What is a Man? Points to ponder...

[Edbear]

What is a Man?

Man is the most powerful creature on the planet for only one reason – his brain.

Only Man can destroy the world or himself.

Take Man out of the picture and envisage the situation.

Man is indisputably the ruler and master of this planet and all that is on it and that is impossible to change. While there are circumstances and instances of a Man or Men being defeated, it is the overall fact that Man is Master and Commander. No other earthly creature, not even Man’s closest companion, Woman, will ever alter the opening statement. Only Man can change that by abdicating his position and his responsibility.

So why does he do so to the detriment of those in his care and of society in general? Why does he force his closest companion to assume a role she was not designed for and resents him for abdicating from?

What is the role of a Man, what are his responsibilities and what is it about his brain that means he can be so powerful?

A Man is not only physically larger and stronger than his companion, but also mentally and emotionally stronger and while there are exceptions to the rule, nevertheless this is the rule. Why so?

Science tells us that the human capacity for learning, gaining knowledge and skill and to progress is virtually unlimited. No matter your age or circumstances you can learn. This is true of both Man and Woman equally. Intelligence is a separate issue and unrelated to gender as also is commonsense.

Women can do anything a Man can do, except dominate him and rule the world without his consent or by default due to his abdication.

What is Man’s role?

To care for those in His charge and to care for the planet he depends upon for the survival of all life including his own. His life is to be one of self-sacrifice and learning, of gaining knowledge for the good of the world and to implement that understanding for the best outcome.

His role is to provide nourishment and protection, opportunity for those on his care to grow, to feel secure and loved, to experience happiness and fulfilment. To work selflessly for others and for the general good of society.

The most powerful force in nature and the most powerful force in Man is love. Nothing can ever defeat love. Couple love with the capacity to comprehend and understand complexity, to solve problems of either an academic or social nature and effect solutions that work, to think laterally, to think in the abstract, makes Man undefeatable and capable of “conquering” the Universe.

There are three loves – eros, filial and principled. They are romantic love, brotherly love and love based on principle, or simply, a desire to do what is in the best interests of those in his care without regard to self. It is this third love, principled love, which is the most powerful force on Earth.

The day a Man understands this and puts it into practise, he truly becomes a Man.

[98tls]

So Ed,where do hookers fit into all this?

[Insanity_rules]

Very philosophical there Ed, with just a hint (sic) of anthropology. Very deep!

[Edbear]

So Ed,where do hookers fit into all this?

Purely for men who think solely with the wrong head... And for women who fail to appreciate their value as individuals.

[MadDuck]

Man is the most powerful creature on the planet for only one reason – his brain.

Nup...so disagree with that one.

[Edbear]

Nup...so disagree with that one.

Go on, I'm listening...

[MadDuck]

Go on, I'm listening...

MAN was put on earth to mow the lawns and put the rubbish out ...

[Genie]

OMG..... thanks from that, may just come back and read again tomorrow.

Deep and rather poignant, like a wee slap in the face to reality.
Sometimes words burst forth from some corner that can awaken one, thanks I'm awake now. All has been revealed....
Man is Master, but not all can take on that title. Very few can Master....Masterhood is reserved for the "special".

[Edbear]

MAN was put on earth to mow the lawns and put the rubbish out ...

Oh, yeah, that too...:innocent:


OMG..... thanks from that, may just come back and read again tomorrow.

Deep and rather poignant, like a wee slap in the face to reality.
Sometimes words burst forth from some corner that can awaken one, thanks I'm awake now. All has been revealed....
Man is Master, but not all can take on that title. Very few can Master....Masterhood is reserved for the "special".

"Masterhood" is the reserve of those who earn it. One cannot demand it, nor achieve it as a right of birth. It is granted to him by his loved one's... :msn-wink:

[98tls]

MAN was put on earth to mow the lawns and put the rubbish out ...

As long as you refuse to clean the loo all is not lost and you can still hold your head high (just dont let her see ya doing it).

[Big Dave]

I am The Man.

[Genie]

"Masterhood" is the reserve of those who earn it. One cannot demand it, nor achieve it as a right of birth. It is granted to him by his loved one's... :msn-wink:

Some do demand and expect, and you are correct, his title is only earned through his actions towards those he loves and how he loves. His love must be 'pure and free' with no desire for ego but for the goodness he can do.
His reverence is in the landscape that surrounds him......what he creates.

[SS90]

What is a Man?


Women can do anything a Man can do, except dominate him and rule the world without his consent or by default due to his abdication.

What is Man’s role?


The day a Man understands this and puts it into practise, he truly becomes a Man.

I'm sorry ED, I just don't agree.

This is a woman's world, always has been, and always will be.

Why?

Man's two biggest weaknesses are his Ego, and his natuarl instinct to breed.

Who, on this earth, can control these emotions in one easy step?

Women, the true rulers of the world.

Women all over the world, learn from an early age that to control a man, all you need to do is control his emotions, once you do this, the man is susceptible to suggestions, and therefore "under control"

A woman can simply control you emotions by rubbing your ego "most of the time", always agreeing with you, laughing at your jokes etc. Thereby, at her whim, "keeping you happy", and "stroking your ego" (all easy things to do), then, when the need arises, the women needs only to make you feel down (wound your ego, thereby, SHE is the one who sets your mood), and you (the man) will be more susceptible to subtle, slow, calculated suggestions that will enable the woman to "get her way"

For any person in the world to say that "man is the dominant creature" needs to be a little less "gender specific"

"Homosapiens are the dominant creature on earth, and Women are the dominant sex"

Men, if you don't agree, try going out on the town with your mates and see how many girls buy you drinks!

Women, FTW!

[Headbanger]

Man is indisputably the ruler and master of this planet and all that is on it and that is impossible to change. .

Mankinds reign will have come and gone in the blink of an eye, and our damage done to the planet will be covered over almost instantly.

Many species have found themselves at the top of the food chain and thus the masters of this planet, and none of them have seen fit to fuck it up on the scale that mankind are working on.

[Edbear]

Thererin is the difference between fear and respect. Some men confuse the two. If a Man has to dominate by force, either mentally or physically, he is not the Master, he is an abomination.

A true Man is a trusted, loved and respected leader, who leads and teaches by example. One who gently guides and dignifies those in his care, making them feel valued, appreciated and important. One who listens, genuinely and with empathy and kindness. This is Ultimate strength, as one can only do this if one is secure with himself and is strong enough to be humble.

[98tls]

Mankinds reign will have come and gone in the blink of an eye, and our damage done to the planet will be covered over almost instantly.

Many species have found themselves at the top of the food chain and thus the masters of this planet, and none of them have seen fit to fuck it up on the scale that mankind are working on.

Thats it,hookers,if we give hookers total control harmony will be restored.:corn:

[Genie]

Thererin is the difference between fear and respect. Some men confuse the two. If a Man has to dominate by force, either mentally or physically, he is not the Master, he is an abomination.

A true Man is a trusted, loved and respected leader, who leads and teaches by example. One who gently guides and dignifies those in his care, making them feel valued, appreciated and important. One who listens, genuinely and with empathy and kindness. This is Ultimate strength, as one can only do this if one is secure with himself and is strong enough to be humble.

eeeeeek....

[MadDuck]

Thats it,hookers,if we give hookers total control harmony will be restored.:corn:

Come on fess up. You just have a thing for hookers ah?

[Edbear]

I'm sorry ED, I just don't agree.

This is a woman's world, always has been, and always will be.

Why?

Man's two biggest weaknesses are his Ego, and his natuarl instinct to breed.

Who, on this earth, can control these emotions in one easy step?

Women, the true rulers of the world.

Women all over the world, learn from an early age that to control a man, all you need to do is control his emotions, once you do this, the man is susceptible to suggestions, and therefore "under control"

A woman can simply control you emotions by rubbing your ego "most of the time", always agreeing with you, laughing at your jokes etc. Thereby, at her whim, "keeping you happy", and "stroking your ego" (all easy things to do), then, when the need arises, the women needs only to make you feel down (wound your ego, thereby, SHE is the one who sets your mood), and you (the man) will be more susceptible to subtle, slow, calculated suggestions that will enable the woman to "get her way"

For any person in the world to say that "man is the dominant creature" needs to be a little less "gender specific"

"Homosapiens are the dominant creature on earth, and Women are the dominant sex"

Men, if you don't agree, try going out on the town with your mates and see how many girls buy you drinks!

Women, FTW!

As I said, only if a man consents or abdicates his responsibility. No-one, Man or Woman can be successful without self-control. It is far easier to be weak and led than to be strong and lead.


Mankinds reign will have come and gone in the blink of an eye, and our damage done to the planet will be covered over almost instantly.

Many species have found themselves at the top of the food chain and thus the masters of this planet, and none of them have seen fit to fuck it up on the scale that mankind are working on.

I think you are confirming my point that only Man can destroy this planet and himself. Each of the 300 submarines of the US Navy carries more destructive force than was unleashed in two World Wars.

Both the US and Russia have the capacity to destroy all life on Earth several times over.

[rainman]

No other earthly creature, not even Man’s closest companion, Woman, will ever alter the opening statement.
...
Why does he force his closest companion to assume a role she was not designed for and resents him for abdicating from?
...
A Man is not only physically larger and stronger than his companion, but also mentally and emotionally stronger and while there are exceptions to the rule, nevertheless this is the rule.
...
Women can do anything a Man can do, except dominate him and rule the world without his consent or by default due to his abdication.


If I pass the link to this post to some of my ardent feminist friends, you would be sooooooooooooooo fucked. And, mentally and emotionally stronger? My arse.

Seriously though, this is just the old "man is the head of the household" crap which has been popular through the ages. It's just the testosterone speaking. Go for a long run, you'll feel much better.



This is a woman's world, always has been, and always will be.
...
Men, if you don't agree, try going out on the town with your mates and see how many girls buy you drinks!

Dunno, I think it's either the plants or the bacteria that have the edge - we'll be long gone before they will be. And, fair point about the drinks.


Mankinds reign will have come and gone in the blink of an eye, and our damage done to the planet will be covered over almost instantly.

Many species have found themselves at the top of the food chain and thus the masters of this planet, and none of them have seen fit to fuck it up on the scale that mankind are working on.

Someone with perspective. Indeed, sir, I could not agree more.

Cartoon (can't find the image so words will have to do):
Two planets talking, one looks really crook.
Sick planet: I feel terrible, I think I have a bad case of homo sapiens.
Other planet: Oh, don't worry, that doesn't last long.

[Edbear]

If I pass the link to this post to some of my ardent feminist friends, you would be sooooooooooooooo fucked. And, mentally and emotionally stronger? My arse.

Seriously though, this is just the old "man is the head of the household" crap which has been popular through the ages. It's just the testosterone speaking. Go for a long run, you'll feel much better..

Do you often speak without thinking? I'd love your feminist freinds to read this and think about it before responding, as you should have.

Try to read it again and this time think about it. It is simple fact, nothing more, nothing less.

I did point out that there were exceptions to the rule, but they are just that, exceptions, not the rule.

[SS90]

As I said, only if a man consents or abdicates his responsibility. No-one, Man or Woman can be successful without self-control. It is far easier to be weak and led than to be strong and lead.




True.

But, in reality, human's (males) very rarely (if ever) demonstrates true self control.

Humans, by nature, are a "group animal" we live in a pack (family and friends), hunt in a pack (be in food, or mating) and eat in a pack (family/friends).

Over procreation, humans second biggest desire is to be "part of a group", and, 99% of the time, humans will abandon their principals, and, or morals to simply "fit in"

It is the person(s) who manipulate this desire the most (head of the pack) that become the most successful (alpha male/female)

Every day people wear clothes, drive cars etc that they only want, because "it's what everyone else is doing", the moment you surrender to this desire is the moment you become a "victim", and never know what it is like to be an individual.

[SS90]

As I said, only if a man consents or abdicates his responsibility. No-one, Man or Woman can be successful without self-control. It is far easier to be weak and led than to be strong and lead.




True.

But, in reality, human's (males) very rarely (if ever) demonstrates true self control.

Humans, by nature, are a "group animal" we live in a pack (family and friends), hunt in a pack (be in food, or mating) and eat in a pack (family/friends).

Over procreation, humans second biggest desire is to be "part of a group", and, 99% of the time, humans will abandon their principals, and, or morals to simply "fit in"

It is the person(s) who manipulate this desire the most (head of the pack) that become the most successful (alpha male/female)

Every day people wear clothes, drive cars etc that they only want, because "it's what everyone else is doing", the moment you surrender to this desire is the moment you become a "victim", and never know what it is like to be an individual.

[MadDuck]

True.

But, in reality, human's (males) very rarely (if ever) demonstrates true self control.

Humans, by nature, are a "group animal" we live in a pack (family and friends), hunt in a pack (be in food, or mating) and eat in a pack (family/friends).

Over procreation, humans second biggest desire is to be "part of a group", and, 99% of the time, humans will abandon their principals, and, or morals to simply "fit in"

It is the person(s) who manipulate this desire the most (head of the pack) that become the most successful (alpha male/female)

Every day people wear clothes, drive cars etc that they only want, because "it's what everyone else is doing", the moment you surrender to this desire is the moment you become a "victim", and never know what it is like to be an individual.

What an absolute crock of shit!

[SS90]

What an absolute crock of shit!

Why is that a crock of shit?

Ever dyed your hair/worn a dress just to impress someone?

[rainman]

A true Man is a trusted, loved and respected leader, who leads and teaches by example. One who gently guides and dignifies those in his care, making them feel valued, appreciated and important. One who listens, genuinely and with empathy and kindness. This is Ultimate strength, as one can only do this if one is secure with himself and is strong enough to be humble.

:sick:
Ooooh, errrgh, :sick:, aah, :puke:

And I can safely say I never speak/post without thinking.

Jeez, I disagree with you, and I'm "not thinking". Arrogant much?

[scissorhands]

John Wayne was a fag

[MadDuck]

Why is that a crock of shit?
Where is Scharding?

[SS90]

Where is Scharding?

It's SchÄrding.

15KM west from Passau

[MadDuck]

Ever dyed your hair/worn a dress just to impress someone?

Nope.........I wear a dress maybe once every 5 years

[MadDuck]

Nope.........I wear a dress maybe once every 5 years

usually a Wedding or Funeral

[rainman]

Why is that a crock of shit?

Sounds like "community is weakness, our true calling is to be a heroic INDIVIDUAL" to me. Also known as common-or-garden Randian bullshit...

But perhaps I'm over-interpreting. (I have an aversion problem with Randians. Working on it.)

Anyway, I'm more into selflessness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta) than determined individualism, which feels uncomfortable, like very unskilful thought to me.

[SS90]

usually a Wedding or Funeral

Then m'aam, you are in the 1% I mentioned.

[Headbanger]

Try to read it again and this time think about it. It is simple fact, nothing more, nothing less.



Its simple opinion, Not fact.

And it smacks of the arrogance of someone who thinks God made us in his image. (of course there is a God, He mad me just like him)

Its no more fact then If I stated A true Man was a warrior who showed his enemies no mercy, who raped his women, who killed his sons for being weak, For a mans role is to be the ruler, The sword arm of the country, To be respected for his battle skills. To be feared....blah blah blah blah.

Its not facts, Its conditioning.

[Headbanger]

Nope.........I wear a dress maybe once every 5 years

Same.:shit:

.....

[Headbanger]

Ladies, Your role is to be hot.

If your not hot, I hope you can cook.

[SS90]

Sounds like "community is weakness, our true calling is to be a heroic INDIVIDUAL" to me. Also known as common-or-garden Randian bullshit...

But perhaps I'm over-interpreting. (I have an aversion problem with Randians. Working on it.)

Anyway, I'm more into selflessness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta) than determined individualism, which feels uncomfortable, like very unskilful thought to me.

I am familure with the "randian" terminolgy, but fail to draw comparisons with my points on humans exploiting the basic desire of acceptance for their own selfish needs.

60's punk culture, created from impoverished youth from London's east end, exploited by Vivian Westwood into becoming a "fashion for all", while the youth remained impoverished.

Millions of "EMO" (read "new Goth") dressing in black (because black is the colour of their sole) believing they are being "individual" (just like 10million other "individual EMO's" on the planet.

[MadDuck]

Ladies, Your role is to be hot.

If your not hot, I hope you can cook.

Damn! I miss on both. But I can strip a sprotsbike down in less than 30 and put it back with no pieces missing. Is there hope for me?

[SS90]

Ladies, Your role is to be hot.

If your not hot, I hope you can cook.

Bingo.

My point exactly.

Men think a woman's role is to be hot.

Why?

Hot makes us horny, when we are horny, we want to fuck.

When a woman can make us horny at a whim, they OWN US.

As the great AL Bundy said "Pretty women make us buy Beer, ugly Women make us DRINK Beer!"

[rainman]

I am familure with the "randian" terminolgy, but fail to draw comparisons with my points on humans exploiting the basic desire of acceptance for their own selfish needs.

60's punk culture, created from impoverished youth from London's east end, exploited by Vivian Westwood into becoming a "fashion for all", while the youth remained impoverished.

Millions of "EMO" (read "new Goth") dressing in black (because black is the colour of their sole) believing they are being "individual" (just like 10million other "individual EMO's" on the planet.

So, people just wanna belong. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Headbanger]

Meh, A cardboard box can make me horny on a whim.

Oh yeah.

[Headbanger]

Damn! I miss on both. But I can strip a sprotsbike down in less than 30 and put it back with no pieces missing. Is there hope for me?

No.

Hot or cook.

Those are the options.

As demanded by fat stupid persons of limited skill and ability such as myself.

[MadDuck]

No.

Hot or cook.

Those are the options.

Off to slit my wrists ....I CANT COOK

[SS90]

So, people just wanna belong. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Not my place to say if it is good or bad, but history is littered with examples of individuals taking advantage of peoples need/desire to belong.

Nazi germany (actually, make that Nazi Europe)
Any (patched) Gang in NZ

[MadDuck]

Not my place to say if it is good or bad, but history is littered with examples of individuals taking advantage of peoples need/desire to belong.

Nazi germany (actually, make that Nazi Europe)
Any (patched) Gang in NZ

And tonights troll is......?????????

[Berries]

Hot makes us horny, when we are horny, we want to fuck.
And that is the only reason we walk the planet, our sole purpose is to procreate like all the other animals. Once we understand that, life is easy.

Can't hold on to a relationship mind, but you do get to meet interesting people. And quite often drunk ones.:woohoo:

[SS90]

And tonights troll is......?????????

Here we have a perfect example of someone trying to manipulate people opinions to feel superior/repair their ego.

In this case, "MadDuck" uses the internet termed "troll" (meaning to infer that I am posting inflamitory comments, trying to incite various responses).

In doing so, MadDuck is trying to "put me down" (control my emotions), and does so in a public way i.e "And tonights troll is" (the question being proffered to a group, hoping to elicit a "group" response, thereby attempting to make me feel like "an outsider", and therefore "not part of the group"

But, nice try MadDuck....perhaps if you wore a dress more often/learned to cook (both things you freely admit to shunning) you may come up with a better rebuttal, than the "encite dissidence" approach you have taken thus far.

[Genie]

Whatever you give a woman, she will make it greater.
Give her sperm, she will give you a baby.
Give her a house, she will give you a home.
Give her groceries, she will give you a meal.
Give her a smile and she will give you her heart.
She multiplies and enlarges what she is given.
Iif u give her crap, be ready to receive a ton of shit.

more wee thoughts for all to ponder :lol:

[Maha]

usually a Wedding or Funeral

And I have pics to prove this point....:shifty:

Man! I feel like a woman.

[rainman]

Not my place to say if it is good or bad, but history is littered with examples of individuals taking advantage of peoples need/desire to belong.

OK, if you had a point related to the topic of this thread, I'm afraid you lost me. But don't let it worry you.

[Toaster]

Man is Master

As you say Genie... "Yes, Master"

[Toaster]

MAN was put on earth to mow the lawns and put the rubbish out ...


I prefer to delegate.

[Toaster]

I feel like a woman.


Just don't wake her up in the middle of the night when you do.... they bite.

[Edbear]

Its simple opinion, Not fact.

And it smacks of the arrogance of someone who thinks God made us in his image. (of course there is a God, He mad me just like him)

Its no more fact then If I stated A true Man was a warrior who showed his enemies no mercy, who raped his women, who killed his sons for being weak, For a mans role is to be the ruler, The sword arm of the country, To be respected for his battle skills. To be feared....blah blah blah blah.

Its not facts, Its conditioning.

No, it is simple, observable fact and if you took your prejudicial glasses off you will note that there was no reference at all to God, religion or spirituality. Try to have a good look around at the way of the world with your eyes actually open.


Whatever you give a woman, she will make it greater.
Give her sperm, she will give you a baby.
Give her a house, she will give you a home.
Give her groceries, she will give you a meal.
Give her a smile and she will give you her heart.
She multiplies and enlarges what she is given.
Iif u give her crap, be ready to receive a ton of shit.

more wee thoughts for all to ponder :lol:

Sorry, I can't bling you again just yet!


Just don't wake her up in the middle of the night when you do.... they bite.

Ahah, you just need to know how, then she doesn't bite....

(she just says, :"Go away, I'm trying to sleep!)... :yes:

[Headbanger]

No, it is simple, observable fact and if you took your prejudicial glasses off you will note that there was no reference at all to God, religion or spirituality. Try to have a good look around at the way of the world with your eyes actually open.


I'm quite aware that I am the one who made the reference to the religious mindset and how persons of that persuasion view mankind. This is also reinforced by your insistance that what you have posted is the unquestionable truth.......Lmao.

I do not agree with your opinion on the exalted position of man or mankind, if anything we are undeserving of our status as current dominate species, But time will take care that. Balance will be restored. The abomination that is mankind will return to dust.

The History of the Earth puts human history into context.

[CookMySock]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h4D6OItQXWs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h4D6OItQXWs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Mudfart]

I reckon that the modern luxuries such as personal wealth, job security blah,blah gives us the belief in love. I think that if the world was back to caveman times with no "mod cons", and "only the strongest survives", then A) the biggest strongest men would totally dominate any weaker men or women regardless of intellect. B) having a sexual partner would not be out of love, it would be out of necessity, the majority of the time. The biggest strongest men would be breeding as much as possible, making the human gene pool stronger physically, its instinctual in all animals. Also these alpha males would be spreading their seed with whoever they wanted because of their privledged positions in society, they could simply take whatever they goddamn wanted, until someone bigger, stronger took it from them.
Property ownership in this tribal, savage,situation goes out the window. There is no such thing as MY land, MY cave, MY car (to be subjective). This rule would also apply to female ownership.

[Edbear]

I'm quite aware that I am the one who made the reference to the religious mindset and how persons of that persuasion view mankind. This is also reinforced by your insistance that what you have posted is the unquestionable truth.......Lmao.

I do not agree with your opinion on the exalted position of man or mankind, if anything we are undeserving of our status as current dominate species, But time will take care that. Balance will be restored. The abomination that is mankind will return to dust.

The History of the Earth puts human history into context.

The fact is, as you also point out, Man is the dominant species, no question, deserved or not, and he will remain so for as long as he wishes or until he destroys himself and the planet. This, by the way, is what he is actually doing right now and he will not stop until he has succeeded.

History bears this out. Man will not stop anything he is doing until he is stopped. That is current and historical fact. You need to more carefully examine history for yourself, you betray a lack of personal study and parrot the opinions of others.


I reckon that the modern luxuries such as personal wealth, job security blah,blah gives us the belief in love. I think that if the world was back to caveman times with no "mod cons", and "only the strongest survives", then A) the biggest strongest men would totally dominate any weaker men or women regardless of intellect. B) having a sexual partner would not be out of love, it would be out of necessity, the majority of the time. The biggest strongest men would be breeding as much as possible, making the human gene pool stronger physically, its instinctual in all animals. Also these alpha males would be spreading their seed with whoever they wanted because of their privledged positions in society, they could simply take whatever they goddamn wanted, until someone bigger, stronger took it from them.
Property ownership in this tribal, savage,situation goes out the window. There is no such thing as MY land, MY cave, MY car (to be subjective). This rule would also apply to female ownership.

Then strong do dominate for a time until they are in turn overthrown or die. You also betray a lack of personal study. The so-called "caveman days" never were a fact of history. Mankind has always been sophisticated. Look at the most "primitive" of societies today and you will see what is actual reality, not fanciful theory. Ad no, I"m not referring to technical skill, I am referring to societal structure.

[huff3r]

I think a lot of people here perhaps have not noticed the amount of influence it is possible to gain simply by respecting others. I believe this is the way in which any one man can gain a substantial amount of control.

Personally i don't know how this affects women, or if they too can manage to gain influence through respect rather than just through "mens emotions" as others seem to bleieve they totally control. But i certainly know its quite easy to convince people to do just about anything when they respect you, and gaining that respect is easy to do if you respect them...

Ok, i think ive succesfully confused myself :bleh:

[MacD]

The fact is, as you also point out, Man is the dominant species, no question, deserved or not, and he will remain so for as long as he wishes or until he destroys himself and the planet. This, by the way, is what he is actually doing right now and he will not stop until he has succeeded.


Actually humanity is most likely to fall victim to something as small and simple as a virus, or a catastrophic natural event, as have previous "dominant" species on this Earth.

What you have written is not fact, but opinion and you continuously use ad hominen arguments against people who disagree with your world view.

While you have not overtly stated that your view is religious, it is simply a restatement of the Judeo-christian view of man's domain over women and animals.

[Mudfart]

the referral to caveman days is not to be taken literally. In most things I say, they are kept as laymans as possible, as I always assume others have difficulty understanding what I am trying to express. Its one of my flaws. I am now realising that I am able to express myself correctly, and anyone who still doesnt get it, is the 'tard I was initially expecting to encounter.
The caveman days referrence is a simple highlight to mans natural most raw, basic instinct. The strongest survives is clearly proven in Darwins theorum.

[Edbear]

I think a lot of people here perhaps have not noticed the amount of influence it is possible to gain simply by respecting others. I believe this is the way in which any one man can gain a substantial amount of control.

Personally i don't know how this affects women, or if they too can manage to gain influence through respect rather than just through "mens emotions" as others seem to bleieve they totally control. But i certainly know its quite easy to convince people to do just about anything when they respect you, and gaining that respect is easy to do if you respect them...

Ok, i think ive succesfully confused myself :bleh:

A thoughtful post.

Remember I said that Masterhood was granted to a man by his loved ones? They allow him "control" because they know his desire is in their interests, not in his own.

Some seek to gain control by feigning interest in others or by using their status, or mana, or popularity for selfish interests. No-one can dispute that some people, both men and women have gained control over others for selfish interests using such as flattery and deceipt, but my OP was about the way it is in Mankind inherently. All posts to the contrary have merely confirmed my point that there are and will be exceptions to the rule, but not being the rule.

Also, my OP about true manhood remains accurate. A true man does not and does not need to, control or dominate his woman or his children, he recognizes a partnership of interdependency, of mutual respect and love. A man needs a woman, she complements his abilities and responsibilities with her own - the two work together in harmony each playing a role that benefits the family and society. Note I did not imply intelligence, a woman may be more intelligent, ie: higher IQ, or more learned than her husband, but that does not excuse the husband from his responsibilities as outlined in my OP.

[Gone Burger]

A very interesting thread that provokes a lot of thought.

Saw this on the net and thought it said things pretty well, coming from a womens prospectice...

"A man is a person who is strong enough to let himself be vulnerable. Someone who defines himself rather than let other's dictate who he should be. Someone not afraid to champion those who cannot champion themselves. Someone who expresses fear and uncertainty knowing the definition of bravery is feeling scared and doing it anyway. "

I have met few "real" men in my life, but that might be mostly because of my age. But when you do meet one, they take you by suprise, and stand out from crowd. Honest, strong, courageous, gracious, loyal, a good leader, also willing to be lead, a strong heart that is still allowed to be filled with emotion. To me, that's a real man, and one that is quite hard to come by. As a women, I am soft, and not a leader (talking about myself personally) - and to meet a man that could have that strength to love and lead with, would win much respect from me.

[Gone Burger]

Must apologise if I have plenty of spelling mistakes above too - really can't spell to save myself! Sorry

[SS90]

A thoughtful post.

Remember I said that Masterhood was granted to a man by his loved ones? They allow him "control" because they know his desire is in their interests, not in his own.

Some seek to gain control by feigning interest in others or by using their status, or mana, or popularity for selfish interests. No-one can dispute that some people, both men and women have gained control over others for selfish interests using such as flattery and deceipt, but my OP was about the way it is in Mankind inherently. All posts to the contrary have merely confirmed my point that there are and will be exceptions to the rule, but not being the rule.

Also, my OP about true manhood remains accurate. A true man does not and does not need to, control or dominate his woman or his children, he recognizes a partnership of interdependency, of mutual respect and love. A man needs a woman, she complements his abilities and responsibilities with her own - the two work together in harmony each playing a role that benefits the family and society. Note I did not imply intelligence, a woman may be more intelligent, ie: higher IQ, or more learned than her husband, but that does not excuse the husband from his responsibilities as outlined in my OP.

Just so I can get a handle on your perspective, do you believe in creation or evolution?

[Edbear]

Actually humanity is most likely to fall victim to something as small and simple as a virus, or a catastrophic natural event, as have previous "dominant" species on this Earth.

What you have written is not fact, but opinion and you continuously use ad hominen arguments against people who disagree with your world view.

While you have not overtly stated that your view is religious, it is simply a restatement of the Judeo-christian view of man's domain over women and animals.

No, what I have stated is observable to anyone who cares to look. Nothing to do with any religious view at all.

In an ideal world your scenario may be true and it may well be that a virus will devastate mankind. What you fail to recognise is why that may occur and what kind of virus is likely. Look at fact, not fiction, fact not theory.

Granted, a catastrophic nautral disaster may occur, and many do affecting hundreds, thousands and even milions of people. The most likely catastrophe that could wipe mankind out would need to be such as an asteroid strike, or the death of the oceans.

Scientists already tell us the oceans are dying and many opine that it is already too late to save the Earth from this end as the food chain is being destroyed from the bottom up.


the referral to caveman days is not to be taken literally. In most things I say, they are kept as laymans as possible, as I always assume others have difficulty understanding what I am trying to express. Its one of my flaws. I am now realising that I am able to express myself correctly, and anyone who still doesnt get it, is the 'tard I was initially expecting to encounter.
The caveman days referrence is a simple highlight to mans natural most raw, basic instinct. The strongest survives is clearly proven in Darwins theorum.

Point taken. I ask you, what is man's most raw, basic instinct? Your reference indicates selfish desire and dominance by force, not love and altruism, not self-sacrifice and the desire to protect and preserve and flourish.

Your caveman analogy is one of animalistic tendency and you both reduce Man to the level of animal. Man is so far above the anilmal kingdom that he even refers, to it as "the animal kindom". Anyone who wishes to be an animal does so by choice, as does anyone who wishes to raise himself above that level to true humanity.

Therein lies the proof of what I am saying. Animals do not have that choice.

[Edbear]

Just so I can get a handle on your perspective, do you believe in creation or evolution?

What I believe is irrelevant and has no bearing upon my OP. See my post above.

There are many here with a variety of personal beliefs, some may have exactly the opposite of myself or you or any mix of opinion or belief.

Some may agree with my OP or disagree, but a thoughtful person will look at facts as they lay.

[Headbanger]

The fact is, as you also point out, Man is the dominant species, no question, deserved or not, and he will remain so for as long as he wishes or until he destroys himself and the planet.

Afraid not.

We became the dominant species as conditions allowed us to breed like rabbits. When those conditions change then the species best for the enviorment suited will become the dominant species, and that species maynot even exist yet.

[Winston001]

Point taken. I ask you, what is man's most raw, basic instinct? Your reference indicates selfish desire and dominance by force, not love and altruism, not self-sacrifice and the desire to protect and preserve and flourish.

Your caveman analogy is one of animalistic tendency and you both reduce Man to the level of animal. Man is so far above the anilmal kingdom that he even refers, to it as "the animal kindom".

Afraid I must disagree. The elements which distinguish us from the lower animals is our intense curiosity and our ability to develop abstract concepts such as love, politics, art, and religion. But we are still animals which just happen to have developed large brains. Our prime directives are food, clothing, shelter, and procreation - in that order. Actually procreation over-rides everything as the biggie, but in order to do that food etc is the moment to moment necessity.

Man is a social animal and the species is enhanced by living in groups. The group provides safety and shared skills. In modern society we have over-ridden our primitive reactions (an eye for an eye etc) in order to live as a large group, trusting that all members adhere to the same code. And it works despite a fringe who break down and wreck havoc - we call these people criminals. No big deal.

[Headbanger]

I am definitely an animal.

[mashman]

Man is a very simple creature who's base instinct is survival. Throw money into the mix and you end up with what we have today (a fuck up)... all of our emotions are driven by the chemical reactions that our bodies are stimulated into... Be it the sudden smell/sight/sound etc... of a predator, the checkin out of some booty (erectus unexpectus), the lack of money in our bank accounts etc... These base stimuli govern our reactions in just about every situation. Now we have the ability to communicate it's way too easy to "stimulate" any person you choose in order to ilicit a prescribed response... you just need to know the buttons to push... unfortunately there are those in society that do exactly that... and they realise that our "primeval" instincts are the most powerful... i.e. survival/fear etc... and they use it to it's full extent using the media to make you "feel" in a particular way... geanted we all feel things differently, but the actual emotions of the people won't vary that much only in intensity.

It's a simple as that IMHO... Man or Woman, doesn't matter, each can be as bad/good as the other and is capable of anything they can dream up...

[Edbear]

Afraid not.

We became the dominant species as conditions allowed us to breed like rabbits. When those conditions change then the species best for the enviorment suited will become the dominant species, and that species maynot even exist yet.


Afraid I must disagree. The elements which distinguish us from the lower animals is our intense curiosity and our ability to develop abstract concepts such as love, politics, art, and religion. But we are still animals which just happen to have developed large brains. Our prime directives are food, clothing, shelter, and procreation - in that order. Actually procreation over-rides everything as the biggie, but in order to do that food etc is the moment to moment necessity.

Man is a social animal and the species is enhanced by living in groups. The group provides safety and shared skills. In modern society we have over-ridden our primitive reactions (an eye for an eye etc) in order to live as a large group, trusting that all members adhere to the same code. And it works despite a fringe who break down and wreck havoc - we call these people criminals. No big deal.

You both clean missed the point. Your views are simplistic and unrelated to reality.

"Anyone who wishes to be an animal does so by choice, as does anyone who wishes to raise himself above that level to true humanity.

Therein lies the proof of what I am saying. Animals do not have that choice."

[Headbanger]

Your views are simplistic and unrelated to reality.



Mooooooo.

Ture humanity is a bit of a laugh, We are hairless apes with over sized brains due to evolution. I bet nature won't be wanting to repeat that trick again. Massive backfire.

And we have lost our ability to live on this planet without changing it to suit and putting in massive suport systems, which one day will fall over, and mankind will reap the benifits of its folly.

True humanity?, I'm thinking the animals have done it better.

[mashman]

Therein lies the proof of what I am saying. Animals do not have that choice.

Of course animals have a choice. Evidence: you can train animals! hence they can ignore their base instincts when they want to.

[Edbear]

Mooooooo.

Ture humanity is a bit of a laugh, We are hairless apes with over sized brains due to evolution. I bet nature won't be wanting to repeat that trick again. Massive backfire.

And we have lost our ability to live on this planet without changing it to suit and putting in massive suport systems, which one day will fall over, and mankind will reap the benifits of its folly.

True humanity?, I'm thinking the animals have done it better.

I rest my case...


Of course animals have a choice. Evidence: you can train animals! hence they can ignore their base instincts when they want to.


Do you think before you post? Animals have no choice, they cannot train themselves beyond very limited tasks, most of which are known as "animal instinct". Animals do not ignore their basic intsincts. Try your reasoning with a Zoologist and see how far you get.

[mashman]

Do you think before you post? Animals have no choice, they cannot train themselves beyond very limited tasks, most of which are known as "animal instinct". Animals do not ignore their basic intsincts. Try your reasoning with a Zoologist and see how far you get.

lmao... I used to think i did... Of course animals have a choice and can train themselves... they exercise their options often and it's not ALL instinct... problem solving is massive in the animal kingdom... There are examples of this across nearly all species, animals that "specialise"... they mimic what they see in their environment and copy it i.e. train themselves... what else would you call it?

[CookMySock]

"A man is a person who is strong enough to let himself be vulnerable. Someone who defines himself rather than let other's dictate who he should be. Someone not afraid to champion those who cannot champion themselves. Someone who expresses fear and uncertainty knowing the definition of bravery is feeling scared and doing it anyway. "It's really tough being in a place like that. Others will often cut him down due to his apparrant lack of concern for their feelings while he takes his innovative approach to the problem while they act out their own feelings. 50-90% of the job at hand now becomes managing everyones feelings as they perceive the situation untenable. Of course it works out in the end but it doesn't feel too flash at the time.


I have met few "real" men in my life, but that might be mostly because of my age. But when you do meet one, they take you by suprise, and stand out from crowd. Honest, strong, courageous, gracious, loyal, a good leader, also willing to be lead, a strong heart that is still allowed to be filled with emotion. To me, that's a real man, and one that is quite hard to come by. As a women, I am soft, and not a leader (talking about myself personally) - and to meet a man that could have that strength to love and lead with, would win much respect from me.The main difficulty they face, again, is the negative response to their innovative approach. Society desires innovators yet cannot reconcile their negative feelings against them, as they take the moral high road, the difficult but effective way, or the unpopular way.

What actions must he take for people put their fears aside and trust him? What level of responsibility must he take on for him to redeem himself?

I feel he is somewhat doomed - jammed in the role of disaster recovery rather than planning for the future. Society is too preoccupied with it's next consequence to trust a leader, and there isn't really a leader available who is more focussed on a positive outcome than the political fallout of an unpopular decision, so it is up to you, or is that "us".

Steve

[Gone Burger]

It's really tough being in a place like that. Others will often cut him down due to his apparrant lack of concern for their feelings while he takes his innovative approach to the problem while they act out their own feelings. 50-90% of the job at hand now becomes managing everyones feelings as they perceive the situation untenable. Of course it works out in the end but it doesn't feel too flash at the time.

The main difficulty they face, again, is the negative response to their innovative approach. Society desires innovators yet cannot reconcile their negative feelings against them, as they take the moral high road, the difficult but effective way, or the unpopular way.

What actions must he take for people put their fears aside and trust him? What level of responsibility must he take on for him to redeem himself?

I feel he is somewhat doomed - jammed in the role of disaster recovery rather than planning for the future. Society is too preoccupied with it's next consequence to trust a leader, and there isn't really a leader available who is more focussed on a positive outcome than the political fallout of an unpopular decision, so it is up to you, or is that "us".

Steve

Very true - it is no easy place to be, because of how society judges so easily. In that case, it takes incredible strength to be who they want to be, despite the reactions or opinions of others. I work in a "mans world". My industry is full of men, actually, most of them still boys afraid to be the man they know they can be. As a result, they are unkind, harsh, unfair to me as a women, and I would most certainly say they are not strong. They are all so worried about what the other men expects of them, that they continue to be who everyone else wants them to be. And they are (mostly, generalising here) rather unhappy, and unable to treat a women with any respect. The result of this means that I have little respect for them too.

So, I wait, to meet that man that is strong enough to be who he wants to be, who he feels he needs to be, who has respect for himself as a man...

[Edbear]

lmao... I used to think i did... Of course animals have a choice and can train themselves... they exercise their options often and it's not ALL instinct... problem solving is massive in the animal kingdom... There are examples of this across nearly all species, animals that "specialise"... they mimic what they see in their environment and copy it i.e. train themselves... what else would you call it?

Have you ever heard the expression, "If dogs had reason, men would live in trees!"? Think about it..


It's really tough being in a place like that. Others will often cut him down due to his apparrant lack of concern for their feelings while he takes his innovative approach to the problem while they act out their own feelings. 50-90% of the job at hand now becomes managing everyones feelings as they perceive the situation untenable. Of course it works out in the end but it doesn't feel too flash at the time.

The main difficulty they face, again, is the negative response to their innovative approach. Society desires innovators yet cannot reconcile their negative feelings against them, as they take the moral high road, the difficult but effective way, or the unpopular way.

What actions must he take for people put their fears aside and trust him? What level of responsibility must he take on for him to redeem himself?

I feel he is somewhat doomed - jammed in the role of disaster recovery rather than planning for the future. Society is too preoccupied with it's next consequence to trust a leader, and there isn't really a leader available who is more focussed on a positive outcome than the political fallout of an unpopular decision, so it is up to you, or is that "us".

Steve

You're getting warm... Have a think about what you just wrote... :innocent:


Very true - it is no easy place to be, because of how society judges so easily. In that case, it takes incredible strength to be who they want to be, despite the reactions or opinions of others. I work in a "mans world". My industry is full of men, actually, most of them still boys afraid to be the man they know they can be. As a result, they are unkind, harsh, unfair to me as a women, and I would most certainly say they are not strong. They are all so worried about what the other men expects of them, that they continue to be who everyone else wants them to be. And they are (mostly, generalising here) rather unhappy, and unable to treat a women with any respect. The result of this means that I have little respect for them too.

So, I wait, to meet that man that is strong enough to be who he wants to be, who he feels he needs to be, who has respect for himself as a man...

Sorry, I can't bling you twice in a row... :yes:

[mashman]

Have you ever heard the expression, "If dogs had reason, men would live in trees!"? Think about it..


How's about plain english Ed... one doesn't do riddles, apparantly i'm barely thinking :shifty:... I've never heard or that expression... but... if dogs could reason we would need to live up trees as they'd try to eat us? Is that what you mean?

Have you ever heard of the expression: "You can't lead a Horse to water"...

[CookMySock]

So, I wait, to meet that man that is strong enough to be who he wants to be, who he feels he needs to be, who has respect for himself as a man...Thats a tall order. Many men who have been strong enough to stand up for what they believe have had much of their self respect trampled - certainly at least their self esteem and their happiness. Perhaps if you find a young one who hasn't been hurt - he'll build you a rocket and take you to the moon, or more!


You're getting warm... Have a think about what you just wrote... You're having a cryptic day aren't you. ;) No, you lost me I'm afraid. Will re-read. ;)

Steve

[Headbanger]

How's about plain english Ed... one doesn't do riddles, apparantly i'm barely thinking :shifty:... I've never heard or that expression... but... if dogs could reason we would need to live up trees as they'd try to eat us? Is that what you mean?

Have you ever heard of the expression: "You can't lead a Horse to water"...

I reckon he made it up on the spot, Even the internet has never heard of it.

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=XXV&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=If+dogs+had+reason,+men+would+live+in+trees&ei=iz3dS-K8KIzm7APOsdyqBg&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&ct=unquoted-query-link&ved=0CAUQgwM

[Headbanger]

Very true - it is no easy place to be, because of how society judges so easily. In that case, it takes incredible strength to be who they want to be, despite the reactions or opinions of others. I work in a "mans world". My industry is full of men, actually, most of them still boys afraid to be the man they know they can be. As a result, they are unkind, harsh, unfair to me as a women, and I would most certainly say they are not strong. They are all so worried about what the other men expects of them, that they continue to be who everyone else wants them to be. And they are (mostly, generalising here) rather unhappy, and unable to treat a women with any respect. The result of this means that I have little respect for them too.

So, I wait, to meet that man that is strong enough to be who he wants to be, who he feels he needs to be, who has respect for himself as a man...


Have you considered carpet munching?

[huff3r]

Thats a tall order. Many men who have been strong enough to stand up for what they believe have had much of their self respect trampled - certainly at least their self esteem and their happiness. Perhaps if you find a young one who hasn't been hurt - he'll build you a rocket and take you to the moon, or more!


Steve

Yup, they crush us again and again and again till we got no spirit left!! But its easy enough to ignore them, just makes you seem arrogant as you are forced to take the moral high ground..

[Gone Burger]

Have you considered carpet munching?

Haha nope - never will!! Women can be bloody dreadful (I said CAN be ladies) - I should know - I'm one of them.

I'm happy to wait. Have compromised too much in the past for some people, and am more than happy to wait.

[CookMySock]

But its easy enough to ignore them, just makes you seem arrogant as you are forced to take the moral high ground..Ignoring them is the easy part. It gets harder when they start converting the weak-willed to their crusade against you.

Steve

[Edbear]

How's about plain english Ed... one doesn't do riddles, apparantly i'm barely thinking :shifty:... I've never heard or that expression... but... if dogs could reason we would need to live up trees as they'd try to eat us? Is that what you mean?

Have you ever heard of the expression: "You can't lead a Horse to water"...

I think you mean the expression, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"...

The expression about dogs is older than I am and I'm sure most older one's here would have heard of it years ago. It's meaning is that no matter how intelligent, or "instinctively wise" as some biologists refer to animal cleverness, no animal can or ever will be able to conquer Man and dominate in his place. The simple and acknowledged fact is that Mankind posesses a brain of unlimited capacity and something far above animals, his power of thought and reason.

As I said, you can choose to be an animal, an animal cannot choose to be human or take over the planet. No animal could or would ever destroy itself or the planet, only Man has the capacity to so that.



You're having a cryptic day aren't you. ;) No, you lost me I'm afraid. Will re-read. ;)

Steve

Someone very close to you may like to decrypt it for you...:shutup:


I reckon he made it up on the spot, Even the internet has never heard of it.

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=XXV&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=If+dogs+had+reason,+men+would+live+in+trees&ei=iz3dS-K8KIzm7APOsdyqBg&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&ct=unquoted-query-link&ved=0CAUQgwM

LOL!!! The Internet wasn't born when that was stated. Many if not most older one's here should be familiar with it.


Haha nope - never will!! Women can be bloody dreadful (I said CAN be ladies) - I should know - I'm one of them.

I'm happy to wait. Have compromised too much in the past for some people, and am more than happy to wait.

Look! I cannot bling you three times in a row! :bye: You're being far too sensible here!

[Genie]

Which ever way one looks at your original post...you can't escape the fact that we're all mad!

Each and every one of us, man and woman, we're all wired differently and have different prospectives of the world and where we 'fit'.

Best to be mad and not look too deep for in looking too deep, one would see just how 'ugly' man really is

[Headbanger]

Mad, petty, and with massive flaws.

All of us.


Moooooooo

[Edbear]

Which ever way one looks at your original post...you can't escape the fact that we're all mad!

Each and every one of us, man and woman, we're all wired differently and have different prospectives of the world and where we 'fit'.

Best to be mad and not look too deep for in looking too deep, one would see just how 'ugly' man really is

Hey, I've just gotta look in the mirror! :shifty:

But you're qwite right, we're all mad and as I say, "Why be normal, and what is 'normal' anyway? :blink:

However, I also agree, there is an ugly side to this world despite so much beauty in both nature and humankind. Some hard questions are often avoided due to one being of the view that it is all out of our control.

My OP was intended to show the other side of Mankind, the potential and the innate desires in everyone. Everyone's secret dream is for that inherent power, that inherent love and that inherent ability to come to the fore.

[huff3r]

Mad, petty, and with massive flaws.

All of us.


Moooooooo


Nah, im not. :bleh:

[Genie]

Mad Cow disease....if you know what I mean.

LOL, wrong thread, but mankind has many, many flaws, yet amongst his flaws there are some who stand out from the rest and they, they are the ones who can claim the title of "Master". There's not many left, maybe it's time for mankind to stand up and wear the mantel.

[SS90]

Very true - it is no easy place to be, because of how society judges so easily. In that case, it takes incredible strength to be who they want to be, despite the reactions or opinions of others. I work in a "mans world". My industry is full of men, actually, most of them still boys afraid to be the man they know they can be. As a result, they are unkind, harsh, unfair to me as a women, and I would most certainly say they are not strong. They are all so worried about what the other men expects of them, that they continue to be who everyone else wants them to be. And they are (mostly, generalising here) rather unhappy, and unable to treat a women with any respect. The result of this means that I have little respect for them too.

So, I wait, to meet that man that is strong enough to be who he wants to be, who he feels he needs to be, who has respect for himself as a man...

I agree with most of what you say here, and your comments regarding mans strength is valid, however, it is impossible for you to be able to judge a man until you have "walked a mile in his shoes".

Being a man is not easy, you are constantly inundated with "tesoterone bullshit" from the moment you can breath for yourself.

Men like Rugby and drinking Beer (or that's what you are told), and, if not, then you are simply a homo. The end.

Women, constantly manipulate and control men, using there naturally installed sex drive as a weapon against them, they lead men on, deliberately, just to get there way, and, if there is a hint of discontent, "oh, that man is aggressive"

Women like "bad boys", and, despite what you say, if a man (any man) shows kindness, compassion (read weakness), then 99% of women will walk all over that man, they themsleves don't know why, they just do.

You say you "wait to meet a man that is strong enough to be who he wants to be, who he feels he needs to be, who has respect for himself as a man",

I say, you meet these men everyday, you just fail to notice them, because subconciously you are programmed to ignore him....because if a man is weak, then everyone will take advantage of him, and that will make him a bad provider, and, in times of need, not be able to offer you the security that you are pre programmed to be attracted to.

In reality, that is what it is about, Women want security, Men want sex, a man that is perceived as "weak" is really not a good provider, and therefore cannot offer the type of "security" that is needed in the modern world.

When we where living in caves, security was achieved through having the strongest man,(best provider) today, security is achieved in a totally different manner, and, is more complicated (given the extreme social changes we have endured over the last 2000 years.)

Women, to feel secure, don't actually NEED a physically strong man to be secure in this world, any physical element is only part of the equation.

Women need to feel that the man they have "caught" is (at the very least) more desirable than the man their friends have.

This man must be better looking, stronger,richer,funnier etc than their friends man/men. It's all about being better than their friends for a woman, and, in reality, the type of man that most women CLAIM they are looking for most of the time never gets a sniff in.

Think about it, how many single women are there in NZ? don't the single women out number the men?

Why the hell is that?

[Edbear]

Mad Cow disease....if you know what I mean.

LOL, wrong thread, but mankind has many, many flaws, yet amongst his flaws there are some who stand out from the rest and they, they are the ones who can claim the title of "Master". There's not many left, maybe it's time for mankind to stand up and wear the mantel.

You're right of course. Too many have abdicated their responsibility due to selfishness. Others have never been told about it and are generationally disadvantaged.

A man has to become selfless, to deny his desires and to sacrifice his own interests, to truly become a man. His true role is to build others up, to provide for their needs, especially his own family.

What many men fail to understand is that by doing so they will receive a reward beyond measure as others turn to attending to their needs in appreciatiion and love.

Unfortunately, too, many feel they haven't the time to wait and to be patient. Most seem to live int the here and now and cannot envisage a time 20 years into the future for themselves.

[Edbear]

I agree with most of what you say here, and your comments regarding mans strength is valid, however, it is impossible for you to be able to judge a man until you have "walked a mile in his shoes".

Being a man is not easy, you are constantly inundated with "tesoterone bullshit" from the moment you can breath for yourself.

Men like Rugby and drinking Beer (or that's what you are told), and, if not, then you are simply a homo. The end.

Women, constantly manipulate and control men, using there naturally installed sex drive as a weapon against them, they lead men on, deliberately, just to get there way, and, if there is a hint of discontent, "oh, that man is aggressive"

Women like "bad boys", and, despite what you say, if a man (any man) shows kindness, compassion (read weakness), then 99% of women will walk all over that man, they themsleves don't know why, they just do.

You say you "wait to meet a man that is strong enough to be who he wants to be, who he feels he needs to be, who has respect for himself as a man",

I say, you meet these men everyday, you just fail to notice them, because subconciously you are programmed to ignore him....because if a man is weak, then everyone will take advantage of him, and that will make him a bad provider, and, in times of need, not be able to offer you the security that you are pre programmed to be attracted to.

In reality, that is what it is about, Women want security, Men want sex, a man that is perceived as "weak" is really not a good provider, and therefore cannot offer the type of "security" that is needed in the modern world.

When we where living in caves, security was achieved through having the strongest man,(best provider) today, security is achieved in a totally different manner, and, is more complicated (given the extreme social changes we have endured over the last 2000 years.)

Women, to feel secure, don't actually NEED a physically strong man to be secure in this world, any physical element is only part of the equation.

Women need to feel that the man they have "caught" is (at the very least) more desirable than the man there friend has.

This man must be better looking, stronger,richer,funnier etc than their friends man/men. It's all about being better than their friends for a woman, and, in reality, the type of man that most women CLAIM they are looking for most of the time never gets a sniff in.

Think about it, how many single women are there in NZ? don't the single women out number the men?

Why the hell is that?

Most men think with their dick, that's the reason behind most of your post.

[mashman]

I think you mean the expression, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"...

No. I meant what I said... you can only "lead" it to water... you can't make it do anything after that...



The expression about dogs is older than I am and I'm sure most older one's here would have heard of it years ago. It's meaning is that no matter how intelligent, or "instinctively wise" as some biologists refer to animal cleverness, no animal can or ever will be able to conquer Man and dominate in his place. The simple and acknowledged fact is that Mankind posesses a brain of unlimited capacity and something far above animals, his power of thought and reason.

As I said, you can choose to be an animal, an animal cannot choose to be human or take over the planet. No animal could or would ever destroy itself or the planet, only Man has the capacity to so that.


I know this'll sound a little cuckoo... bare with me... I think animals are more human than humans... Humans are able to reason and yet we continue/choose to be animalistic... i think that's what you're saying?... and would you also agree that humans are their own worst enemy and that it's impossible to find a eutopic society because we constantly fuck it up... you've seen plenty of animal documentaties... to me animals have found that eutopic society and are therefore more human than humans. They still fight amongst each other, try to dominate each other, but there's a reason for it... generally there is no malice, life is simple, they are happy... but they all still get on. I'm sure you see what i'm saying. That's why i don't agree with what you mean. We're likely only alive because animals never saw us as a threat because we smile as we assassinate

[Gone Burger]

I agree with most of what you say here, and your comments regarding mans strength is valid, however, it is impossible for you to be able to judge a man until you have "walked a mile in his shoes".

Being a man is not easy, you are constantly inundated with "tesoterone bullshit" from the moment you can breath for yourself.

Men like Rugby and drinking Beer (or that's what you are told), and, if not, then you are simply a homo. The end.

Women, constantly manipulate and control men, using there naturally installed sex drive as a weapon against them, they lead men on, deliberately, just to get there way, and, if there is a hint of discontent, "oh, that man is aggressive"

Women like "bad boys", and, despite what you say, if a man (any man) shows kindness, compassion (read weakness), then 99% of women will walk all over that man, they themsleves don't know why, they just do.

You say you "wait to meet a man that is strong enough to be who he wants to be, who he feels he needs to be, who has respect for himself as a man",

I say, you meet these men everyday, you just fail to notice them, because subconciously you are programmed to ignore him....because if a man is weak, then everyone will take advantage of him, and that will make him a bad provider, and, in times of need, not be able to offer you the security that you are pre programmed to be attracted to.

In reality, that is what it is about, Women want security, Men want sex, a man that is perceived as "weak" is really not a good provider, and therefore cannot offer the type of "security" that is needed in the modern world.

When we where living in caves, security was achieved through having the strongest man,(best provider) today, security is achieved in a totally different manner, and, is more complicated (given the extreme social changes we have endured over the last 2000 years.)

Women, to feel secure, don't actually NEED a physically strong man to be secure in this world, any physical element is only part of the equation.

Women need to feel that the man they have "caught" is (at the very least) more desirable than the man there friend has.

This man must be better looking, stronger,richer,funnier etc than their friends man/men. It's all about being better than their friends for a woman, and, in reality, the type of man that most women CLAIM they are looking for most of the time never gets a sniff in.

Think about it, how many single women are there in NZ? don't the single women out number the men?

Why the hell is that?


I can understand your point of view. Truely.

Women can do aweful things to a man (and some pretty fantastic things too). Not all women are so manipulating, but of course, unfortunately many are. I have grown up without many girlfriends in my life as they have done just the same to me.. tried to control me, walked all over me. But as I was young, I have let them. Am learning how to change that situation and I feel i am making progress.

I guess that did come across as me "judging" men. I do try not to, quite consiously. But if you did meet the men that I have been working with for almost 10 years now, and put yourself in a womens shoes in that same situation, you might understand why I say what I do. There is a reason not many women work in my industry, and its something you have to experience to understand. I am only now beginning to understand.

As I say, I am young. I am learning.

[huff3r]

No. I meant what I said... you can only "lead" it to water... you can't make it do anything after that...



I know this'll sound a little cuckoo... bare with me... I think animals are more human than humans... Humans are able to reason and yet we continue/choose to be animalistic... i think that's what you're saying?... and would you also agree that humans are their own worst enemy and that it's impossible to find a eutopic society because we constantly fuck it up... you've seen plenty of animal documentaties... to me animals have found that eutopic society and are therefore more human than humans. They still fight amongst each other, try to dominate each other, but there's a reason for it... generally there is no malice, life is simple, they are happy... but they all still get on. I'm sure you see what i'm saying. That's why i don't agree with what you mean. We're likely only alive because animals never saw us as a threat because we smile as we assassinate

Your assuming that to be "human" is to live in such a peaceful way? You'd be wrong. Being human is about being wrong sometimes. Its about fighting, its about being different.

[Edbear]

No. I meant what I said... you can only "lead" it to water... you can't make it do anything after that...



I know this'll sound a little cuckoo... bare with me... I think animals are more human than humans... Humans are able to reason and yet we continue/choose to be animalistic... i think that's what you're saying?... and would you also agree that humans are their own worst enemy and that it's impossible to find a eutopic society because we constantly fuck it up... you've seen plenty of animal documentaties... to me animals have found that eutopic society and are therefore more human than humans. They still fight amongst each other, try to dominate each other, but there's a reason for it... generally there is no malice, life is simple, they are happy... but they all still get on. I'm sure you see what i'm saying. That's why i don't agree with what you mean. We're likely only alive because animals never saw us as a threat because we smile as we assassinate

You actually said you can't lead a horse to water, but that must have been a typo?
Aren't you simply reiterating what I have said?

[Headbanger]

Best to be mad and not look too deep for in looking too deep, one would see just how 'ugly' man really is

Nothing wrong with looking inwards, or looking deep.

The trouble is people who are deluded enough to think whatever conclusion they come to is a cast in stone truth, And that those who don't agree its the truth are just unable to comprehend.

Just as an example, someone claiming to define what every persons "secret dream" is should be treated with a bucket of salt.

[Edbear]

Nothing wrong with looking inwards, or looking deep.

The trouble is people who are deluded enough to think whatever conclusion they come to is a cast in stone truth, And that those who don't agree its the truth are just unable to comprehend.

Just as an example, someone claiming to define what every persons "secret dream" is should be treated with a bucket of salt.

So do tell us what your secret dream is...

[Headbanger]

So do tell us what your secret dream is...

I'm living it.

Awesome wife and kids, Bike in the shed, Big screen television, mammoth CD collection and a big set of speakers.

[Headbanger]

And I just ate a hot bacon and onion sandwich.

Thats the pinnacle.

[Edbear]

I'm living it.

Awesome wife and kids, Bike in the shed, Big screen television, mammoth CD collection and a big set of speakers.

Ah, a family man! Has your wife read this thread? I'd be interested in her opinion.

[Edbear]

And I just ate a hot bacon and onion sandwich.

Thats the pinnacle.

Can't argue with that!

[CookMySock]

Ah, a family man! Has your wife read this thread? I'd be interested in her opinion.Cough, quite often thats a wake up call isn't it.. :shit:

Steve

[mashman]

Your assuming that to be "human" is to live in such a peaceful way? You'd be wrong. Being human is about being wrong sometimes. Its about fighting, its about being different.

"They still fight amongst each other, try to dominate each other"... did you miss that bit :)?

[Edbear]

"They still fight amongst each other, try to dominate each other"... did you miss that bit :)?

I'm a lover, not a fighter... :innocent:

[mashman]

You actually said you can't lead a horse to water, but that must have been a typo?
Aren't you simply reiterating what I have said?

More like a grammaro... cheers for pointing it out...

No. I'm just making sure that I understand you (darned internet)...

You said "As I said, you can choose to be an animal, an animal cannot choose to be human"... I think otherwise and think animals are more human than we are, based on you're description of what humanity should be.

[mashman]

I'm a lover, not a fighter... :innocent:

arrrrrrrr, we all should be.

[Headbanger]

Ah, a family man! Has your wife read this thread? I'd be interested in her opinion.

Her opinion would probably be I waste a lot of time posting shite on the internet.

But she wouldn't read it as it wouldn't be of any interest to her.

[Edbear]

More like a grammaro... cheers for pointing it out...

No. I'm just making sure that I understand you (darned internet)...

You said "As I said, you can choose to be an animal, an animal cannot choose to be human"... I think otherwise and think animals are more human than we are, based on you're description of what humanity should be.

If you go back over the OP you'll notice I commented on taking Man out of the picture? I have also commented I think that no animal is capable of destroying itself as man is and no animal group in history has a record as bad as Man's for self-destruction and oppression.

If you think about it, no animal has the choice that Man has. Some have a limited ability to learn and alter their environment, but no-one can deny that Man dominates the planet, for better or for worse due solely to his brain. Without it, Man would not have survived 5min. Human beings are one of the weakest and most defenceless creatures on Earth if left to basics.

One member made the comment in another thread when I rasied this point, to put a man in a cage with a Lion or Bear and see how superior he is. I responded, "Who put the Lion in the cage?"



arrrrrrrr, we all should be.

But of course... :innocent:


Her opinion would probably be I waste a lot of time posting shite on the internet.

But she wouldn't read it as it wouldn't be of any interest to her.

You may be surprised if she were to but read the OP.

[Headbanger]

You may be surprised if she were to but read the OP.


Nope.

Its piffle.

[Edbear]

Nope.

Its piffle.

That's your opinion, others have the opposite opinion. I let my wife have her own...

[Headbanger]

That's your opinion, others have the opposite opinion. I let my wife have her own...

I wouldn't ask my wife to spend her time reading something I consider to have no worth.

If she chooses to waste her own time reading it then that is entirely up to her.

[Edbear]

I wouldn't ask my wife to spend her time reading something I consider to have no worth.

If she chooses to waste her own time reading it then that is entirely up to her.


Hmmmm... but you do...

[Swoop]

Each of the 300 submarines of the US Navy carries more destructive force than was unleashed in two World Wars.
I'm not sure where you got the quantity of "300" from. Somewhere closer to 40 would be more realistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine). The newest class of boat will be counted on the fingers of both hands, due to "the almighty dollar" at work.


Men like Rugby and drinking Beer...
Rugby is crap and exceedingly boring. Don't tar all males with that title.

[98tls]

Rugby is crap and exceedingly boring. Don't tar all males with that title.

or read as "i was hopeless at sport when at school".

[Edbear]

I'm not sure where you got the quantity of "300" from. Somewhere closer to 40 would be more realistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine). The newest class of boat will be counted on the fingers of both hands, due to "the almighty dollar" at work.


Rugby is crap and exceedingly boring. Don't tar all males with that title.

Thanks, it shows one needs to listen more carefully to the news. The US appears from the latest figures to have 75 Nuclear subs with around 300 world-wide.

[huff3r]

Thanks, it shows one needs to listen more carefully to the news. The US appears from the latest figures to have 75 Nuclear subs with around 300 world-wide.

Nuclear weapons are cheating anyway. Its too easy to do too much damage and only serves its purpose as an act of terrorism.

[rainman]

I know this'll sound a little cuckoo... bare with me... I think animals are more human than humans...

So, does a dog have Buddha nature or not? That "mu" business was a cop-out... :)

[Edbear]

Nuclear weapons are cheating anyway. Its too easy to do too much damage and only serves its purpose as an act of terrorism.

And of course no-one would cheat at war or terrorism would they...?

[mashman]

If you think about it, no animal has the choice that Man has. Some have a limited ability to learn and alter their environment, but no-one can deny that Man dominates the planet, for better or for worse due solely to his brain. Without it, Man would not have survived 5min. Human beings are one of the weakest and most defenceless creatures on Earth if left to basics.


Not 5 mins huh... fortunately for "Man" the apes managed more than 5 minutes...

[mashman]

So, does a dog have Buddha nature or not? That "mu" business was a cop-out... :)

i'm guessing they do, they just can't hold the lotus without reverting to type, licking their bollocks and falling over... and as I don't speak dog I can't really ask... or at least when I ask, I don't understand their answer... pfff, we should be able to speak dog by now :shifty:... What "mu" business?

[rainman]

As I said, you can choose to be an animal, an animal cannot choose to be human or take over the planet. No animal could or would ever destroy itself or the planet, only Man has the capacity to so that.

That I am an animal is simply a matter of biological classification. I am a mammal. Your assertion that we can choose to be (just?) an animal is nonsense, and is based on your apparent assumption that humans are other than animals. Now of course, there is a pecking order, but that is heavily dependent on context. Pop you unarmed in the jungle, some critter will probably make you into lunch. But collectively, humans have the social capability to destroy the jungle and all the critters therein. Overall, we have shiny and destructive tech, and are eradicating the other animals at a rate.

I don't see man's ability to screw things up on a global scale as being evidence of superiority, though. Au contraire, we're a pest. If there were a god he/she/it would have to be pretty misguided to make humans in their current state. Particularly true of an omniscient deity - we are clearly keen to shit all over our own nest, and I'd think that would have been easily predicted without superpowers like omniscience. If it made sense to anthropomorphise evolution, one could productively see us as being a mistake.


My OP was intended to show the other side of Mankind, the potential and the innate desires in everyone. Everyone's secret dream is for that inherent power, that inherent love and that inherent ability to come to the fore.

I suspect I could support elements of your OP if it wasn't couched in the terms it is - humans do indeed have a capacity for "good". Enlightenment is essentially the process of coming to understand that you are not a rugged individual, but part of all life, and getting to view all life with what could be described as love. But power? No thanks, that's heading in the wrong direction.


A man has to become selfless

Yes (but perhaps not as you mean).


to deny his desires and to sacrifice his own interests, to truly become a man. His true role is to build others up, to provide for their needs, especially his own family.

No, not really.


What many men fail to understand is that by doing so they will receive a reward beyond measure

Yes.


as others turn to attending to their needs in appreciatiion and love.

Maybe. Actually make that a no.


Most seem to live int the here and now and cannot envisage a time 20 years into the future for themselves.

I blame diet, and advertising. Affects our discount rates and makes us only think about the short term. And get people to think 20 years into the future for others? Fuggedaboutit.


The trouble is people who are deluded enough to think whatever conclusion they come to is a cast in stone truth, And that those who don't agree its the truth are just unable to comprehend.

Too true. There's indeed a bit of that about the place... :)


That's your opinion, others have the opposite opinion. I let my wife have her own...

How magnanimous.

"My" partner (English has such poor semantics) has her own opinions whether or not I "let" her, and that is exactly how it should be. This I think is the crux of why I find your phrasing so difficult to accommodate; it sounds awfully like a (rather ugly) mindset I have seen many times - one where dominance and control play too much of a role. Everyone I've met who talks like that has been an arse. Often an unpleasant one, too.

I love my partner not because she will then love me back, or because she will "attend to my needs in appreciation and love". I just do. It's a choice I make. If she loves me back (as she does), great, if not, well, I'm not about to stop loving her, that's what unconditional means. I do not control her actions or opinions, and she does not control me - we both choose to do the "right" things for us. That's because although we still have defined individual identities, we also have a joint identity, and are one thing, to an extent. So it makes no sense for me to say I "let her" have her own opinions. She is she, I am me, we is we. I have no desire or need to be dominated or to dominate. That's a very unskillful mindset.

[rainman]

i'm guessing they do, they just can't hold the lotus without reverting to type, licking their bollocks and falling over... and as I don't speak dog I can't really ask... or at least when I ask, I don't understand their answer... pfff, we should be able to speak dog by now :shifty:... What "mu" business?

This one:

A monk once asked master Chao-chou, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"

Chao-chou said, "Mu"


I always understood thisto be Chau-chou/Joshu saying "not yes, not no, your question makes no sense" but in googling to find the exact koan came across a version that claims Wu (or Mu in Japanese, it's a Zen thing after all) means "without" - so, more "no" than "yes". But their interpretation goes on to non-existence of the dog, existence of the buddha-nature, and quite a bit on the existence or non-existence of existence itself, and Wikipedia says "Wu/Mu" does not mean no, as per the Three Pillars of Zen, but rather "not existing". So my poor unenlightened brain asploded.

/goes off to ponder the sound of one hand clapping.

[Swoop]

or read as "i was hopeless at sport when at school".
Having represented NZ in a World Championship competition, no.

Rugby still sucks.

[Edbear]

That I am an animal is simply a matter of biological classification. I am a mammal. Your assertion that we can choose to be (just?) an animal is nonsense, and is based on your apparent assumption that humans are other than animals. Now of course, there is a pecking order, but that is heavily dependent on context. Pop you unarmed in the jungle, some critter will probably make you into lunch. But collectively, humans have the social capability to destroy the jungle and all the critters therein. Overall, we have shiny and destructive tech, and are eradicating the other animals at a rate.

I don't see man's ability to screw things up on a global scale as being evidence of superiority, though. Au contraire, we're a pest. If there were a god he/she/it would have to be pretty misguided to make humans in their current state. Particularly true of an omniscient deity - we are clearly keen to shit all over our own nest, and I'd think that would have been easily predicted without superpowers like omniscience. If it made sense to anthropomorphise evolution, one could productively see us as being a mistake.



I suspect I could support elements of your OP if it wasn't couched in the terms it is - humans do indeed have a capacity for "good". Enlightenment is essentially the process of coming to understand that you are not a rugged individual, but part of all life, and getting to view all life with what could be described as love. But power? No thanks, that's heading in the wrong direction.



Yes (but perhaps not as you mean).



No, not really.



Yes.



Maybe. Actually make that a no.



I blame diet, and advertising. Affects our discount rates and makes us only think about the short term. And get people to think 20 years into the future for others? Fuggedaboutit.



Too true. There's indeed a bit of that about the place... :)



How magnanimous.

"My" partner (English has such poor semantics) has her own opinions whether or not I "let" her, and that is exactly how it should be. This I think is the crux of why I find your phrasing so difficult to accommodate; it sounds awfully like a (rather ugly) mindset I have seen many times - one where dominance and control play too much of a role. Everyone I've met who talks like that has been an arse. Often an unpleasant one, too.

I love my partner not because she will then love me back, or because she will "attend to my needs in appreciation and love". I just do. It's a choice I make. If she loves me back (as she does), great, if not, well, I'm not about to stop loving her, that's what unconditional means. I do not control her actions or opinions, and she does not control me - we both choose to do the "right" things for us. That's because although we still have defined individual identities, we also have a joint identity, and are one thing, to an extent. So it makes no sense for me to say I "let her" have her own opinions. She is she, I am me, we is we. I have no desire or need to be dominated or to dominate. That's a very unskillful mindset.

Some of what you say has merit and I agree with. Some of it has misunderstood my posts and some of it I disagree with... :yes:

[rainman]

Some of what you say has merit and I agree with. Some of it has misunderstood my posts and some of it I disagree with... :yes:

No shit! :gob:

That's amazing.

[Foxzee]

the apes managed more than 5 minutes...

Now how to get a man to last that long........:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[mashman]

/goes off to ponder the sound of one hand clapping. against what is what i'm wondering :shifty: ... no doubt uttered after a short sharp inalation of breath whilst watching the stars crawl across the sky.. man. So pretty much, meh, wtf doesn't really matter anyway type thing... nothing new then... Confucious say "while chain swing, seat warm"

[mashman]

Now how to get a man to last that long........:rofl::rofl::rofl:

:rofl: just grow bigger tits :Punk: :)

[Foxzee]

:rofl: just grow bigger tits :Punk: :)

Oh dear *shakes head*......and that will help how????:)

[mashman]

Oh dear *shakes head*......and that will help how????:)

lol, aye, starting to regret typing that one now (booze is bad m'kay)... lean forwards every 4 minutes 45 seconds and let the suffocation commence... should keep him otherwise occupied... :)

[Foxzee]

lol, aye, starting to regret typing that one now (booze is bad m'kay)... lean forwards every 4 minutes 45 seconds and let the suffocation commence... should keep him otherwise occupied... :)

Hahahaha...I don't needs big tits for that....my pillow works better...:rofl:

[mashman]

ha ha haaaaaa, I never thought it through that far...

[Headbanger]

Oh dear *shakes head*......and that will help how????:)

Tits are great fun.

Isn't that enough reason?

[Winston001]

Four pages, 137 posts, and I still can't work out what this thread is about. My guess is it's somewhere between New Age mysticism and the Promise Keepers. Let me know if anyone works it out......

[Genie]

As with most threads around here, many have misssed the point, go back to post one and take what you want from that one, after that not much made any sense.

Some men just don't get what it takes to be a man........

[Headbanger]

As with most threads around here, many have misssed the point, go back to post one and take what you want from that one, after that not much made any sense.

Some men just don't get what it takes to be a man........

It doesn't take anything, well apart from not being a woman, Its biological.

You can add all the fluff you want but its utterly meaningless.

[Edbear]

It doesn't take anything, well apart from not being a woman, Its biological.

You can add all the fluff you want but its utterly meaningless.

If you're referring to 'Man the Beast', yes, it is biological and many men think that is enough. However if you think 'Man the Entity' the complete 'Person' that is where the difference lies. That is where Mankind is above the animal kingdom and in a kingdom of his own.

As I said, he is not the strongest creature and without his brain he would be fodder for the animals and easy prey at that. As I also pointed out, if animals had equality in being able to reason, Man would be doomed very quickly due to his inferior physicality.

Man does rule the world and he can manage the resources of the planet sustainably and his family effectively, or he could given the right tools. It seems there is something sinister at work when you look around you at the mess the world is in and yet every person you speak to, wants it to be different.

Why don't husband and fathers accept their role and their responsibilities, why leave it to their wives to carry the main load of responsibility? How many women here, agree with this and would want their partners to step up?

The men here who are accepting their responsibilities and working hard for their families - how does your family dynamic work?

Who here is prepared to put the effort in to learn and grow and change, to improve themselves for the benefit of their families and of society? Who is prepared to look in the mirror and say, "I need to change." We are all the product of our birth and upbringing and we cannot change the past, but we can, and we have the responsibility to, change the future, to dorrect the mistakes of our parents where necessary. It is not easy, far easier to say, "This is me, this is who I am, take it or leave it!" That is your prerogative, but it does nothing for your life or the lives of those you care about.

The ultimate meaning of life IMHO is to be happy. That does not come naturally, or from external sources, it comes from within, and if you are not happy, and by that I mean deeply. a sense of self-esteem, a sense of appreciation, of value, not the happiness that comes from a possession or event, then you must look within yourself and ask what you can do to change that.

[Headbanger]

Mankind could drop everything to do with civilised behaviour, and it would change nothing in the great scheme of things.

You have just taken your personal views, based on your personal journey,and your personal outlook and applied it to the entire world population.

That is close to madness, We can find thousands of people conservative, radical and mad with ideas of how you must be to attain true manhood and they would all be as meaningless and irrelevant as each other.

[huff3r]

Mankind could drop everything to do with civilised behaviour, and it would change nothing in the great scheme of things.

But if you keep thinking that way then surely there is nothing to live for? The here and now is a necessity. Civilisation gives us our purpose.

[Headbanger]

But if you keep thinking that way then surely there is nothing to live for? The here and now is a necessity. Civilisation gives us our purpose.

You live for life itself. Your purpose is to breed.

If the population gave up on language ,stopped destroying the planet, and went back into the jungle how would it be worse?

[Edbear]

Mankind could drop everything to do with civilised behaviour, and it would change nothing in the great scheme of things.

You have just taken your personal views, based on your personal journey,and your personal outlook and applied it to the entire world population.

That is close to madness, We can find thousands of people conservative, radical and mad with ideas of how you must be to attain true manhood and they would all be as meaningless and irrelevant as each other.

Man is dropping civilised behavour and look where it is taking the world? Some of what I have written is personal opinion, granted, but most is observation of the reality around us. Human Psychology and endeavour has been a life-long interest of mine and I have studied the subject in some depth.

Itis plain that many agree at least in part with the posts.


You live for life itself. Your purpose is to breed.

If the population gave up on language ,stopped destroying the planet, and went back into the jungle how would it be worse?

Language is one of the key differences between Man and animal he could no more abandon language than he could breathing. Stopping the destruction of the planet would be a good start...

And Man was never "In the jungle", he has always been a sophisticated, societal and inventive species. Even those who do live closer to nature than we do, are far from animals.

[Edbear]

You live for life itself. Your purpose is to breed.

Breeding is more than having sex, mate. Think carefully about what it means to bring a life into this world as a father. Men who father children without regard to the consquences are a threat to mankind, not an asset.

[R-Soul]

The so-called "caveman days" never were a fact of history. Mankind has always been sophisticated.
Yes, they were - documented proof. And no, mankind has not always been sphisticated. Take your Creationism arguments to another thread.

[avgas]

So Ed,where do hookers fit into all this?
In the words of Space Ghost.
"20!.....YES!"

[Edbear]

Yes, they were - documented proof. And no, mankind has not always been sphisticated. Take your Creationism arguments to another thread.

Yeah, whatever. Sorry but this is not only my thread, and therefore I can post whatever I want, but I am not a "Creationist" and I have extensively studied Earth's history and specifcally your argument.

Such would take a thread of its own and some time to go through, and I'm not interested in arguing with you about that here. If you want to discuss it and learn about it, I'm happy to do so. Suffice to say, you're knowledge is rather limited if you can make an assertion like that.

[Headbanger]

Breeding is more than having sex, mate. Think carefully about what it means to bring a life into this world as a father. Men who father children without regard to the consequences are a threat to mankind, not an asset.

Indeed, that is your view.

On the other hand we could find a society that considered it Taboo to stay with the family after sowing their seed,and their position would be every bit as worthy as yours. Untill they decided that it was upto them to judge the rest of the world based on their personal views.

[Headbanger]

Man is dropping civilised behavour and look where it is taking the world?

Mankind has never been civilised. Your the self-proclaimed history expert, Look at what's been going on in the last decade, 70 years, 150 years, 2000 years....50 000 years.

What we are is an affront to nature, and a detriment to all the other animal species of the world.

[Edbear]

Indeed, that is your view.

On the other hand we could find a society that considered it Taboo to stay with the family after sowing their seed,and their position would be every bit as worthy as yours. Untill they decided that it was upto them to judge the rest of the world based on their personal views.

You know of one do you?

As I said, my post in the main is based upon observation and study. It is relatively simple to work out what is right or wrong. Right works, wrong doesn't and it doesn't matter what your personal beliefs or preferences are.

I doubt you would get any other than some selfish men to agree that neglecting a father's responsibility is in any way worthy of anything but derision.

As I also said, many men think with their dicks and having irresponsible sex without regard to the consequences is being far lower than an animal.

[Headbanger]

As I said, my post in the main is based upon observation and study. It is relatively simple to work out what is right or wrong. Right works, wrong doesn't and it doesn't matter what your personal beliefs or preferences are.


And that is your folly. There is no right or wrong. You are simply trying to apply your small personal beliefs onto something that has no concept of them and to which they can never apply. The bigger picture is so big that your small views don't even register, and trying to say they over-ride everything to the point of defining what a man is......

............well, I have already used the word folly.

[Edbear]

Mankind has never been civilised. Your the self-proclaimed history expert, Look at what's been going on in the last decade, 70 years, 150 years, 2000 years....50 000 years.

What we are is an affront to nature, and a detriment to all the other animal species of the world.

With some notable and albeit short-lived exceptions, I agree with this post. It is such that the more power Man has developed the more rapidly he is destroying his environment and the rate of species extinction is genuinely alarming the scientists.

However it is also true of Man that he has the attributes of love, kindness, altruism and a desire to make the world a nice place to live. Therein lies the conundrum does it not?

[Edbear]

And that is your folly. There is no right or wrong. You are simply trying to apply your small personal beliefs onto something that has no concept of them and to which they can never apply. The bigger picture is so big that your small views don't even register, and trying to say they over-ride everything to the point of defining what a man is......

............well, I have already used the word folly.

You miss the point completly in playing the man not the ball. It doesn't matter who you are, right works, wrong doesn't. That is true of any area of life, from recipes for cooking to mechanics, to physics, and so on.

Anyone who claims there is no right or wrong, is simply avoiding facing the issues, and invariably, especially on KB, is referring to morals alone.

[Headbanger]

You miss the point completly in playing the man not the ball. It doesn't matter who you are, right works, wrong doesn't. That is true of any area of life, from recipes for cooking to mechanics, to physics, and so on.

Anyone who claims there is no right or wrong, is simply avoiding facing the issues, and invariably, especially on KB, is referring to morals alone.

Nope, You missed my point.

What is right or wrong is decided by evolution and is apparent in the continuation of the species, not on how people judge individuals actions.

I'm not "playing the man" but the concept.

[Edbear]

Nope, You missed my point.

What is right or wrong is decided by evolution and is apparent in the continuation of the species, not on how people judge individuals actions.

I'm not "playing the man" but the concept.

I contend that Man is not subject to evolution. He is master of his own destiny and can either save or destroy himself at his own will. While we may all grow old reproduce and die, the ultimate truth is that it is not evolution at play here, it is man's greed and avarice and it is solely his choice as to whether he survives as a species or destroys himself and this planet.

Therefore, "right" is to exercise his rulership for the good of the planet and all life on it, "wrong" is to proceed as he is and destroy the planet and himself. What is the difference? Selfishness and discontent, or love and altruism, placing need before greed, or vice versa.

[Headbanger]

I contend that Man is not subject to evolution.

Swish.:shit:

I disagree but I'll leave it at that.:done:

[Edbear]

Swish.:shit:

I disagree but I'll leave it at that.:done:

For the reasons given in the rest of the post...

[Headbanger]

For the reasons given in the rest of the post...

If we destroy our food sources (seriously we cant destroy the planet anymore then we can destroy the universe) and die off and other species grow and prosper in the new conditions, then that is evolution at work. Everything is a cycle.

No living creature on earth can escape it, its simply a matter of what can deal best with new conditions. The conditions will never stop changing and different species will always have different capabilities.

[Foxzee]

Geeepurrs....and they say women can bitch......:)

[Edbear]

If we destroy our food sources (seriously we cant destroy the planet anymore then we can destroy the universe) and die off and other species grow and prosper in the new conditions, then that is evolution at work. Everything is a cycle.

No living creature on earth can escape it, its simply a matter of what can deal best with new conditions. The conditions will never stop changing and different species will always have different capabilities.

My point is that it doesn't have to be that way. Animals have no control over their fate, Man does. (if we ignore the asteroid scenario for a minute). So it's not evolution, it is choice. Evolution syas it's going to happen no matter what. Man can change "evolution".

[Genie]

Will the real Master please stand up!


oops or was i referring to the slim shady????

[avgas]

This thread also need boobies206879

[Genie]

This thread also need boobies206879

did't work for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mashman]

Geeepurrs....and they say women are bitches......:)

Fixed it for ya :) and yes, we do :shifty:



My point is that it doesn't have to be that way. Animals have no control over their fate, Man does. (if we ignore the asteroid scenario for a minute). So it's not evolution, it is choice. Evolution syas it's going to happen no matter what. Man can change "evolution".


Of course animals have control over their own fate. They don't have to move and fight for new territory ya know... yet they do... If food becomes VERY scarce i think you'll see a drastic change in how animals react... they will make the choice to eat anything and everything they can before being stomped on by "something" else... and not necessarily just by humans.

The only way man can change the evolution of any species is by direct genetic manipulation... but even after that manipulation, evolution will just keep on doing the same thing that it has since the start of time... You can't stop it and you can't really change it...

[Winston001]

I contend that Man is not subject to evolution. He is master of his own destiny and can either save or destroy himself at his own will. While we may all grow old reproduce and die, the ultimate truth is that it is not evolution at play here, it is man's greed and avarice and it is solely his choice as to whether he survives as a species or destroys himself and this planet.

Therefore, "right" is to exercise his rulership for the good of the planet and all life on it, "wrong" is to proceed as he is and destroy the planet and himself. What is the difference? Selfishness and discontent, or love and altruism, placing need before greed, or vice versa.

Aha! Voila, the nub of the argument is revealed. FWIW man's genetic lineage first emerged about 7 million years ago in an ape which took a slightly different evolutionary track to other apes. About 2.3 million years ago early hominids began to appear. Modern man, called Homo Sapien, began to impact on the world 100,000 years ago. There were other hominids about but Sapien was the most successful and the others died out by 50,000.

Clever tool usage dates from 300,000 years ago and proto language from 1.2 million but the ability to talk and communicate really launched with Homo Sapien 100,000 years ago. The development of language is considered to be the defining characteristic of our success as a species. Communicating information and ideas stimulated brain function and we grew ever more intelligent.

As for selfishness, altruism, etc evolutionary psychology has a lot to tell us about our modern behaviours. We might think we are very civilised and sophisticated but our reptilian brain just above the spinal column still provides our most primal responses - and actions. Fight or flight. Sexual connection. Protection of our young, and self preservation.

I appreciate you probably won't read this Ed so we'll just have to agree to disagree. :D

[Edbear]

Aha! Voila, the nub of the argument is revealed. FWIW man's genetic lineage first emerged about 7 million years ago in an ape which took a slightly different evolutionary track to other apes. About 2.3 million years ago early hominids began to appear. Modern man, called Homo Sapien, began to impact on the world 100,000 years ago. There were other hominids about but Sapien was the most successful and the others died out by 50,000.

Clever tool usage dates from 300,000 years ago and proto language from 1.2 million but the ability to talk and communicate really launched with Homo Sapien 100,000 years ago. The development of language is considered to be the defining characteristic of our success as a species. Communicating information and ideas stimulated brain function and we grew ever more intelligent.

As for selfishness, altruism, etc evolutionary psychology has a lot to tell us about our modern behaviours. We might think we are very civilised and sophisticated but our reptilian brain just above the spinal column still provides our most primal responses - and actions. Fight or flight. Sexual connection. Protection of our young, and self preservation.

I appreciate you probably won't read this Ed so we'll just have to agree to disagree. :D

I read everything, mate. But this argument has been done to death in another thread and I'm not interested in getting back into it here.

[bogan]

Has the scottish thread been getting a bit boring lately guys? :lol:

But I see the point Ed is trying to make (last few pages anyway, rest is tldr), humans posses the intelligence to think ahead, and thus remove the evolutionary criteria (death) by realizing such is a bad idea before trying it. However for most it seems they are unwilling to consider people outside their 'monkey sphere' (a nice term regardless of our origins).

I still reckon its time we indulged in a little creationalism of our own, someone should make an AI and program it to have a huge 'monkey sphere' problem solved!

[Edbear]

Has the scottish thread been getting a bit boring lately guys? :lol:

But I see the point Ed is trying to make (last few pages anyway, rest is tldr), humans posses the intelligence to think ahead, and thus remove the evolutionary criteria (death) by realizing such is a bad idea before trying it. However for most it seems they are unwilling to consider people outside their 'monkey sphere' (a nice term regardless of our origins).

I still reckon its time we indulged in a little creationalism of our own, someone should make an AI and program it to have a huge 'monkey sphere' problem solved!\
\
Pretty much. Only humans possess the brain required to choose and create his own destiny. Some have completely missed the point in arguing we are no more than animals. If we were, we would have been extinct before we started.

We don't breed fast enough, or mature fast enough, (man has a disproportionately long maturing period for his lifespan), or possess any superiority of strength that would ensure our survival. Humans would be nourishing and easy prey for most, if not all carnivorous animals.

Humans possess two things animals don't, a superior brain and an intangible quality that has animals instinctively wary and subject to him. Not saying a big enough animal won't attack a human, that is not in question, but think about particularly domestic animals, which are by nature subject to Man and ask why? Why is there a difference between wild and domestic animals as far as Man is concerned?

[Headbanger]

Animals are instinctively wary of all animals, even the ones they hunt for food, and only very few animals allow themselves to be subject to man, and this has been nurtured into them by thousands of years of breeding and conditioning.

Further more all animals react to changes in conditions/environment and take steps to ensure their destiny, obviously limited by capacity but the basic pattern is there. Wild animals are obvuisly going to be better at it then sheep (and most people are sheep)

You can't on one hand say that humans have been granted an elevated position due to evolution and then claim humans are immune from evolution. Lets see what happens with the next ice age and how people react to harsh conditions in what are currently considered to be the civilised parts of the world.

[Headbanger]

Pretty much. Only humans possess the brain required to choose and create his own destiny. Some have completely missed the point in arguing we are no more than animals. If we were, we would have been extinct before we started.


Lions have teeth and claws, dogs hunt in packs, Badgers live in burrows, Humans have bigger brains.....That's our evolutionary path, and just like every other living animal we developed a trait that allowed us to have a niche to live in.

And we lived for millions of years at the same or lesser level of many other species in the animal kingdom, as pointed out in the post made by Winston.

Quite frankly the claim we are special or we would never have survived is absurd, and not backed up by anything but wishful thinking.

[Edbear]

Animals are instinctively wary of all animals, even the ones they hunt for food, and only very few animals allow themselves to be subject to man, and this has been nurtured into them by thousands of years of breeding and conditioning.

Further more all animals react to changes in conditions/environment and take steps to ensure their destiny, obviously limited by capacity but the basic pattern is there. Wild animals are obvuisly going to be better at it then sheep (and most people are sheep)

You can't on one hand say that humans have been granted an elevated position due to evolution and then claim humans are immune from evolution. Lets see what happens with the next ice age and how people react to harsh conditions in what are currently considered to be the civilised parts of the world.

You still aren't getting it. As far back in history as you can go, there have always been both domestic and wild animals. They haven't changed and wild animals cannot be conditioned to be domestic or vice versa. Sheep will never be but domestic and tigers will never be a domestic species. Ask a Zoologist to explain the difference between domestic and wild to you.

You are confusing the definition of evolution as well. If it were survival of the fittest or the strongest, you would not have the diversity of life you see around you. The very weak are happlily living alongside the very strong, herbivore cohabits with carnivore and the pecking order of nature is in symbiotic harmony. Nature is a beautiful and delicate balance from the four primary forces, to the teeming life of the oceans with nothing but mankind to stuff it all up or enhance it.

[Headbanger]

You do realise a goat is a wild sheep? One has just been domesticated and bred into a very docile meat machine.

And that wild sheep (sheep in the modern form you recognise them) are found wild all over the world?

Me thinks your in denial of whatever doesn't suit your mankind being put on this earth in an advanced state theory.

[mashman]

Pretty much. Only humans possess the brain required to choose and create his own destiny. Some have completely missed the point in arguing we are no more than animals. If we were, we would have been extinct before we started.


So how have so many animals survived? If we couldn't have survived due to limited intellectual capacity, and we're superfuckinbrainy, then how did all of these inferior mindless creatures you speak of? there's billions of them out there... What you're saying doesn't make sense.

[Edbear]

You do realise a goat is a wild sheep? One has just been domesticated and bred into a very docile meat machine.

And that wild sheep (sheep in the modern form you recognise them) are found wild all over the world?

Me thinks your in denial of whatever doesn't suit your mankind being put on this earth in an advanced state theory.

Like I said, you need to consult a Zoologist, or even Google it.


So how have so many animals survived? If we couldn't have survived due to limited intellectual capacity, and we're superfuckinbrainy, then how did all of these inferior mindless creatures you speak of? there's billions of them out there... What you're saying doesn't make sense.

As an animal, mankind would make a very poor one, far less capable of surviving than pretty much any other. Limited in his inherent ability to adapt to change and the enviroment, (he survives by changing his environment to suit his limited physicality), limited physical powers to capture and kill food, mainly being a herbivore needing to grow crops - this requires intelligence beyond the animal - have a think about it.

[huff3r]

:whocares:

Look its a banana! :banana:

[Headbanger]

As an animal, mankind would make a very poor one, .

Look around, we done awesome as an animal.

[Headbanger]

You are confusing the definition of evolution as well. If it were survival of the fittest or the strongest, you would not have the diversity of life you see around you. .

Untill mankind wrecked the balance evolutionary differences were the deciding factor on the survival of a species, and this in no way rules out evolutionary diversity, the opposite in fact.

[mashman]

As an animal, mankind would make a very poor one, far less capable of surviving than pretty much any other. Limited in his inherent ability to adapt to change and the enviroment, (he survives by changing his environment to suit his limited physicality), limited physical powers to capture and kill food, mainly being a herbivore needing to grow crops - this requires intelligence beyond the animal - have a think about it.

We've done ok so far... Even if our mental capacity had not evolved, we still would have survived... we learned how to make fire, steered clear of the dominant predator of the millenia, caught some monsterous animals for food, carved drawings into walls, developed the ability to survive in some of the most hostile environments that the planet has ever had... everything you have mentioned above, humans have been able to achieve without being anywhere near as domesticated/intelligent as we are today...

What makes you so sure we couldn't have survived? I can't understand why you are so sure that we would have died off?

[Edbear]

You do realise a goat is a wild sheep? One has just been domesticated and bred into a very docile meat machine.

And that wild sheep (sheep in the modern form you recognise them) are found wild all over the world?

Me thinks your in denial of whatever doesn't suit your mankind being put on this earth in an advanced state theory.


We've done ok so far... Even if our mental capacity had not evolved, we still would have survived... we learned how to make fire, steered clear of the dominant predator of the millenia, caught some monsterous animals for food, carved drawings into walls, developed the ability to survive in some of the most hostile environments that the planet has ever had... everything you have mentioned above, humans have been able to achieve without being anywhere near as domesticated/intelligent as we are today...

What makes you so sure we couldn't have survived? I can't understand why you are so sure that we would have died off?

I'm obviously talking way over your heads. Go and actually do your own research instead of parroting very limited statements and hearsay by others. Your understanding of biodiversity and genetics, of "evolution" and of Earth's and Mans history is sadly lacking. You're talking old schoolboy ideas that are so far out of date as to be laughable.

No disrepect to your intelligence or motives, simply a lack of up to date and accurate knowledge.

[Headbanger]

I'm obviously talking way over your heads. Go and actually do your own research instead of parroting very limited statements and hearsay by others. Your understanding of biodiversity and genetics, of "evolution" and of Earth's and Mans history is sadly lacking. You're talking old schoolboy ideas that are so far out of date as to be laughable.

No disrepect to your intelligence or motives, simply a lack of up to date and accurate knowledge.


Lmfao, now thats a post I can relate to.

Personally I have never once come across anything backing up what your putting forward, So Im going to say I'm comfortable in my understanding of mans position in the great scheme of things, our history, and the role played by evolution.

[Headbanger]

And these guys back it up.

http://activity.ntsec.gov.tw/lifeworld/english/content/evolution_cc10.html

http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm

Australopithecus Alpha (about 4 to 3 million years ago): Existing archaeological evidence show that the Australopithecus Alpha is the oldest ancestor of mankind. Archaeologists gave the name “Lucy” to the earliest Australopithecus Alpha. She was a Hominidae that lived on trees half of the time. Her brain size was about one-third of a person’s brain. The most important thing was that she could only walked with her hind legs, so different from other animals that walked on four limbs.

[Rogue Rider]

Man-Kind: an odd breed of destructive and thrill seeking idiots.
Man-Look: to search thoroughly at a glance so one can objectify and abuse females for moving things
Manimal: Hairy man fan, no shaving necessary.
Mantle: a place to stick shit
Man-key: a tool for every hole.
Man-Tool: again a larger tool for a different hole, or to hit with.
Man Time: any time that fits

[Edbear]

Lmfao, now thats a post I can relate to.

Personally I have never once come across anything backing up what your putting forward, So Im going to say I'm comfortable in my understanding of mans position in the great scheme of things, our history, and the role played by evolution.


And these guys back it up.

http://activity.ntsec.gov.tw/lifeworld/english/content/evolution_cc10.html

http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm

Australopithecus Alpha (about 4 to 3 million years ago): Existing archaeological evidence show that the Australopithecus Alpha is the oldest ancestor of mankind. Archaeologists gave the name “Lucy” to the earliest Australopithecus Alpha. She was a Hominidae that lived on trees half of the time. Her brain size was about one-third of a person’s brain. The most important thing was that she could only walked with her hind legs, so different from other animals that walked on four limbs.

As I said, so out of date as to be laughable! Australopithecus? C'mon, get with the times. You very obviously have not done any personal study on the subject which is no surprise that you haven't
"personally come across" any evidence... Try some recent science...

[Headbanger]

As I said, so out of date as to be laughable! Australopithecus? C'mon, get with the times. You very obviously have not done any personal study on the subject which is no surprise that you haven't
"personally come across" any evidence... Try some recent science...

I'm happy with the accepted view of real-world experts in the field.

That's what we pay them for.

Of course, if you do manage to sway the experts with your claims their ignorance is laughable then I'll take your claims seriously. So far I only have your word for it.

[mashman]

I'm obviously talking way over your heads. Go and actually do your own research instead of parroting very limited statements and hearsay by others. Your understanding of biodiversity and genetics, of "evolution" and of Earth's and Mans history is sadly lacking. You're talking old schoolboy ideas that are so far out of date as to be laughable.

No disrepect to your intelligence or motives, simply a lack of up to date and accurate knowledge.

Perhaps you have "book blindness" :shifty: and lack the ability to detach yourself from the subject enough to offer an objective view :)... I say this as an uneducated man, but feel it's validated by observation, based on your comments in regards to the abilities of animals, or lack of, as you allude to... they're still here... even the stoopid ones... which contradicts your argument that "dumb" animals can't make it in this world... and there's no "pretty polly" here...

"Animals have no control over their fate" - nope, because they're all fatalists :shifty: they'll jump off that cliff if their friend does it.
"We don't breed fast enough" - We don't? coulda fooled me...
"Humans possess two things animals don't, a superior brain " - because dolphins don't travel by submarine?
" and an intangible quality that has animals instinctively wary " - wouldn't you be wary of walking up to a Lion in its habitat?

and a few more...

You must be able to see that my confusion is not based on lack of "understanding"... but one of conflicting logic...

[Edbear]

I'm happy with the accepted view of real-world experts in the field.

That's what we pay them for.

Of course, if you do manage to sway the experts with your claims their ignorance is laughable then I'll take your claims seriously. So far I only have your word for it.


You only "have my word for it" because you can't be bothered finding out anything for yourself, and for very link such as you provide there are others with the opposite view from just as highly qualified scientists.

I have researched everything currently available on relevant subjects and trust me, you have no idea. Your attitude is one of a person easliy led and convinced of what he would prefer to believe.

If not, tell me what personal study you have done to confirm the veracity of these links. Just beacause someone with letters after their name says something doesn't make it true. Much of what we have been taught as Gospel has in recent years been totally discredited. That includes calling into question the age of life itself. Is it really 3.5m years old? I bet you firmly believe the Earth is 4.5b years old as well.

Now post the links to the science about these questions and why they cannot be taken as gospel. I bet you've never even heard of any recent science questioning dates.


Perhaps you have "book blindness" :shifty: and lack the ability to detach yourself from the subject enough to offer an objective view :)... I say this as an uneducated man, but feel it's validated by observation, based on your comments in regards to the abilities of animals, or lack of, as you allude to... they're still here... even the stoopid ones... which contradicts your argument that "dumb" animals can't make it in this world... and there's no "pretty polly" here...

"Animals have no control over their fate" - nope, because they're all fatalists :shifty: they'll jump off that cliff if their friend does it.
"We don't breed fast enough" - We don't? coulda fooled me...
"Humans possess two things animals don't, a superior brain " - because dolphins don't travel by submarine?
" and an intangible quality that has animals instinctively wary " - wouldn't you be wary of walking up to a Lion in its habitat?

and a few more...

You must be able to see that my confusion is not based on lack of "understanding"... but one of conflicting logic...

Like I said, right over your head.

[Headbanger]

I am well aware there are multiple views on just about everything, If you looked at my links they represent two different approaches.

And yes, I'll be easily led and allign myself to the combined might of the real world experts rather then the internet ones.

anyway, How old is the earth in your view?, and what makes you contest it?

[Edbear]

I am well aware there are multiple views on just about everything, If you looked at my links they represent two different approaches.

And yes, I'll be easily led and allign myself to the combined might of the real world experts rather then the internet ones.

LOL!!! Just in case it escaped your notice, what were those links to? Not anything on the Internet were they..?

Let me illustrate. Re: the age of the planet and why do they say 4.5b years? There is much discussion and many differing views among scientists as to the age of the rock we live on. Some opine a much lower age, some opine a much older planet. It is simply an average of scientific opinion, not based on verifiable science that leads most to settle on 4.5 billion years as a best guess.

There is no solid evidence for any assertion. The upshot is that no-one can say how old the Earth is.

Life? Recent scientific study has shown that the biological markers in rock that indicate life's origins may not be biological at all as they can be readily formed by natural chemical processes. So where does that leave assertions that these markers "prove" life is 3.5 million years old?

The more scientists discover about Earth, the Universe and life, the less certain they are of anything at all. Recent studies call so much into question that we have heretofore accepted as "Fact", that many scientists are now throwing up their hands and saying, "We just don't know, anymore!"

[Headbanger]

LOL!!! Just in case it escaped your notice, what were those links to? Not anything on the Internet were they..?


The difference is I wasn't claiming any expertise, nor trying to convince you of anything, nor disprove anything, Just demonstrating their is considerable scientific weight behind the popular view on the evolution of mankind after you attacked it as being laughable and ignorant.

Scientists best theory is the Earth is 4.5b years old, thats good enough for me. There will always be reason for debate.

If my son were to ask me how old the earth was, I'd tell him Scientists believe it to be 4.5 billion years old.

[Winston001]

You still aren't getting it. As far back in history as you can go, there have always been both domestic and wild animals. They haven't changed and wild animals cannot be conditioned to be domestic or vice versa. Sheep will never be but domestic and tigers will never be a domestic species. Ask a Zoologist to explain the difference between domestic and wild to you.



Sorry Ed but I can't let this waffle pass uncontested. The famous experiment by the Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev to domesticate Arctic foxes proved domestication of wild animals can be done. Not easily, but done nevertheless. Indeed you can buy these foxes in Europe - for a price.

The zebra is the standard example of a wild animal which resists domestication. Zebras are horses, horses are domestic animals.....but zebras aint. Go figure.

As for animals automatically flinching at the sight of a man - let me introduce you to the polar bear and the tiger. Both of these animals coolly and deliberately stalk man. The great white shark does the same.

With the common house cat (for which I have an affection) opinions are divided. Cats are actually wild animals which have adapted to live with humans but retain their wild natures. If you think about it, the cat serves no useful purpose to man, but man is very useful to the cat. Food, shelter, etc and if the human dies, find another or just live in the wild.

[huff3r]

Sorry Ed but I can't let this waffle pass uncontested. The famous experiment by the Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev to domesticate Arctic foxes proved domestication of wild animals can be done. Not easily, but done nevertheless. Indeed you can buy these foxes in Europe - for a price.

The zebra is the standard example of a wild animal which resists domestication. Zebras are horses, horses are domestic animals.....but zebras aint. Go figure.

As for animals automatically flinching at the sight of a man - let me introduce you to the polar bear and the tiger. Both of these animals coolly and deliberately stalk man. The great white shark does the same.

Ok how about this for waffle. Your comment on Zebras. Zebras, unlike horses, lack stamina, and therefore are NOT domesticated. Not because they cant be, but because there is no point. They are useless to anyone.

[mashman]

Like I said, right over your head.

sooooo many things are... still, you contradict yourself with your animal statements, then you contradict yourself saying that the old science is wrong because the new science points to the "fact" that previous science COULD wrong... not exactly a solid argument that encourages me to read more on the subject...

[mashman]

Sorry Ed but I can't let this waffle pass uncontested. The famous experiment by the Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev to domesticate Arctic foxes proved domestication of wild animals can be done. Not easily, but done nevertheless. Indeed you can buy these foxes in Europe - for a price.

The zebra is the standard example of a wild animal which resists domestication. Zebras are horses, horses are domestic animals.....but zebras aint. Go figure.

As for animals automatically flinching at the sight of a man - let me introduce you to the polar bear and the tiger. Both of these animals coolly and deliberately stalk man. The great white shark does the same.

With the common house cat (for which I have an affection) opinions are divided. Cats are actually wild animals which have adapted to live with humans but retain their wild natures. If you think about it, the cat serves no useful purpose to man, but man is very useful to the cat. Food, shelter, etc and if the human dies, find another or just live in the wild.

or the guy who wolfified himself [IMG]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Ellis_(wolf_researche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Ellis_(wolf_researcher)) and became the alpha male in his own right...

[mashman]

Ok how about this for waffle. Your comment on Zebras. Zebras, unlike horses, lack stamina, and therefore are NOT domesticated. Not because they cant be, but because there is no point. They are useless to anyone.

most likely because mainstream society doesn't eat Zebra... what's the old saying about preventing the extinction of a creature?

[Winston001]

Much of what we have been taught as Gospel has in recent years been totally discredited. That includes calling into question the age of life itself. Is it really 3.5m years old? I bet you firmly believe the Earth is 4.5b years old as well.

Like I said, right over your head.

LOL ah well, at least this is entertaining.

Lets get a few accuracies established. The Universe we live in has certain rules which the study of physics reveals. Carbon-14 decays (loses its radioactivity, converting back to nitrogen-14) at a known rate; its half-life, or the time it takes for half a given number of carbon-14 atoms to decay, is about 5,730 years. This is merely one isotope and there are many others - C14 is mainly used for organic material. Isotopes are very useful because when found we can calculate the size and thus the age of the original rock.

4.5 billion years is not a guess for the age of the Earth. It isn't a number produced by a poll of scientists. The age is reached by repeated testing at different times and places of ancient rocks. It is possible the Earth is slightly older but unlikely to be newer assuming time is linear. Beyond that, our solar system is postulated as being the second solar system in this region, the first having emerged and collapsed since the Big Bang.

Ed if you want to assert that Man (for some reason you exclude Woman) is making a mess of the planet you'll find most of us agree. Its not rocket science, nor are things as bleak as you believe. Do not despair. Evolution will ensure a catastrophe occurs to humans and winnows our numbers to manageable proportions. And we will learn from that and adapt.

[Insanity_rules]

This thread has become very theological with just a hint of bollox!

[huff3r]

This thread has become very theological with just a hint of bollox!

Its cos no-one paid any attention to my banana :(

:banana: