|
|
 |
everybody has warts |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 1:38 PM i found this article interesting... one tidbit, is that girls with absent fathers reach puberty faster than girls from stable homes. and when you add an unrelated male into the environment (stepfather,) the pace quickens even more. so not only are they mentally mixed up than their peers, their bodies are becoming sexual faster too.. http://www.rakemag.com/features/detail.asp?catID=61&itemID=16561&pg=1
—everybody has warts |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 1:41 PM thats interesting, i wonder if drew has heard of this. —superhew |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 1:43 PM Yeah, that's an interesting point -- a female with an undeveloped mind, yet an overly developed body is a bad combination -- it's kind of like giving nuclear weapons to a caveman. They're not mature enough to use them wisely. They tend to just follow their instincts which are always bad 'cause their minds haven't yet developed. Everybody gets screwed in the end. —steve |
|
|
|
|
everybody has warts |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 1:46 PM it also gives a theory as to why fucked up people breed at a younger age... something that boggles drew's mind.. (why would nature choose these people to procreate) the theory is that early procration solves the problem of life in a hostile environment. i.e. when the situation is chaotic and uncertain, the drive to breed speeds up, to make sure the genes are passed on before you meet an untimely death. —everybody has warts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 1:51 PM Seriously EHW -- that's the best explanation I've heard yet. "We" always tend to sit around asking the question, "Why is the white-trash gene so much stronger than all other genes?", or "Why does the super-chaotic person possess a much higher instance of breeding?", and that explanation seems to make the most sense. In a "live fast/ die young" environment, breeding must take place much sooner and with much more frequency to ensure the continuation of the species. Great point! —steve |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 1:58 PM every has warts, you should call in with that bit of information. im sure drew would be much appreciative of it. it is very interesting study, and your reasoning as also very thought-provoking. thanks for the post! —superhew |
|
|
|
|
Farty Face |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 2:33 PM Yeah for real, call in and give him that theory. It makes sense to me. Either call in or give permision for someone else here to do it for you. —Farty Face |
|
|
|
|
everybody has warts |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 2:37 PM yeah, somebody can go ahead and call if they want. i was basicly just paraphrasing a theory in the article. i dont know when the study was done or how long that theory has been around. probably recent, but not breaking news. still, i wonder if drew's heard them. i like the article because it pulls from alot of different sources, and looks at the topic from several angles. and i found the topic interesting because one of my life's goals is to save the bad girl... ;) —everybody has warts |
|
|
|
|
everybody has warts |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 2:42 PM fyi: here's the segment i reffered to: Hypotheses related to divorce and stepfathers can mostly be traced to the work of two researchers, Jay Belsky and Bruce Ellis, who’ve explored a generality called “the absent father theory,” hinged on the notion that the biological processes of puberty can be triggered by exposure to stress, and/or exposure to sex hormones known as pheromones. What’s been shown so far is that girls with more distant family relationships mature earlier, especially if the interactions with their fathers early in life were of poor quality or absent. The presence of an unrelated male in the household, such as a stepfather or mother’s boyfriend (no matter how consistent) may speed development even more. These findings are backed up in nature, where scientists have observed that puberty is inhibited in prairie dogs whose biological fathers are present, while puberty begins in prepubescent mice exposed to the pheromones of unrelated males. The findings might also suggest that the earlier age of puberty among girls in divorced families is catalyzed by stress, which in turns triggers puberty. Evolutionary psychologists argue that since the survival of a species depends on the ability of its members to pass on their genes, behaviors that facilitate reproduction and survival persist and evolve because the people who employ them produce prolifically. Meanwhile, less effective reproductive strategies disappear because those who employ them produce few offspring. Thus, early menarche may have evolved as a strategy to solve the specific problem of life in a “hostile environment.” According to the theory, females in dangerous environments (which a modern-day stressful family situation could mimic) gained a reproductive advantage because they were physically able to reproduce earlier. Precocious development of curvaceous hips and breasts make a girl attractive to potential mates at a younger age, increasing her chances of early mating. And the earlier she mates, the better her chances of reproducing before succumbing to the dangers of the environment. Whatever the reasons, life in divorced or remarried families promotes early maturation. In nondivorced families, only eighteen percent of girls go into menarche at age eleven or younger, while that figure for girls in divorced and remarried families hikes up to twenty-five and thirty-five percent respectively. And one thing is absolutely clear: A link exists between early maturing and sexual activities. However, that link is influenced by characteristics of the adolescent and the family and by relationships outside the family. —everybody has warts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyfish |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 4:19 PM "it's kind of like giving nuclear weapons to a caveman" I was surprised nobody had yet made a George Bush joke... —mikeyfish |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 4:45 PM
Edited Friday, May 14, 2004 at 4:51 PM 
—superhew |
|
|
|
|
Wugie |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 7:24 PM Ok I love that picture —Wugie |
|
|
|
|
Farty Face |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 8:38 PM "Guess what I'm doing right now." —Dr. I. M. Jakinov
Uhhh...... Calling the show on Friday night so you can be on hold till sunday?
—Farty Face |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
roadrage |
+ |
Friday, May 14, 2004 at 11:18 PM MB, thanks for posting jokes about both sides. —roadrage |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Saturday, May 15, 2004 at 2:28 AM
Edited Saturday, May 15, 2004 at 3:24 AM "Yeah, that's an interesting point -- a female with an undeveloped mind, yet an overly developed body is a bad combination -- it's kind of like giving nuclear weapons to a caveman. They're not mature enough to use them wisely. They tend to just follow their instincts which are always bad 'cause their minds haven't yet developed. Everybody gets screwed in the end." —steve I agree with you except they are not following instinct, they are responding to impulses driven by fear. Instinct can be relatively sophisticated to the point of building complex shelters like beavers or nesting to nurse young offspring. Specifically in the example of nuclear bombs, they cause damage beyond anything primitive people could have experience of or imagine, therefore, they do not understand how powerful the bombs are. They operate out of tribal consciousness...... humanitarianism and concern for life outside the basic needs of the tribe is inconceivable. Fear of harm, being dominated, losing property or life can trigger completely irrational behavior. With the dumb but ripe chick- she is ignorant, inexperienced and unsophisticated...... like a child in an adult body with adult hormonal impulses. Humans have powerful brains and self-awareness even though we can also be oblivious to ourselves at the same time. We are too distracted with our fears, ignorance, self-consciousness, emotional pains to benefit from a sense of instinct. Everyone gets screwed. "...a female with an undeveloped mind, yet an overly developed body is a bad combination..." Think about all the guys thinking with their penis,....... opportunists blaming the girl or the situation for their irresponsibility. They don't get pregnant and they can walk around hiding their abandoned responsibilities. How many guys would and do take advantage of people for a moment of self-serving gratification? That is the norm. It is the exception if you consider consequences. It is easy to target air-headed sexually hungry chicks but the greater percentage of men have undeveloped minds, underdeveloped body parts :-( for their overcharged impulses. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
commie |
+ |
Saturday, May 15, 2004 at 5:31 PM "Doctor" Pinsky--following the standard line of the evolutionary psychologists, sociobiologists, social Darwinists, and all the other lackeys with their justificatory Just So mythology--makes a very basic error in assuming that every feature or trait must have adaptive significance. Many features/traits have no adaptive significance whatsoever. As long as these traits do not interfere with reproductive success, they can be passed on for generation after generation. Pinsky seems to assume that any existing trait somehow must be, or must once have been, beneficially adaptive. Why should he do this? Since variation is random, there is no reason at all to adopt a Panglossian worldview regarding it. He is oblivious to the rather obvious fact that some traits are maladaptive. (This is, after all, why species become extinct.) Pinsky needs to go back to Amherst and take Scientific Reasoning 1A. (In case you were wondering: No, I am definitely not a Lysenkoist. Marxism does not entail acceptance of deviationist Stalinist doctrine.) —commie |
|
|
|
|
illyB |
+ |
Saturday, May 15, 2004 at 6:13 PM Very deep. Wish I had something smart to add....damn public schools —illyB |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Sunday, May 16, 2004 at 1:16 PM AC -- Yep, I agree -- I used the term "instincts" in a very generic fashion, not implying actual "biological" instincts, but instead simply meaning an impulse to behave or act in a certain fashion. By the way, I noticed your use of the term "Tribal Consciousness" -- Do you read Ken Wilbur? -- I had Ken Wilbur's definitions of consciousness in mind when I wrote that response, which is why I equated an over-developed body and an underdeveloped mind with a caveman and nuclear weapons. Also, thanks for noticing my "Everybody gets screwed in the end." joke. :) Com -- Drew has made this point on many occasions: "Many features/traits have no adaptive significance whatsoever. As long as these traits do not interfere with reproductive success, they can be passed on for generation after generation." -- Unfortunately you must've missed it. Or, to borrow your own joke: Commie needs to go back to KROQ and take Loveline 1A. Also: "Marxism does not entail acceptance of deviationist Stalinist doctrine." -- Yep, that's why Sartre was into Marxism. I think that probably goes without saying. —steve |
|
|
|
|
commie |
+ |
Sunday, May 16, 2004 at 5:59 PM Comrade: At least twice I've heard Pinsky wonder aloud on the air what the adaptive purpose of certain traits might be (addiction, imprinting on abusive parents). I'm glad you understand the difference between Marxism and Stalinism, but many still can't grasp it. I'm using this thread as a "teachable moment". Till The Revolution, I remain yours truly, etc. —commie |
|
|
|
|
Farty Face |
+ |
Sunday, May 16, 2004 at 6:57 PM Fucking communists. HOOORAY!! SINCE WE LACK A FREE MARKET WE HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL HOW TO TELL WHAT THE DOMESTIC DEMAND FOR VARIOUS GOODS ARE SO WE JUST GUESS AND THUS HAVE EITHER HUGE SURPLUSES OR HUGE SHORTAGES OF EVERY SINGLE GOOD BUT WE JUSTIFY IT WITH STATE RUN MEDIA AND NO 1ST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS. VIVA LA UTOPIA!!!!!!! —Farty Face |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Exile |
+ |
Friday, May 6, 2005 at 11:59 PM
Edited Friday, May 6, 2005 at 11:59 PM  Communism is for Taco Bell and mexicans —ZT-In-Exile |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Saturday, May 7, 2005 at 12:01 PM ZT (Level 19 Necromancer) casts Raise Dead on Extremely Old Thread. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
swifty |
+ |
Sunday, May 8, 2005 at 1:35 PM Hey Dark, or anyone, What was the title of that old thread? Where can I find it? —swifty |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Sunday, May 8, 2005 at 1:55 PM Press the "Home" key the next time you see this page. —Dark Laith |
|
