Sociopath Community

Another wrench to throw into Darwanist logic, is that passing on your genes doesn't ensure the survival of those genes to then pass themselves on. Intellect probably has some sort of reproductive advantage even if Conservatives attempt to cultivate an environment that punishes intellect, it clearly doesn't work even under their idealized conditions.

Intellect creates a "wide web" of more fluid reproduction, think sexual liberation, transportation, and dense cities, while it also has the capacity to take advantage of smaller environments or hold small minded environments back through self-sabotage so the small minded Conservative environment (stagnant gene pools, poverty, drugs issues) loses even in the best of cases for it.

Tacky said: 

Another wrench to throw into Darwanist logic, is that passing on your genes doesn't ensure the survival of those genes to then pass themselves on. Intellect probably has some sort of reproductive advantage even if Conservatives attempt to cultivate an environment that punishes intellect, it clearly doesn't work even under their idealized conditions.

Intellect creates a "wide web" of more fluid reproduction, think sexual liberation, transportation, and dense cities, while it also has the capacity to take advantage of smaller environments or hold small minded environments back through self-sabotage so the small minded Conservative environment (stagnant gene pools, poverty, drugs issues) loses even in the best of cases for it.

 You've got to be kidding. The ultimate survival of the fittest is passing on your genetics. If you don't, you're just a dead end. Literally dead and your genetics die with you.

God complexes are not smart. If anything this conversation has killed a few braincells.

Tacky said: 

Another wrench to throw into Darwanist logic, is that passing on your genes doesn't ensure the survival of those genes to then pass themselves on. Intellect probably has some sort of reproductive advantage even if Conservatives attempt to cultivate an environment that punishes intellect, it clearly doesn't work even under their idealized conditions.

I'd argue increased intelligence is more akin to a mutation, and as a result the rest of the herd recognize there's something 'wrong' with them in spite of their increased means of achievement. It's like when people can sense someone is sick. 

Also in general people can only reserve so much capacity for what they find themselves capable of for growth. Someone with less intelligence for instance will have more time to focus on things like charisma or brawn, while someone ugly and scrawny with glasses might find more to gain from reading a book. 

Tacky said: 

Darwinism is for psuedo-intellectual who usually don't even know much about Darwin's works.

No fault marriage makes sense as to why people don't want to get married as the only commitment to marriage is an absurd contract meant to punish one of the partners which is typically the male. The partner that makes less can decide to get a divorce or would have custody of the children for being the mother and getting an extreme amount of money based upon income instead of need or actual support for the children. If the alimony received ends up making more money it might not even make a change if it does in the first place because of court bias or court neglect.

I support gay marriage but no fault marriage just has too many consequences that I honestly think it is worse than the consequences of being stuck in a marriage.

Civil Unions could remain no fault for those that want an alternative option. 

 marriage benefits the man a lot more than the woman. Thats why married men are happier than single men, and single women are the happiest over all

PalePeach said: 

Tacky said: 

Darwinism is for psuedo-intellectual who usually don't even know much about Darwin's works.

No fault marriage makes sense as to why people don't want to get married as the only commitment to marriage is an absurd contract meant to punish one of the partners which is typically the male. The partner that makes less can decide to get a divorce or would have custody of the children for being the mother and getting an extreme amount of money based upon income instead of need or actual support for the children. If the alimony received ends up making more money it might not even make a change if it does in the first place because of court bias or court neglect.

I support gay marriage but no fault marriage just has too many consequences that I honestly think it is worse than the consequences of being stuck in a marriage.

Civil Unions could remain no fault for those that want an alternative option. 

 marriage benefits the man a lot more than the woman. Thats why married men are happier than single men, and single women are the happiest over all

There are benefits on both sides. Do you ever think about having a baby? Something born of you. part of you, for you to love? Seems this is human nature to want this. Something inside.

Scooter said: 

PalePeach said: 

Tacky said: 

Darwinism is for psuedo-intellectual who usually don't even know much about Darwin's works.

No fault marriage makes sense as to why people don't want to get married as the only commitment to marriage is an absurd contract meant to punish one of the partners which is typically the male. The partner that makes less can decide to get a divorce or would have custody of the children for being the mother and getting an extreme amount of money based upon income instead of need or actual support for the children. If the alimony received ends up making more money it might not even make a change if it does in the first place because of court bias or court neglect.

I support gay marriage but no fault marriage just has too many consequences that I honestly think it is worse than the consequences of being stuck in a marriage.

Civil Unions could remain no fault for those that want an alternative option. 

 marriage benefits the man a lot more than the woman. Thats why married men are happier than single men, and single women are the happiest over all

There are benefits on both sides. Do you ever think about having a baby? Something born of you. part of you, for you to love? Seems this is human nature to want this. Something inside.

You can do that without marriage though. 

Turncoat said: 

Tacky said: 

Another wrench to throw into Darwanist logic, is that passing on your genes doesn't ensure the survival of those genes to then pass themselves on. Intellect probably has some sort of reproductive advantage even if Conservatives attempt to cultivate an environment that punishes intellect, it clearly doesn't work even under their idealized conditions.

I'd argue increased intelligence is more akin to a mutation, and as a result the rest of the herd recognize there's something 'wrong' with them in spite of their increased means of achievement. It's like when people can sense someone is sick. 

Also in general people can only reserve so much capacity for what they find themselves capable of for growth. Someone with less intelligence for instance will have more time to focus on things like charisma or brawn, while someone ugly and scrawny with glasses might find more to gain from reading a book. 

 Is charisma not a form of intellect? Mutation doesn't necessarily mean anything negative. In fact it's how evolution occurs or most of it is actually minute or microscopic. Charisma is a form of intellect and brawn is not opposed to intellect although body building could leak into time that could be used to learn. Anyone can gain from reading a book as it excercises the brain.

Tacky said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tacky said: 

Another wrench to throw into Darwanist logic, is that passing on your genes doesn't ensure the survival of those genes to then pass themselves on. Intellect probably has some sort of reproductive advantage even if Conservatives attempt to cultivate an environment that punishes intellect, it clearly doesn't work even under their idealized conditions.

I'd argue increased intelligence is more akin to a mutation, and as a result the rest of the herd recognize there's something 'wrong' with them in spite of their increased means of achievement. It's like when people can sense someone is sick. 

Also in general people can only reserve so much capacity for what they find themselves capable of for growth. Someone with less intelligence for instance will have more time to focus on things like charisma or brawn, while someone ugly and scrawny with glasses might find more to gain from reading a book. 

 Is charisma not a form of intellect?

It's closer to gregarious traits and behaviors with experience in it. 

Mutation doesn't necessarily mean anything negative.

My point was moreover people recognizing something is 'wrong' with them, and how their own habits and proclivities tend to produce less children even when their atypical trait is otherwise beneficial. 

Four stages to Marxist takeover.

1. Demoralization and reeducation indoctrination - Remove the morals from the society. Indoctrination of the young through public schools. Slow steady process. .

2. Destabilization – Remove the family. Remove religion. Military disruptions, destabilization through economic means.

3. Crisis – Create crisis wherever possible, unpunished crime, fires, race wars, pandemics. ******** We are here, get ready ***********.

4. Violent change and normalization. Arrest and kill the opposition.

Look familiar? Many of these are happening today in your nation.