PLEASE NOTE: This is the Archived Sexyloops Board from years 2004-2013.
Our active community is here: https://www.sexyloops.co.uk/theboard/
Our active community is here: https://www.sexyloops.co.uk/theboard/
Manshit or Dumbshit?
-
Marc LaMouche
- BBBB No 2,5 Le NP
- Posts: 6758
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:33 pm
- Location: Pyrénées, France
- Contact:
-
Gilgamesh
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 1836
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 1:50 pm
- Location: Windhoek
- Contact:
Aren't a lot of those native american species in trouble?
In which case.....dumbshit...
In which case.....dumbshit...
There is magic in it. Let the most absent-minded of men be plunged in his deepest reveries - stand that man on his legs, set his feet a-going, and he will infallibly lead you to water, if water there be in all that region.
-
Charlie
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 1264
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:39 am
- Location: Joburg RSA
- Contact:
It's a shame that there isn't a category for that.
The SL category is most certainly 'total dumbshit' !
Good reason why a large female gar was swimming with 4 or 5 male fish ! And then some redneck comes along and gets out his bow .......
70 % of the world is covered in water - GO FISH!
That's what fish are there for!
That's what fish are there for!
-
sushiyummy
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:33 am
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
Ah, more carnage pointing to our human condition. Don't mind me sharing on the latter (skip this if you don't have the appetite for it).
They say that Larry Dahlberg would own many more fishing records if not for his releasing his catch.
We place too much emphasis on trophies than saving them. But trophy kill can only be glamorized if there is an appetite for this kind of news.
I haven't known any kid who won't feel bad at the first sight of a fish gasping out of water, with the urge to return it into water. That is our primary innate response.
But we neutralize these innate responses by 1) Numbing them, 2) Pretending our actions don't impact other, 3) Supplanting them* with back handed rationalizing we have to eat, and we can grow them back like we reforest mountains (so no net harm done).
But what we don't see is we create an effect call Genetic Darwinism where the strongest genes are removed, leaving behind a pool of weaker genes that are more vulnerable to environmental changes. We slowly create our ruin.
Incidentally, the structure that is behind this unnecessary kill is the same structure in our greater insanity.**
* We acculturate ourselves with other tribal needs, such as a need to belong to group (such gangs). So we do what makes us fit in. But that need is aggravated as explained below.
**Our primary error in our cognition (of self and how we fit in reality) is we believe we are not enough. Guess what, that error will still be there no matter how many species we extirpate. And when nothing is left to get respite from this error, we occasionally turn against ourselves via wars.
They say that Larry Dahlberg would own many more fishing records if not for his releasing his catch.
We place too much emphasis on trophies than saving them. But trophy kill can only be glamorized if there is an appetite for this kind of news.
I haven't known any kid who won't feel bad at the first sight of a fish gasping out of water, with the urge to return it into water. That is our primary innate response.
But we neutralize these innate responses by 1) Numbing them, 2) Pretending our actions don't impact other, 3) Supplanting them* with back handed rationalizing we have to eat, and we can grow them back like we reforest mountains (so no net harm done).
But what we don't see is we create an effect call Genetic Darwinism where the strongest genes are removed, leaving behind a pool of weaker genes that are more vulnerable to environmental changes. We slowly create our ruin.
Incidentally, the structure that is behind this unnecessary kill is the same structure in our greater insanity.**
* We acculturate ourselves with other tribal needs, such as a need to belong to group (such gangs). So we do what makes us fit in. But that need is aggravated as explained below.
**Our primary error in our cognition (of self and how we fit in reality) is we believe we are not enough. Guess what, that error will still be there no matter how many species we extirpate. And when nothing is left to get respite from this error, we occasionally turn against ourselves via wars.
-
Gilgamesh
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 1836
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 1:50 pm
- Location: Windhoek
- Contact:
**Our primary error in our cognition (of self and how we fit in reality) is we believe we are not enough. Guess what, that error will still be there no matter how many species we extirpate. And when nothing is left to get respite from this error, we occasionally turn against ourselves via wars.
I know a beautiful woman, normal well-adjusted nature lover that regulary sits back and says "I wish all people die and leave this place to the animals"
Some days I agree with her so much I wouldn't mind getting the process started....
There is magic in it. Let the most absent-minded of men be plunged in his deepest reveries - stand that man on his legs, set his feet a-going, and he will infallibly lead you to water, if water there be in all that region.
"I wish all people die and leave this place to the animals"
All people except for herself and other do-gooders? I think it is pretty arrogant and ignorant to place your own species in a different category than all other animals. In the end we are just biomass like all other fauna and flora. And we aren't the dominant species, like many like to think. Have a look at species like cockroaches, many other invertebrates and even single cell organisms and larger animals that have been around for a couple of hundred million years. We are having a hard time coping to be around for a couple of million years, if we stretch the evolution of our species..
-
sushiyummy
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:33 am
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
Species-ism: An limited valuation on any species- other than our own- that typically pigeon holes them as only fuel to our bellies.
Top-of-the-chain species in the animal kingdom often target the old or the sick so as to not interrupt the chain that sustains them, leaving strong genes in it. But we often cross over and hide behind the concept of being dominant so as to play God with this chain (wipe out, replant, wipe out, replant...), often stripping out strong genes, trees included. We become our slow ruin.
I don't see a conflict between Jereon's and Gilgamesh's post if we view both in the context we are the top-of-the-chain species interdependent on- and simply because we co-arise out of- other species when culled and sustained in a sustainable and balanced way.
The web of life totally goes out of whack if we remove the top-of-the-chain species, as in the case of severe ecological damage when the middle of the food chain exploded after wolves were removed.
But we cross the line from top-of-the-chain thinking to dominant-species thinking simply as a result of our primary cognitive error.
It's like a plane with fragile wings. At a slow speed, we can say afloat and get to our destiny. But we look back seeing the imaginary black clouds (our cognitive error) and we speed the plane up, only to have the wings fall off and crashing us instead.
Top-of-the-chain species in the animal kingdom often target the old or the sick so as to not interrupt the chain that sustains them, leaving strong genes in it. But we often cross over and hide behind the concept of being dominant so as to play God with this chain (wipe out, replant, wipe out, replant...), often stripping out strong genes, trees included. We become our slow ruin.
I don't see a conflict between Jereon's and Gilgamesh's post if we view both in the context we are the top-of-the-chain species interdependent on- and simply because we co-arise out of- other species when culled and sustained in a sustainable and balanced way.
The web of life totally goes out of whack if we remove the top-of-the-chain species, as in the case of severe ecological damage when the middle of the food chain exploded after wolves were removed.
But we cross the line from top-of-the-chain thinking to dominant-species thinking simply as a result of our primary cognitive error.
It's like a plane with fragile wings. At a slow speed, we can say afloat and get to our destiny. But we look back seeing the imaginary black clouds (our cognitive error) and we speed the plane up, only to have the wings fall off and crashing us instead.
-
Eric
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 7088
- Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 4:51 am
- Location: Reno, Nevada, USA
- Contact:
sushiyummy wrote:Top-of-the-chain species in the animal kingdom often target the old or the sick because they're easiest to catch
fixed that for you
I'm sure a lion would happily* chomp the most robust prey if available* where's Bob when the anthropomorphizing starts to proliferate
...the fish know this and are evil... ~marc
-
sushiyummy
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:33 am
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
Could be, but it's still anthropomorphizing to even guess they select their catch simply for this reason.
I am wondering if there was a test to see animals and the preservation of their food chain is coincidental, or by design?
Will a creature knowingly eat up all its food source that causes their ruin?
Are they intrinsically self organizing in their habits for long term food source as part of their survival of its species?
I am wondering if there was a test to see animals and the preservation of their food chain is coincidental, or by design?
Will a creature knowingly eat up all its food source that causes their ruin?
Are they intrinsically self organizing in their habits for long term food source as part of their survival of its species?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest