|
I just saw this mentioned on Twitter and it raised my blood pressure to insanely high levels: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/313504/boss Half half "women are vapid whores" and 100% disgusting.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 18:05 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 09:08 |
|
Kim Jong III posted:I just saw this mentioned on Twitter and it raised my blood pressure to insanely high levels: quote:Check out the curriculum vitae of one Willard M. Romney: $200 million in the bank (and a hell of a lot more if he didn’t give so much away), apex alpha executive, CEO, chairman of the board, governor, bishop, boss of everything he’s ever touched. Son of the same, father of more. It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) that high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring, which holds true across many species, from red deer to mink to Homo sap. The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of the Forbes billionaire list are 60 percent male. Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain. Remember the ruckus the Bush sons caused over those eight years? Edit: Now that I've kept reading, what the hell is this? Modern journalism? quote:
Everytime I think he's peaked with the fellatio, he manages to choke a little more down. quote:Romney wasn’t some Wall Street bank-monkey with a pitch book. He was the guy who fired you. He was a boss, like his dad, and like his sons probably will be. Barack Obama was never in charge of anything of any significance until the delicate geniuses who make up the electorate of this fine republic handed him the keys to the Treasury and the nuclear football because we were tired of Frenchmen sneering at us when we went on vacation. Obama made his money in part through political connections — no, I don’t think Michelle Obama was worth nearly 400 grand a year — and by authoring two celebrity memoirs, his sole innovation in life having been to write the memoir first and become a celebrity second. Can you imagine Barack Obama trying to pull off a hostile takeover without Rahm Emanuel holding his diapers up for him? Impossible. jojoinnit fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Aug 22, 2012 |
# ? Aug 22, 2012 18:09 |
|
I have 5 daughters 0 sons. This makes me as hell even though I should ignore the idiocy.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 18:13 |
That seriously reads like he wants Romney to frisk him away on his $22,000 horse and ride off into the sunset. The comments are pretty awesome as well.
|
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 18:14 |
|
Holy gently caress I can't believe that was a serious article. Mitt Romney should get to be President because he had 5 sons, and in another time period would deserve a loving Harem? The whole article is so unbelievably degrading to women that I almost can't believe they said: quote:From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. All women should want to bang Mitt Romney, Evolution says so. Therefore they should all vote for him. Bombadilillo posted:I have 5 daughters 0 sons. This makes me as hell even though I should ignore the idiocy. It should make you as hell. Your daughters have to grow up and raise families of their own in a world filled with people who believe this kind of poo poo.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 18:21 |
|
You want to know who fathered more daughters than sons? And last I heard, Reagan single handedly brought down communism by strangling the Soviet Union with his bare hands, that's basically the most alpha male thing a person can do.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 18:21 |
|
Imperialist Dog posted:Huge post ahoy which just combines everyone's thoughts an advice, so feel free to skip. Posting it here because I think I'm about to be unfriended And I thought I had patience. It's impressive that you are willing to take the time to calmly and methodically discuss this with family/friends.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 18:34 |
|
If I ever found out someone I was debating with was using this autism festival of a chart I'd never stop laughing, please don't advise people to debate like robots.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 18:48 |
|
jojoinnit posted:
Isn't the occurrence of homosexuality greatly increased in later born sons? If a guy has five sons, it's pretty likely, especially towards the last couple, that at least one is gay. I mean, that's cool and all, but not to the GOP.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 19:22 |
|
Glitterbomber posted:If I ever found out someone I was debating with was using this autism festival of a chart I'd never stop laughing, please don't advise people to debate like robots. I'm not saying that people should respond with "you cheated this discussion is terminated", I'm saying that the chart illustrates a few things worth considering in a discussion that a lot of people forget about, particularly whether or not the conversation even consists of a discussion at all. If people are eager to discuss a subject with someone who is unwilling to acknowledge they could even in principle be wrong, or who are unwilling to change their views in light of evidence to the contrary, or who move goalposts or change the subject when they are confronted with contradictory evidence, by all means go hog wild. I think their time would be better served addressing the premises on which the faulty arguments are being made instead of the faulty arguments themselves. If people aren't on common ground in what merits acceptable evidence, you won't get far no matter how many facts you have to support your position.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 19:44 |
|
Copy/pasting from an old post I made about voter fraud; use it if it's helpful, or let me know if it's poo poo: Something skeptics need to keep in mind is that when you're talking about voter ID and bans on same-day registration and the like, voter suppression strategies like these aren't meant to keep all minorities and college students from voting. Not even most of them. What it's meant to do is keep enough of them from voting. What may sound like an insignificant percentage of people, when considered against the population of an entire state, becomes a lot more significant in a close race. So by making it just a little bit harder for a certain group (black people, college students, old people) to vote, the point isn't to chisel off 10% of that population - that's way too obvious. But take a state like Florida, which has around 12 million registered voters, and suppose you can shave off just a quarter percent of them...that's 30,000 votes, a big chunk of which you know would go to your opponent. But hey, it's not like 30,000 votes is enough to make a difference in a state as big as Florida, right? To make voter fraud work what you'd have to do is register to vote in a different precinct under a totally different identity - and every time you voted you'd be committing a major felony. Or, and maybe this is easier, you'd have to pay someone to either a) vote for the guy they weren't already going to vote for, or b) stay home. The first state I found on google, Connecticut, can put you in prison for two years if you're caught voting twice. So why do it? How much money would you need to be paid in order to risk going to prison for two years? As a politician, how much money would you have to spend to buy the votes of enough people to make a difference in a race? And you'd have to keep in mind, every one of those bought votes is a person willing to break the law - what's stopping them from blackmailing you in the future, or selling you out in an effort to plea bargain out of some crime they're accused of? One guy with proof of a bought vote would be enough to kill your career and probably send you to prison. This is why voter fraud is a load of horseshit - it just doesn't make sense. There's far too much risk, and too little gain to make it worthwhile.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 19:46 |
|
Glitterbomber posted:If I ever found out someone I was debating with was using this autism festival of a chart I'd never stop laughing, please don't advise people to debate like robots. Huh? It has nothing to do with "how to debate" and everything to do with "are we debating/discussing in good faith?" CellBlock posted:Isn't the occurrence of homosexuality greatly increased in later born sons? If a guy has five sons, it's pretty likely, especially towards the last couple, that at least one is gay. I've never heard of anything like this. I mean, to the extent that if you have a lot of kids, its more likely that at least one of them will be gay; then yeah I suppose its true. But if you had 15 kids, and one of them was gay; I don't know why the odds would be greater that its the 15th child rather than the 1st. Sarion fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Aug 22, 2012 |
# ? Aug 22, 2012 20:09 |
|
Kim Jong III posted:I just saw this mentioned on Twitter and it raised my blood pressure to insanely high levels: I'd almost say Chris Muir of DBD wrote that article, but I can actually tell what the author's trying to say, terrible though it is. As it is, it's a slightly more eloquent Reddit article.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 20:14 |
|
jackpot posted:Copy/pasting from an old post I made about voter fraud; use it if it's helpful, or let me know if it's poo poo: I think both of these raise very good points. I think there are other cases in which someone could try to vote under a name that's not their own. But in all those cases, the problem still remains that you're either showing up at the same polling place more than once (which is risky) and/or registering to vote with a fake registration (which is often caught in the registration phase). And when dealing with false registration, Voter ID laws are kind of useless. If you're willing to file fake registration, you're probably willing to get fake ID's that match that registration.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 20:34 |
|
Amused to Death posted:You want to know who fathered more daughters than sons? I thought Rocky brought down communism with if i can change you can change speech of 1985.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 20:36 |
|
Sarion posted:Huh? It has nothing to do with "how to debate" and everything to do with "are we debating/discussing in good faith?" I don't know why it happens either, but there is a fraternal birth order effect on homosexuality. (It's not a major factor, but it's a factor.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_order#Sexuality
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 20:42 |
|
CellBlock posted:I don't know why it happens either, but there is a fraternal birth order effect on homosexuality. (It's not a major factor, but it's a factor.) Thanks, that's quite interesting and had never heard of that at all.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 21:13 |
|
Kim Jong III posted:I just saw this mentioned on Twitter and it raised my blood pressure to insanely high levels: I looked around that website some more, and I didn't manage to find a single good/informative article. I guess that article is pretty typical of "National Review Online".
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 22:58 |
|
Emy posted:I looked around that website some more, and I didn't manage to find a single good/informative article. I guess that article is pretty typical of "National Review Online". Ah, yes, the magazine founded by William F. Buckley to be the source of intellectualism in conservative politics. Admitted, "conservative intellectual" meant something a bit more highbrow than "HERP DERP MICHELLE SHOULD WANT TO SCREW MITT, AMIRITE GUYS?" back then. It's nice to see how the GOP's anti-intellectualism has borne its rotten, decaying fruit.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 23:30 |
|
Kim Jong III posted:I just saw this mentioned on Twitter and it raised my blood pressure to insanely high levels: This was just recently posted in the Terrible editorials thread, so I'm just going to paste the wall of text I wrote in response to it in that thread: Bruce Leroy posted:Even worse than the misogyny is the total lack of skepticism and misunderstanding of science and probability. This guy is a douchebag but he knows most people are knowledgeable or skeptical enough to actually question this because it already confirms what they want to believe. Just look at the one commenter on the NRO site who literally says that it must be true because it's "un-PC."
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 23:44 |
|
I do recall reading in a biology textbook that in many species, it's a good idea to have more daughters than sons, because daughters almost always have the chance to pass on your genes; with a son, you don't have the near guarantee he'll have the chance to breed. Now, all of this does not count sperm banks or in-vitro or donation of eggs, etc. It gets more interesting when you throw in sperm warfare, and since not every human male demands a paternity test of every offspring (at least not yet), there is still a chance Mittens' wife or his girlfriends, etc, over the course of his life, put him on the bill as father when he isn't the genetic parent. The same can be said for pretty much every male ever. But let's look at his five sons. Awesome, go man! You have five sons and let's say all of them have five sons. Those grandsons will inherit Mitt's money, to a degree, and certainly get a lot of prestige and status with it. That doesn't mean that they are his genetic descendants. Mitt's money and status could be going to children that are not passing on his genes. But whoo, five sons, go man! Compare to someone like Obama who has two daughters: pretty much any offspring they have is theirs, and assuming the girls are Obama's genetic children, his grandchildren don't have a chance to have a 'sneaker male' dig in gene wise. Mama's baby and papa's maybe and all that. If you have a son and he presents you with a grandchild, there is always the chance, however small or slight, that the mother of said grandchild had sex with other men, and the grandchild is not genetically yours. Technically speaking you DO want female descendants too, because an overload of male offspring in general leads to a lack of females (see rural China) which means that even LESS males get to pass on their genes due to competition for the few females left. Then again this was from an older textbook so the ideas might be skewed. Still you don't want several people around you, socially and otherwise, having the same and only that gender offspring as you. There's a lot of competition when it comes to mate selection.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 02:47 |
|
Bruce Leroy posted:This guy is a douchebag but he knows most people are knowledgeable or skeptical enough to actually question this because it already confirms what they want to believe. Just look at the one commenter on the NRO site who literally says that it must be true because it's "un-PC." That one comment alone made me want to hit that dude until he stopped moving. For gently caress's sake.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 02:56 |
|
CarterUSM posted:That one comment alone made me want to hit that dude until he stopped moving. For gently caress's sake. Even worse is when the illogical nature of their beliefs is clearly demonstrated with refutations in their own arguments. quote:"Know them by their fruit". It's a matter of fact that Romney has done abundantly well with his time on earth, money being the least important. So, "libs" are just burning with jealousy over Romney's money and success but they weren't jealous over an even richer guy like John Kerry (notice the emasculation and incorrectly stating that Kerry was the VP candidate on the Kerry-Edwards ticket)? Maybe that's because it's not about jealousy but rather about disagreement with his policy positions and Romney's aloofness and being tone-deaf to the problems and lives of middle class and poor Americans? No, it just has to be because they're only selectively jealous of virile Republican men and not nancy boy Democrats. The emasculation part is the funniest aspect to me. Kerry is the actual medal-earning Vietnam veteran while Romney is a chickenhawk who protested in favor of the war but refused to serve by using multiple deferments and being a bullshit missionary in loving France.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 03:18 |
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Even worse is when the illogical nature of their beliefs is clearly demonstrated with refutations in their own arguments. By their metric, Republicans should WORSHIP Joe Kennedy, Sr. Rich as hell and had nine kids, four of them male, of which all three who survived past young adulthood became some of the most powerful men in the country. And Bobby! Eleven kids, seven of which were male! CarterUSM fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Aug 23, 2012 |
# ? Aug 23, 2012 03:30 |
|
Your talking about people who wore bandaids to openly mock a war veteran because "El Rushbo" told them to. Some people will believe anything if it conforms to what they want. Your right though. I still ahven't heard peep about Romney draft dodging.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 03:32 |
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Compare to someone like Obama who has two daughters: pretty much any offspring they have is theirs... That was a really fun post but I just wanted to highlight this segment because of how hilariously deadpan the delivery was. The entire thing is structured well against .
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 03:32 |
|
I don't understand 'biotruths.' Is it some way to justify both genders wanting multiple sexual partners to increase offspring fitness, or is it some way to try and justify why men need sex and women who like sex are whores?
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 03:53 |
|
Cowslips Warren posted:I don't understand 'biotruths.' Is it some way to justify both genders wanting multiple sexual partners to increase offspring fitness, or is it some way to try and justify why men need sex and women who like sex are whores? Biotruth came from the reddit thread and the Feminism threads. It's a term adopted from, I believe, World of Gor. Basically it's a term used anytime someone tries to use lovely evo-psych to justify sexism. The smiley is a pink berry because one example someone used was "girls like pink because they picked berries while men hunted."
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 04:00 |
|
Cowslips Warren posted:I don't understand 'biotruths.' Is it some way to justify both genders wanting multiple sexual partners to increase offspring fitness, or is it some way to try and justify why men need sex and women who like sex are whores? jackofarcades already covered most of it, but to expand a little, it's a way of noting when people are trying to find a scientific, and therefore objective, justification for their preexisting biases, especially those relating to gender norms. In this case, there are several involved, the most notable of which is the line "The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status." This author is trying to find a biological justification for the social norms being harsh on women for superficial beauty, especially as they age, and the expectation of rich heterosexual men having attractive wives (but generally not the converse, because women are supposedly mating/marrying for status and wealth, not beauty). If there are scientific and biological reasons for these phenomena, then the author doesn't have to feel guilty for living in and perpetuating a sexist society and he especially doesn't have to do anything to change it. This is the main point, if something is natural via , then there's no expectation or responsibility to change things because it's just the natural way things are. Another classic example of this is racist poo poo like that of the infamous book "The Bell Curve," which argued that Blacks, Latinos, and pretty much everyone who isn't White or Asian has a lower average IQ. The resulting argument from that is that because average racial IQ differences are innate, it's not society's fault that some groups end up doing better in school and having better childhoods and adult lives, and "how racist of you to expect Blacks to do as well in school as the innately smarter Whites?!?" That way, we don't actually have any obligation to do anything about systemic racism in our society and people with privilege (i.e. White people) can keep their privilege without feeling guilty. The association of the color pink with girls being a remnant of humanity's hunter gatherer past is another classic, but fairly innocuous example. It still relies on flawed science, ignorance, and other bullshit, which is why it needs to be stamped out whenever possible. In this particular case, color preferences for children are a recent social construct, which is obvious from late 19th century magazine and other writings which actually reversed the gender color assignments, with boys being associated with pink.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 04:29 |
|
Just so you guys can brace yourselves, Rush Limbaugh is claiming Hurricane Isaac is a conspiracy by Obama. http://rt.com/usa/news/rush-limbaugh-obama-hurricane-335/
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 04:38 |
|
Bruce Leroy posted:If there are scientific and biological reasons for these phenomena, then the author doesn't have to feel guilty for living in and perpetuating a sexist society and he especially doesn't have to do anything to change it. It is certainly of no import at all that most of these biotruths are perfectly congruent with patriarchytruths.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 04:42 |
|
Armacham posted:Just so you guys can brace yourselves, Rush Limbaugh is claiming Hurricane Isaac is a conspiracy by Obama. http://rt.com/usa/news/rush-limbaugh-obama-hurricane-335/ My god, the comments: quote:The fat ladies of RT have no shame. CarterUSM posted:It is certainly of no import at all that most of these biotruths are perfectly congruent with patriarchytruths. Pretty much exactly.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 04:51 |
|
Armacham posted:Just so you guys can brace yourselves, Rush Limbaugh is claiming Hurricane Isaac is a conspiracy by Obama. http://rt.com/usa/news/rush-limbaugh-obama-hurricane-335/ quote:The fat ladies of RT have no shame. My favorite part is that a Rush Limbaugh fan is using the word Fat as an insult. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Aug 23, 2012 |
# ? Aug 23, 2012 04:52 |
|
^^^^^ Obviously you don't get Rush, the Hurricane Center IS OBAMA.Armacham posted:Just so you guys can brace yourselves, Rush Limbaugh is claiming Hurricane Isaac is a conspiracy by Obama. http://rt.com/usa/news/rush-limbaugh-obama-hurricane-335/ Rush posted:
Quit analyzing Hurricanes, Hurricane Center.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 04:54 |
|
Armacham posted:Just so you guys can brace yourselves, Rush Limbaugh is claiming Hurricane Isaac is a conspiracy by Obama. http://rt.com/usa/news/rush-limbaugh-obama-hurricane-335/ I listen to the news almost constantly during the day, and all the coverage I've heard has ony said there's a slight chance of it hitting Tampa at all, there is an evacuation plan in place, and an evacuation wouldn't even be required for anything quieter than a category II hurricane. Rush Limbaugh: Alex Jones. Also, I felt like coming to the defense of that R-Money article with "well, rich guys get chicks," but then I actually read it. Good lord, what subservient poo poo.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 04:57 |
|
Glitterbomber posted:If I ever found out someone I was debating with was using this autism festival of a chart I'd never stop laughing, please don't advise people to debate like robots. The point of the chart is that if you aren't an rear end in a top hat you shouldn't need such a chart.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 05:14 |
|
Yay, I got a response! We've got dodging the question, argument from authority, triumph of experience over facts, and argument as personal attack. To recap: Imperialist Dog posted:Because I offer facts and take up a contrary position to you does not mean I am being rude to you. Without concrete facts it is impossible for either side to have a fair, rational argument. Facts and opinions are very different and it's important to treat them differently. There are unlimited opinions and everyone is entitled to them, but there is only one set of facts. We should try to understand what that is and make our policies accordingly. We don't always succeed in understanding the facts of every case, but it's important not to give up. If we start treating facts like opinions and opinions like facts, we're left with everybody having their own and no means to discover the way forward. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. When we have a problem, like welfare cheats, our response should be dictated by the fact that so few people on welfare are actually cheats, proportionally, that it costs more money than it saves to weed them out. When you base your policy response on the opinion that there are too many welfare cheats, you end up with a program that loses money because you ignored the facts of the case. If you say the statistics are "skewed", it means you do not believe the statistics; you believe them to be lies. This is not your fault because you have quite reasonably come to the conclusion that statistics can be manipulated by unscrupulous people to say things that may not reflect the truth. But you need to understand that it is through statistics and the sifting of large amounts of data that we can arrive at truth, even if said truth contradicts what we "know" to be true. To use an American example, a thin, tall, bookish-looking man passes you in the street. He is reasonably well dressed, wearing old-fashioned glasses, but appears quiet and shy. Is he more likely to be a librarian or a farmer? The answer is a farmer, because statistically, there are 20 times more male farmers in the United States than there are male librarians, even though everything about his description fits our mental image of a librarian. However, until you spend some time actually going through statistics and numbers and learning which ones are accurate and which ones are bullshit lies, and more importantly, learning how to detect whether numbers have been manipulated or not, it is difficult to have a discussion on it. Imperialist Dog's Cousin posted:You tend to speak to people or come off as arrogant and condescending. I do not dismiss your facts however, most of your facts do not apply to Ottawa and while you spout statistics what you don't seem to understand is that the stats have margins of error and are based on the types of questions asked. If the question is worded one way, you'll get different stats than if the question was worded differently. I work with a woman at Ipsos Reid here in my building and she herself has confirmed this. I would take her word over stats than someone who does not work in this type of research. Your American example again, does not apply to Ontario. I do not need or want a lesson on statistics as I'm a pretty intelligent person and have gone to school. I've also worked in government and with research companies so have a very good understanding of how it all works. "Skewed" doesn't mean lies, the definition is "having an oblique or slanting direction or position". One would be extremely naive to believe whole-heartedly in the conclusion brought about by statistics. I enjoy a great debate (unless you disagree with me and have facts to back yourself up). I really don't think she understood what I was saying in my last comment, but I think I could get the City of Ottawa Minister for Catching Welfare Cheats on the phone and it still wouldn't matter. Imperialist Dog fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Aug 23, 2012 |
# ? Aug 23, 2012 11:03 |
|
Imperialist Dog posted:Yay, I got a response! We've got dodging the question, argument from authority, triumph of experience over facts, and argument as personal attack. Funny thing is that she's right about one thing - it's easy to skew the data when you're asking the wrong questions...like she did with her acquaintance at Ipsos. (Also, I'm still rooting for "construct your counterargument entirely from movie quotes" at this point, because it's fun.)
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 11:28 |
|
Bruce Leroy posted:jackofarcades already covered most of it, but to expand a little, it's a way of noting when people are trying to find a scientific, and therefore objective, justification for their preexisting biases, especially those relating to gender norms. In this case, there are several involved, the most notable of which is the line "The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status." This author is trying to find a biological justification for the social norms being harsh on women for superficial beauty, especially as they age, and the expectation of rich heterosexual men having attractive wives (but generally not the converse, because women are supposedly mating/marrying for status and wealth, not beauty). If there are scientific and biological reasons for these phenomena, then the author doesn't have to feel guilty for living in and perpetuating a sexist society and he especially doesn't have to do anything to change it. ....so despite the fact that women do in fact marry attractive guys (or can marry ugly dudes but can have sex outside of the marriage to have the gene potential from handsome sons to increase their own genetic fitness), and that homosexuals make up a part of the population and do have genetic offspring, and the fact sperm warfare exists, and that.....I'm sorry my head just Psyduck'd. Funny how a 'Biotruth' seems always linked to 'PatriarchyTruth.' Quite cute, that. Does a 'biotruth' try to explain away pedophila as normal or natural since of course men want the youngest wives possible? Does it try to explain why women as they age are more worthless, or why girls who have sex are whores? I bet it does. And I bet the results are Super Scientific, so much that a poor little lesbian mind like mine can't grasp it. I do love the term 'natural' because anything else is implied to be unnatural. You know, like eating cooked meat, getting medicine or vaccines, living past the age of childbirth, not DYING in childbirth due to medical advances, making bronze and brass, etc. All that poo poo is UnNatural. It's a biotruth, man! Hey, does a 'biotruth' explain why men but not gorillas tend to have larger penis size to body mass, or is that because men are so loving awesome?
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 11:46 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 09:08 |
|
I love that somehow you (Imperialist Dog) are the one who is arrogant and condescending meanwhile she is saying that you can't trust poors with our welfare money so we should make them pee in cups so we can prove that they're lousy, drug addicted, freeloaders. That sounds pretty arrogant and condescending to welfare recipients.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 12:06 |