pointed to the fact that we exist alongside them - but not the intermediate stages. This is the stupidiest part of evolution and the main reason its supporters (who wilfully blind themselves to this) are stupid.
Do you think there is even a super-zero chance that the road between Rwanda and Uganda will vanish without a trace? And why would it? Now, if that is hard, it is even harder for the intermediate stages of speciation to vanish.

"That's not how evolution works-it does not ensure that all species of one 'convert' to another."
See above.

"Since it occurs because of mutation in species DNA, not all the members of that species will undergo that mutation."
This is my point, dude. Reading through my rant again may be of aid. Since not all the early men converted into Homo sapiens, where the fuck are the erly men? Why the fuck did they vanish?

I'll help you with the answer I used when I still hoped evolution had anything in it. I'd say that the fossil record isn't a fake. Whether or not the intermediates exist or not, that don't matter. As long as they once existed, we are good to go: evolution is right.
Except, that is total nonsense. There is no fossil record of the early men. C.f. my line about the single tooth that has to stand in for entire billions of members of a species.

"Evolution is not 'survival of the fittest'- it is survival of those species most adapted to their environments."
Um ... in evolution literature, "fittest" is short form for "most-adapted for the environment". So this is largely a null statement. It is what I mean by fittest.

"They believe in evolution because most of the evidence points in that direction."
Yeah, right. And no mention of the evidence that points away from this direction. Don't push this further: my biology teacher, I'm told, still carries scars from the times I pinned him to the wall on these issues. I'm still as evil about it. :o)
Let me ask you this, which is my finishing move: do you have any "evidence" for evolution that doesn't get covered in subjunctives before the first sentence is over?
Hey, I want to keep respecting you. Drop evolution.
You know, the reason you believe evolution is because someone was too spineless and too eager to sound smart. Short of that, you'd have a more-honest, less-gradiose hypotheses non fingo.

DeTamble said...

Emissary reporting for comment duty, SIR! *salutes*

At the risk of sounding creepy, I love your tripe and blogging just ain't the same without you :-(
I also love saffron rice but that's beside the point, well actually it's in a bowl in front of the point but still completely off-topic!

Jude's Circular Idiocy Theorem is very interesting, I wonder if there is also a Circular Slut Theorem...

Firstly, I like Karl Marx quotes even though I'm not one of the most level headed people around and secondly, yes, the West is doing that to the Rest but what you don't see is the West is doing it to the West.
Who do you think works in the West? That's right, Westerners. Who has hands covered in cuts which never heal because no matter the care you take they are ripped open again? Who has numbed feet and legs because they stand for 11 hours a day? Which back is screaming in pain? Which one dreams of being shot through the head so they can leave this place? Who suffers under slave wages too? I know for a fact that person is part of the West, strange though, they sound like they should be part of the Rest.

No Whites are reading this far? Just for saying that Comrade I'm going to beat you like this is 1682, you Negroid scum!

"childsoldiers (politics reloaded" Hahahahaha! GOOD LINE! Oh man, I'm in stitches here! BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ohhh my side hurts, make it stop!!!!!!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! RELOADED! HAHA!

You know nothing of Australian society, Aboriginal or otherwise. You should not have written about it in this post. I don't write about African politics or American politics for a reason. I do not live there, it is not mine to write about. And I also haven't spent enough time learning about it to understand it. Yet. You can write about Australia when you learn about our social class structure, about our accents, about our racism and about the children of every age and cultural background who can be found wandering our streets at 2am because of government cash. Aboriginals are not remnants. Come back when you learn more.

Want to know something as stupid as White people writing about Africa? Non-Australians writing about Australia. That's as stupid as 7, 9 and 10 but you wouldn't know who they are or what they stand for or their impact on Australian society and nor would any other non-Australia.What have we learnt from Current Affairs this week? Absofuckinglutely nothing! Chasers to the core, muhfuckers! Tabloids and news wise we're not in sync with the rest of the world, you won't find no CNN or BBC on our tv stations. But you would know that if you knew anything about Australia.

I was going to comment about the rest of the stuff you wrote but I have a DVD I want to watch.

On Evolution:
It isn't about who was 'most-adapted for the environment'. I know we're animals but you can't dispute the fact that Humans think differently, therefore it wasn't about our environment (have you ever noticed a Human who gave a crap about what was in their environment?) It was about who had the biggest stick. Hasn't human history taught you anything? I thought that would be blindingly obvious. Have you forgotten what Homo Sapiens are? Did humanity escape your attention? Hasn't there been enough evidence through human behaviour to easily guess at what happened to 'early man'?

Two options, if they were close enough to us we would have bred them out because what do humans like to do? Well, normal humans anyway, they like to fuck! Everything! And at times, anything. So like people with red hair will most likely do, they just disappeared through generations of too much sex with the wrong genetically coded people. Dominant genes.

Or another option, which is just as likely and they both probably took place side by side. WE KILLED THEM! Because? Humans are stupid, selfish, often inconsiderate, vicious, violent and have I mentioned stupid? Think racial hate, clan hate, tribal hate, ethnic cleansing, they were different, however slightly, someone pissed someone else off and knowing humans we probably just started picking them off. Because we're gits. And don't think that early Homo Sapiens or early man was too disorganised to go around killing people for something as simple as having the wrong colour hair or having a slightly different way of communication. I'm pretty sure early Homo Sapiens were just as shallow and dumb as we are now.

But regardless, Comrade, if you don't believe in evolution, then what do you believe in? If you say God made us I shall vacate your blog and never come back. Because as far as creators go I would rather believe in something that can, however big the gaps are, still be based on fact and history and somehow involves Lucy. And the only other answers to our presence that humans have come up with are Aliens (yeah right!) or God and frankly if we were made by some creating weirdo who thought it would be a good idea for the world to have us then God is obviously a bigger idiot than any Human will ever be. Also if we didn't evolve from star dust, which is way cooler than being created by some God who wanders around handing out punishments or reprieves depending on who you did and did not kill, fuck or love, and God really did create us and after all these years God can't be responsible or considerate enough to answer a couple of simple questions that would save us so much time and agony then screw the wanking whore!!

And on another note, if Jesus rises again or whatever the Christians believe he will be doing and God comes along and forgives us our sins and trespasses and gives us a nice one way ticket to heaven I wouldn't go. I would refuse to accept. I'd rather take my chances here. In fact I would rather go to hell, if only to take the moral high ground. I refuse to believe in, waste time praying to or following the two-faced, backstabbing pillar of righteous crap that is God. I don't deal with people who treat others the way God has treated us. God can get fucked and Evolution Theory here I come!

"They believe in evolution because most of the evidence points in that direction."
I don't. And I don't believe in evolution because it 'makes me sound smart'. I believe in evolution because the only other option we have is that despicable piece of controlling, and apparently caring tripe that is a creator God.

Minzo said...

Well 27th comrade, do you have any idea how many fossils remained of all species? You might want to look it up- the number is miniscule- probably under 1%. The fact that we cant find certain fossils doesn't mean jackshit. And your 'subjunctive' rule for evidence is completely ludicrous. Meanwhile what is YOUR theory aside from taking snid shots at the best theory there is?

DeTamble said...

*bows to Minzo*

So come on Comrade, what is your oh-so-special-and-well-thought-out-theory?

Is there a Circular Creation Theorem you'd like to share with us?

The 27th Comrade said...

Hmm. More stuff. I'm commenting back. Sadly, I'm typing on a QWERTY keyboard, and my fingers are not very fond of it. I think I'm going to have my MP push a law arguing for Dvorak layouts on all computer installations in the country. Me fingers can't take this. But to be able to reply to you, dear reader, I endure. See how really dear your really are? This may get long.

@DeTamble: "So come on Comrade, what is your oh-so-special-and-well-thought-out-theory?"
I'll reveal it when I'm winning the Nobel for having invented it. (Paradox?) Or, more-likely, when I'm answering Minzo on this same issue.
By the way, I find your longer comment oozingly-rich, and I'll put it last. Give it more time and stuff. :o)

@Minzo: "Well 27th comrade, do you have any idea how many fossils remained of all species? You might want to look it up- the number is miniscule- probably under 1%."
Wrong. I didn't look it up, and I call wrong on that your "1%". Let me dissect that sentence well, because it is strongly-representative in why we are having this debate right now. It is wrong, like the rest of evolution theory. First of all, I didn't look the number up, because I knew that I'd find something written by an evolutionist - probably the same source you used - that would have the wrong answer. The correct number of fossils that survived: unknown.
The number is unknown. Unknown, thankfully, is a valid mathematical number. :o) This, you see, is what evolution is hinged on: that the fossil record is woefully-incomplete. If it is not incomplete, then there is no fossil evidence of the gradual transition that evolution insists on, since there is no fossil record of it, and therefore it didn't happen.
Yet why do you, in fact, have a number (this "1%")? Because evolutionists are generally not true scientists. True scientists are not afraid of professing ignorance - hypotheses non fingo. The quack scatterbrains that cooked up that number would rather fake stuff. Most of what evolution is based on was created the same way: fake. Do you know why many people still believe that, say, the Neaderthal "man" was in the tree that led to Homo sapiens? Because there is nothing to replace him with, in spite of his having been disqualified from this line as "an entirely different species". He's still called the Neanderthal man. And so is the case for many, many other links that so strongly powered this whole evolution debate.
Nobody knows the precentage of fossils that survived. That you have a number - "1%" - is a sign of the problem, and far from being an answer. It tips you deeper into the world of these people who would rather fake stuff than say hypotheses non fingo.
Do you notice that you had to pad that "1%" with a "probably"? If a theory is trying to be as foundational as evolution is trying to be, why are the simplest things - the most-important things, such as the arguments for why there is no proof of evolution especially in the only source of proof for evolution, namely the fossil record - always padded with subjunctive modifiers?
So, where did you get that number from? If you can ask the originator of it for more honesty, go for it. I'm backin' you up.

"The fact that we cant find certain fossils doesn't mean jackshit."
Oh? It does, of course! It means more than jackshit! It means evolution is a lie. We are walking on the moon, you see. Walking on the moon. We've dug up every last inch of where intelligent apes would have lived. Not a sign of them. You go dig up a whole valley into the Olduvai Gorge to pick a single jaw bone and say those things existed? In their billions? Cummon. That we don't have the fossils matters. It also ruins the day for evolutonists.
But let's say that we just aren't being lucky. All these thousands of years of troubling the earth have never yielded, say, a homestead of early men that, maybe, died of hunger or pestilence within one spot. Only a lone jaw bones from which we have to draw whole bodies. (This, by the way, is another lack of honesty in the evolutionist camp. What is wrong with saying "We have a jaw that we believe belongs to an early man. This is insufficient information for us to figure out what the rest of this early man looked like."? Oh, they are not true scientists, you see. So, they fake more info: a whole fucking body out of a tooth. I have believed some silly things, but them pictures of early men are a little below the line.) So, we have only one jaw bone to stand in for an entire species of up to billions.
I'll, at this point, give you the pass I used to give the fossil hunters (when I still wanted evolution to be right): most fossils were destroyed. That earth was significantly-different, and maybe they done flowed into the ocean, which is largely unknown territory. Good! Evolution is up at the count of four. Note, here, that it is in the interests of evolutionists to shy away from giving a number for the surviving fossils. That "1%" is dangerous for their thesis. Yet they gave it, faking it, because, as the next part tries to show, this kite, the argument I pose on their behalf, also didn't fly.
Another knock-out for evolution is here: why do we have none of the intermediate stages? This swings back to my original question, to which no answer has (thus far) been given. Before we bother asking why we see no fossils, we should maybe be asking why the transitions from species to species were so clean as to completely wipe out all evidence, leaving us only fossils to hunt for. (You noted, in your first comment, that evolution preserves the previous species.)
You see, if evolution were correct, we wouldn't need Darwin to open it up. It would be obvious. We would have very many stages, gradually descending (or ascending! heh) from man to ape. There is no such thing. We would already know about evolution from our environment, if it were fact. Instead of asking for where these elusive fossils are, we should be asking why we are appealing to the elusive fossils, in the first place.
Why do you think that the absence of the fossils shouldn't matter? It mattered enough to Darwin, at least. He insisted that the fossil gap would be covered by archeologists. See this: Darwin noticed the absence of the smooth transition he claimed had happened, and gave no reason for why the intermediate stages had all died, but said that they had, and that the fossil gap would be filled.
Why do you think it doesn't mean jackshit?

"And your 'subjunctive' rule for evidence is completely ludicrous."
No, it isn't. It is reasonable to expect scientists - especially those who ban alternatives to their viewpoint - to be rigorously-absolute. But why do you think I should let the bar down for the evolutionists? Why do you think their absolute statements, their grandiose refusals to utter hypotheses non fingo should be pardoned? I demand absoluteness of them. This stuff of pretending they have an answer when they are creating a question should, in fact, be punished.
I'm serious. After the Revolution, I'll have them shot. Do you know how many resources have been wasted in this mad chase after a lie? It's criminal, what they do.
Can you believe this? Evolution being elevated the way it is, when it is not even prone to even empirical observation? A mere conjecture trying to be that foundational? How the fuck did we get so stupid?
Evolutionists cannot make a single sentence that is certain, yet they don't allow alternatives to talk. (It even gets worse when they break all laws of formal logic and pass a conjecture for a proof! Have you heard this line, carefully wrapped in jargon to keep it safe from prying eyes: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."? Case in point, there.)

"Meanwhile what is YOUR theory aside from taking snide shots at the best theory there is?"
Evolution is not the best theory there is. Repeat that a million times. It's debatable that it is even a theory. It is mostly just a conjecture, because it is worse than empirical, even. Just a conjecture, and one that is provably false.
But for the sake of World Peace, let's call it a theory. It is not the best theory there is. Why? Because it takes away. It takes things to negatives. It poses questions (stupid questions, at that), and gives no answers. A better theory, if you want one, is hypotheses non fingo, which, at its worst, leaves things as they are. It neither lies nor edifies. Why is that so hard? Answer: because the evolutionsists are generally not scientists. They are devotees. The scientists there occurred back then, and dumped it when they found the conjecture false. It's not the best theory there is.
Since I've been mixed up with this stuff for a while, I'll tell you a number of weak theories that, in spite of their lacking mass, are infinitely more-solid than evolution, concerning the same question. They generally derive their strengths from the impossibility of proving them wrong (while evolution, contrary to popular belief, can be proven wrong).
The steady-state theory, which says that things always are, and will always be, as they have always been. Since it generally doesn't say which cycle is constant, it is ... impossible to prove it wrong (or right).
The alien life theory says that life, and the species, came from outer space, in a one-time event. It is equal to steady-state in terms of provability. But it generally leaves the question unanswered, because now we turn the question to the source planet.
The creation theory says that life was created by an entity in a one-time event. This is also impossible to prove wrong or right. But it has merit over the others, and I'll tell you why: nature has the signs of intelligent design. Did your keyboard evolve, or does it have an intelligent creator? No, no, look at it. Stop reading for a while and look at it. Look. Good, did it evolve? I'm happy with your answer, and I apply it to nature (including to this intelligent designer of your keyboard), as well. This is what gives creation theory the edge over the others.
Creationism is my theory. I'll be talking about this in reply to DeTamble, so you may want to stay tuned.

@DeTamble: "Emissary reporting for comment duty, SIR! *salutes*"
At ease, corporal! You may be seated. Do you smoke? Have one. Yes, imported. They cost enough. Cuba. That's classified information, corporal.
Drink?

"At the risk of sounding creepy, I love your tripe and blogging just ain't the same without you :-("
You love the tripe? I punished you for this sin, didn't I? And I'll recommend a psychiatrist, also. Plus ... thank you. :o)

"Jude's Circular Idiocy Theorem is very interesting, I wonder if there is also a Circular Slut Theorem..."
Maybe that the more-slutty you are, the less slutty you get? I can't ask him now, because we aren't on talking terms for a while. :o( It's sad when you piss someone and now you can't talk to them. Trick is to talk sooner, because the longer you take, the harder it gets to talk. So, maybe, I'll ask him if he has that theorem, just to start the talking again.

"Firstly, I like Karl Marx quotes even though I'm not one of the most level headed people around and secondly, yes, the West is doing that to the Rest but what you don't see is the West is doing it to the West."
Nobody can accuse you of being level-headed. :o) But see, if you think Westerners are suffering, raise that suffering to its fourth power, and you approach the suffering of the Rest. Why do you think it is us that your governments feel guilty enough to give Western Aid? At some point, the slave driver knows that the slaves won't eat. Hence the Aid. The sufferers in his house are, by comparison, in luxury. You'll live among the Rest, sometime, and see for yourself.

"I know for a fact that person is part of the West, strange though, they sound like they should be part of the Rest."
No. You mentioned bleeding hands and numb legs and feet and crying backs and slave wages and suicidal dreams? I mention bleeding bodies, minds, souls, lands, numb minds, bodies, homes, blind eyes, aching backs, heads, chests, slave wages, slave lives, slave histories. The West don't come nowhere close.

"You can write about Australia when you learn about our social class structure [...]"
It's the standard class sturucture of the lands where people were massacred. I've already learnt about it. I can describe it with reasonable accuracy. Let's see, the original inhabitants of the land are the minority, especially where the money flows. Let's see, where do I get this picture? Apartheid South Africa, perhaps. North America? Latin America? Australia? Take your pick.

"[...] about our accents [...]"
Sorry, I think I'll pass. :o)
Shoree, ah thenk alle pashe.

"[...] about our racism [...]"
Hohoho. See above. Above the above. Also, Google this (and I'm trying to get it right): "The good people of that land have committed sins that all the water of the Netherlands[/Holland] cannot wash away."

"[...] and about the children of every age and cultural background who can be found wandering our streets at 2am because of government cash."
The White ones are wandering the streets because they have plenty of money that their mass-murdering parents sucked out of that butchered land. The Aboriginal kids are not in the cities. And also, they would be spending reparation money (which was the point - the reparations). But apart from the cash, that your government is brewing Kava for them, that, among other things, supports my point. My point wasn't about the availability of money, but the reparations.

"[...] 7, 9 and 10 but you wouldn't know who they are or what they stand for [...]"
I know. Channels. TV channels. Nyah-nyah!

"Chasers to the core, muhfuckers!"
:-o Chasers' War on Everything is back on TV? :-o I though they had quit, gone walkabout? Chasers done returned? Liciardello. Fuck, I never spell that right.
"Chaz Liciardello is shithouse at the accent." ~ Osama bin Laden.
Gwahahahahaha. Lemme move on to the evolution thingy.

"Two options, if they were close enough to us we would have bred them out because what do humans like to do? Well, normal humans anyway, they like to fuck! Everything!"
See, that is a problem. If we were close enough to them to breed with them (and therefore breed them out), they would be ... humans. Humans can only breed with humans. I'll put in a bit of jargon, here (I didn't study this stuff for nothing).
There are two ways for species to arise from others. The process is called speciation. There is intra-specific speciation (where a new species comes from within an existent species) and inter-specific speciation (where a species arises from two different species). These two have something they share: they can't happen.
If you have two members of a species A, they can't give rise to another species B. Biology says so. If humans fuck, they'll bear a human. There is no room for an alternative. So, intra-specific speciation is impossible. (But evolutionists won't tell you this.)
If a member of species A mates with a member of a different species B, they cannot have a viable offspring. Biology says so. If a human fucks a tree there can be no offspring. Even if the human fucks a, say, chimpanzee. So, inter-specific speciation can't happen.
(If two species that the taxonomical table says are different do have a viable offspring, change the table, not biology. The taxonomical table has changed so often that many taxonomists don't even agree even on the taxonomical kingdoms! But that is healthy for biology, I think.)
So, you see, we couldn't have bred out a species different from our own. Or if we did, we bred our own out ... and it survived. :o) But yes, humans like to fuck. Normal ones. Hence my examples, complete with bestailist insinuations, pacakeged especially for you.

"Or another option, which is just as likely and they both probably took place side by side. WE KILLED THEM! Because? Humans are stupid, selfish, often inconsiderate, vicious, violent and have I mentioned stupid? Think racial hate, clan hate, tribal hate, ethnic cleansing, they were different, however slightly, someone pissed someone else off and knowing humans we probably just started picking them off. Because we're gits. And don't think that early Homo Sapiens or early man was too disorganised to go around killing people for something as simple as having the wrong colour hair or having a slightly different way of communication. I'm pretty sure early Homo Sapiens were just as shallow and dumb as we are now."
It's not every day I see a comment line I want on my t-shirt! :o) I had to quote the entire fucker, man. It's just too fucking cool, even though wrong.
See ... if we had killed them, we'd have the fossils easily-accessible. But we don't. So they just never occurred.
Also, killing off things becomes harder as the numbers dwindle. Complete extermination is harder than it sounds.
Also, they would have fought back, and maybe carried the same mean streak and cleared us out. They would share our characteristics for the most part, since this is what evolution is based on: that the changes are gradual. Indeed, with evolution, what you suggest would be impossible, since it would be hard to tell one stage of humans apart from the preceeding (as there would only be small, very small changes from level to level). But, most of all, if an extermination campaign had happened, we would have had the lower hand in it. After all, the new comers should be fewer and more-prone to dying out.
Also, this thing of killing all competetion in the niche is attempted every day by numerous species around us. Even lab bacteria do it. But the cycle is well-known. One competitor dwindles in number, and the other surges. Then the victor dies out (over-population, internal fighting, starvation - especially in a prey-predator relationship), and the loser surges back. And it goes on and on and on. Ad infinitum. If they had existed, they would still exist. We would still be killing them. Or fucking them, whatever. :o)

"But regardless, Comrade, if you don't believe in evolution, then what do you believe in? If you say God made us I shall vacate your blog and never come back."
:o(
:o(
God made us.
:o(
:,o(

"Because as far as creators go I would rather believe in something that can, however big the gaps are, still be based on fact and history and somehow involves Lucy."
Don't mind. You're in good company. There are many evolutionists who, at least in their subconscious, are saying the very same line. The difference between you and them - and to your credit - is that you're willing to accept that you're choosing woeful imperfection because you don't like the alternative. They are not nearly as honest. So, clap for yourself. Have another Romeo y Julietas. Fine cigars, aren't they?

"And the only other answers to our presence that humans have come up with are Aliens (yeah right!) [...]"
The whole aliens thing is much, much saner than you give it credit for. Much, much, much, much saner than evolution, as well. Evolution isn't worth space in the dictionary, really.

"[...] or God and frankly if we were made by some creating weirdo who thought it would be a good idea for the world to have us then God is obviously a bigger idiot than any Human will ever be."
Maybe he is. I make sure that, when I discuss, evolution, I shy away from pointing out which creator is responsible. I find that the main gripe people have with creationism is that they don't like the creator (who happens, generally, to be an
Abrahamic deity). If I have to , I'll tell you which creator I subscribe to. If I have to. :o)
But the reason will be so that I lull you into detaching the creator from that (most-likely wrong and skewed) image of this here creator, so that you can judge fairly, and then later deal with the question of who the creator really is.
I should note, now, that I'm not a Christian. :o) In the normal sense, as it were.

"Also if we didn't evolve from star dust, which is way cooler than being created by some God who wanders around handing out punishments or reprieves depending on who you did and did not kill, fuck or love [...]"
Which God are you talking about? Maybe the one of those people? *points over there* That's not my kind of God. Let's keep the creator free of an identity, for now.
I find that most resistance to creationism thaws fast when I say we are a lab of some humans on some other planet, and they are watching us surreptitiously to see how they developed by seeing how we develop. Suddenly, it is very possible, even to the most-hardened of them, because they've been thinking of doing just that right now. So I call the lab manager of our lab the creator, and they relax. They become creationists. And then I tell them the name of this here creator. :o) God! And they slap me.

"[...] and God really did create us and after all these years God can't be responsible or considerate enough to answer a couple of simple questions that would save us so much time and agony then screw the wanking whore!!"
And I agree! God really shouldn't blame anybody for holding agnostic views, if he keeps wrapping himself in such mystery. "You can only see me if you believe in me," he says, "O ye who I made with the nature of believing after seeing."
Yet that long sentence you wrote offers the answer. Shouldn't Creation (which, we all agree, at this point) was created - and how else would it be Creation - be the proof that God exists? You see the presence of creation leads you to ask God if he exists. You already answered the question. What you end up with is something like "Hello! Are you there?" :o) (As in, if I'm not here, who the fuck you askin'? Here's your sign ... Heh.)

"And on another note, if Jesus rises again or whatever the Christians believe he will be doing and God comes along and forgives us our sins and trespasses and gives us a nice one way ticket to heaven I wouldn't go."
Ah. Let me see the reason ... (Meanwhile, find yourself another bottle.)

"I refuse to believe in, waste time praying to or following the two-faced, backstabbing pillar of righteous crap that is God."
Another t-shirt slogan? How do you do it? :o)

"I don't deal with people who treat others the way God has treated us."
The entire problem, thus far, has been that you have given God an identity. What if I'm a Hindu, with hundreds of gods, and therefore find your singular "God" disorienting? And that I can blame all the bad on one god, say the goddess Cali (after whom Calcutta was named, if I recall well), and hate that one deity, and love the rest? Detach the attitude from any deity in particular, then look at creationism un-inhibited by what the creator is like, and then choose a side. Then, if need be, attach an identity to the creator.

"I believe in evolution because the only other option we have is that despicable piece of controlling, and apparently caring tripe that is a creator God."
Get me a t-shirt, corporal.
The idea of God should sound ugly to any sane ears. But the truth shouldn't. And if God is, in the end, the truth? I hate God, as you paint him/her. He/she sounds Stalinist. Not entirely a very pretty picture. But what if you have the wrong picture of God; would you believe, then? What if I were the picture of Go ... no, you'd scream and stab at me. But I mean, what if you found that God shared your viewpoint, your ideals? Would you believe, then? Use that picture, then, in thinking about creationism. *resists saying "Amen"*

DeTamble said...

"Why do you think it is *****us***** that your governments feel guilty enough to give Western Aid? At some point, the slave driver knows that the slaves won't eat. Hence the Aid. The sufferers in his house are, by comparison, in luxury. You'll live among the Rest, sometime, and see for yourself."
Then why does the Rest complain like a bunch of whiny bastards when we pull our Western Aid? What happens when the UN or WFP goes away for a while? People fucking whinge and whine and honestly can't they just shut the fuck up and go back home so their own leaders can have them killed? After all they did elect their leaders, they should take the consequences like men and quit their obnoxious 'we're poor and suffering' bullcrap. I'll come see the Rest and maybe you'll come see the West and I'll take you to the places where children are LITERALLY starving to death (and these are White children not Aboriginal) for the same political crap arse reasons the Rest are starving for. What are those people in IDP camps still there for? It's not a jail. Walk out. Same here. Why do you live off hand outs and stay in those incredibly depressive and dangerous places where you're likely to be raped and violently murdered? Get up and walk out. Take responsibility for yourself and quit your fucking whining, you dickheads. And don't start about those Revolution people, normally known as insurgents or rebels, at least they're not sitting on their arses waiting for someone to come help them. But of course this is all about the Leaders. Politicians, Rebels whatever you want to call them, it's the Leaders who win every single time and the rest of us get no say. They call it Democracy, Communism or Socialism but it's all the same. It's crap and the little people always suffer and obviously the smaller you are the worse off you'll be. So I'm lucky. I live in the West, I don't have to worry too much about my child being abducted and forced to kill other people. But I'm pretty sure, Revence, that your mother didn't have to worry about you being abducted and forced to kill people either! And you know, you're a total fucking prat. You talk about the Rest like you're one of them and you're not. Just because you're African and you live in a "Third World" country doesn't make you one of the Rest. You are privileged fucking bastard. So what, you've seen a few guns? A few corrupt policemen? A few beggars? A few crushed and broken bodies by the side of the road? A few starving children? A few beaten wives? A few raped girls? A few men with no hope in their eyes? A few knives pushed against you demanding your money? So have I. Except they were White and part of the West. You're just like me and you shouldn't act otherwise. Neither of us has ever really suffered and I'm pretty damn sure you've never gone to a place to see first hand what real suffering is so why don't you stop acting like you're hard done by, you and I both have it fucking easy.

"It's the standard class structure of the lands where people were massacred."
Actually it isn't. Yes they are the minority, it's true, but they are not in anyway the minority where the money flows. Go do some research. You should know that Australia stands alone in our treatment of original inhabitants. And something important to note if you actually bother to read anything of depth would be that ALL the social problems that affect Aboriginal Australians also affect non-Aboriginal Australians that live in the same geographic areas.
"The Aboriginal kids are not in the cities"
Actually, Mr. Know It All, they are in the cities. And these kids in the cities are doing just fine, like all the White kids and in fact all the kids. Us city babies have it fucking good, we're not affected by the shit they suffer outback. Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, it really doesn't matter, in fact it's all about where you live here. In fact you could use this as a University Thesis that in Australia there is a direct correlation line of increased suffering based on the distance between yourself and the nearest city centre. And it's true that most of the Aborigines live very very very far away from the cities but there are also plenty of other people who live very very very far away from the cities and they suffer just as much. Also most Aborigines choose to live far away, they weren't pushed out there because we don't want them in the city. Personally I'd prefer it everyone vacated inner Australia and moved closer, but my opinion stands for nothing.

"The good people of that land have committed sins that all the water of the Netherlands[/Holland] cannot wash away."Didn't come up with anything to do with Australia, I even changed it around to see if something came up. Nada.

"The White ones are wandering the streets because they have plenty of money that their mass-murdering parents sucked out of that butchered land."
No, those are different children. Out for different reasons. And they most certainly are not all White. And since when did my Mother murder anyone? What are you trying to say about my Mama?!?!?!
"spending reparation money"
Idiot. Australia has always point blank refused to give reparation money. But again you don't know that because you continue to lump us with the other mass-murdering-racist-Imperialist-Western countries.
Actually Kava isn't being brewed for them, it's being banned for them. Keep up. You're stuck in the past, you can't stay there, you gotta keep moving or you'll get left behind. Reparations are not cool, it drags things on and on and creates more rifts than there are already. Sometimes you have to accept the suffering and move on. And you know what would be better compensation than money? Complete forgiveness on both sides. Acceptance of our differences and similarities. Enjoying each other for who we really are. Treating each other with the equality we all deserve and not resting on ignorant assumption and selfishness. We've got better things to give each other that have nothing to do with money and that should always be more important than money. Reparation never solves anything, it just gives yet another reason not to move forward and not to take real responsibility for what caused the suffering. Don't hand people money, hand them fucking acceptance and a fair go instead or we'll never move forward. Money is empty and useless. And all reparation does is declare to the world that this one group of people deserves more than another, favouritism for whatever reason, always makes things worse. And when do you stop? How far back do we go? Do I get reparation money from the British government for sending my nine year old great-great-great-great-great grandmother to Australia as a convict, alone and terrified, left to be beaten and starved by some rich English person? Don't make reparation into yet another divider! Accept things are the way they are because of actions that others committed and move on, do not drag things onto the next generation. So yes, our history says terrible things about us but for fucks sake enough is enough, let us not drag it on, it does not belong to this century, lay it to rest.

"I know. Channels. TV channels. Nyah-nyah!"
You only know that because I already told you :-)

"But yes, humans like to fuck. Normal ones. Hence my examples, complete with bestailist insinuations, packaged especially for you."
What if the results are like mules, cross-breeds and also infertile?

"See ... if we had killed them, we'd have the fossils easily-accessible. But we don't. So they just never occurred."
What if we ate them too? Like seriously ate them, so intensely there wasn't anything specific enough left to survive to be a fossil. What if we used bits of them as sticks to play with dogs and then they wouldn't be fossils anyway, they would have just been worn down and rotted. Or maybe being the superstitious wankers that we are we ground down their bones for fairy dust? :P

I always thought the point of evolution was the our surroundings changed, most likely because we moved from our original surroundings and your body, being made of brilliant cells continues to change until it reaches what the brilliant cells consider the optimum conclusion to survive in your surroundings. So it's easy to understand why some are monkeys and some are humans, since apparently we evolved from monkeys. (Which sucks because monkeys are gross and stinky!) Say only some monkeys living in a particular part of the world started changing because their own surroundings changed (make up your own reason) and this one group kept changing. And scientists are saying now that Humans could easily have come from one single woman, or one single small group of individuals. Then perhaps it was a tiny tiny thing our evolution, not a grand-scale and this small secluded group evolved with hardly any notice. And again perhaps things changed for the worse because they obviously left, or some did because now we're everywhere. And those 'early men' (Lucy is coooool) who probably evolved from monkeys (eurgh stupid) obviously couldn't cut it. And if we did evolve in one secluded spot until we left almost the same as we are now then imagine trying to find fossils for that? Needle in a haystack would probably be easier. Plus without evolution how do you explain why your skin is a different colour to mine?

Aliens? Rev, if we come from Aliens then were did the Aliens come from? Aliens don't answer the question, they are exactly the same question. How did the Aliens get here? Evolution or Creator? Saying we came from Aliens is ZERO percent helpful. In fact saying we come from Aliens is just fence-sitting. It's the same as saying you're Agnostic because you're too unsure to take a view point and stand by it or like me you're probably too lazy to find the view point you like or create your own. Though me, I am Atheist and I wasn't lazy in choosing it. Though that doesn't mean I don't believe in a Higher Power and that doesn't mean that I don't believe in a Creator. Personally I go the Dust route. Mainly because it makes perfect sense so far and is just as stupid as all the others, just without the lack of responsibility and it doesn't impose things upon me, like particular religious morals.

"Shouldn't Creation (which, we all agree, at this point) was created - and how else would it be Creation - be the proof that God exists? You see the presence of creation leads you to ask God if he exists. You already answered the question. What you end up with is something like "Hello! Are you there?" :o) (As in, if I'm not here, who the fuck you askin'? Here's your sign ... Heh.)"
What? Which God are we talking about here? Honestly, this is so stupid. WHICH GOD? Something created us. God created us? And God created those early man fossils to what? Confuse us? Why don't we just call Evolution, God, and be done with it. Since both are mysterious and wasting our time when we should be focussing on not killing each other for stupid reasons instead of argueing over religious/scientific theories.
And in my world even though I do believe in my very own awesome version that cleverly weaves both creation and evolution I still do not believe in a Creator or a Creator God. Who said it was an individual that created us? I'm saying it was a group of uncountable things that have yet to be named that know a clever thing we generally refer to as 'teamwork'. And since there are gaping holes in all Creator God and Evolution theories why shouldn't I make up my own? One in which I never EVER have to go around asking "Are you there?", counting fossil remains, or worrying about whether I've just mortally sinned and whether or not I get to spend eternity in Heaven.

"I'm pretty sure early Homo Sapiens were just as shallow and dumb as we are now."
"I refuse to believe in, waste time praying to or following the two-faced, backstabbing pillar of righteous crap that is God."
"I believe in evolution because the only other option we have is that despicable piece of controlling, and apparently caring tripe that is a creator God."
Another t-shirt slogan? How do you do it? :o)
It's my one and only talent :P

Ahhh, but by now I had moved on from Creation/Evolution and had sprung happily into the Religious God that has nothing to do with Creation. And I say the same to all Gods."I don't deal with people who treat others the way God (Gods have) has treated us."

"The idea of God should sound ugly to any sane ears. But the truth shouldn't."
Actually truth generally sounds uglier to sane ears. God is easy to take. Going to church is easier than hearing the screams of a massacre but I'm going entirely off topic here.

"What if I were the picture of Go ... no, you'd scream and stab at me."
I would. I would be so happy to have found God in a physical form that I could do away with once and for all I would stab you and then probably cackle amusedly and proceed to stomp on your dying face and spit on you.

"But I mean, what if you found that God shared your viewpoint, your ideals? Would you believe, then?"
If God shared my viewpoints then that would not be God in any of the possible sense and versions we have created.
If God shared my viewpoints then that would be a God of my own personal creation and therefore would be pointless in the bigger picture.
If God shared my viewpoints and Religions follow God's apparent viewpoints then...I have no idea. But I'd be feeling pretty damn powerful.

Use that picture, then, in thinking about creationism. *resists saying "Amen"*
No thanks, because that would mean I would have to believe in a God or Gods in my creationism theory and in my theory there is absolutely NO room for a God, let alone more than one *resists sharpening knife*

PS. Thank you for the cigars and wine, it's been lovely *flutters eyelashes and rests hand softly on your thigh*

Spartakuss said...

i read this over two working days...
i read and left office at 9:00 and came back to finish the running battle in the morning...just tells how interesting Revence is...
i cannot even dare to pontificate on the evolution theorem or the creationism bit, at this point maybe later when i doth educate my body and mind, then we can talk...
beautiful reading experience

ohh... and Detambs, thanks for throwing n the balance, it kept the whole thing from getting lope-sided.

DeTamble said...

@Spartakuss: No problemo! :D It's what I'm here for...

sexy said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購

免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX

情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網



情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片

av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟

情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,日本a片,a片下載,線上a片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室