Breatharianism....what a load of codswallop! (1 Viewer)

[ICUH8N]

Supposed to be deadly, but I heard that from Americans, whose opinions are not to be trusted.

*narrows eyes

 

[chickenham]

Wee won't contain much other than water if yr not taking in toxins.

The mentality of not having to kill or destroy anything in order to live really isn't that outree. It's more embarassing that someone can't conceive of why someone might attempt to, as much as possible, leave the world as they found it. That's real evolution - eliminate the verminous qualities of the human being. Stop shitting in our own nest, so to speak.

Much better, I'd say, than wasting huge amounts of grain to fatten animals in order to create a meat mountain of surplus.

 

[taubstumm]

i'll throw in some butt plugs, tourniquets and a few INXS cds.

http://www.inxs.com/rockstarinxs/

sad sad sad... they're doing a reality tv show to try to find a replacement for michael "i did an ian curtis - but sexy!" hutchence.

it's... tawdry.

 

[chickenham]

Autoerotic asphyxiation = cheap drugs

((((((+*BINGO*+))))))
​

 

[taubstumm]

That's real evolution - eliminate the verminous qualities of the human being. Stop shitting in our own nest, so to speak.

the phraseology used here implies that evolution is 'progression' along a set moral path, which is a lamarckian fallacy. evolution is the process of living organisms adapting to a given environment via the method of natural selection, and therefore there is no such thing as 'real' or 'less real' evolution (or of organisms being 'more' or 'less' evolved). sayin.

 

[La La]

Wee won't contain much other than water if yr not taking in toxins.

The mentality of not having to kill or destroy anything in order to live really isn't that outree. It's more embarassing that someone can't conceive of why someone might attempt to, as much as possible, leave the world as they found it. That's real evolution - eliminate the verminous qualities of the human being. Stop shitting in our own nest, so to speak.

Much better, I'd say, than wasting huge amounts of grain to fatten animals in order to create a meat mountain of surplus.

wasn't that vegetarians are stupid thread one o' yours?

 

[desertedvillage]

the phraseology used here implies that evolution is 'progression' along a set moral path, which is a lamarckian fallacy. evolution is the process of living organisms adapting to a given environment via the method of natural selection, and therefore there is no such thing as 'real' or 'less real' evolution (or of organisms being 'more' or 'less' evolved). sayin.

May I be so bold as to suggest he meant "real" to mean change coming from decisions and action as opposed to the unthinking biological evolution which is a moulded by the environment?
With our brains and opposable digits, we have a power to alter the environment no other species does. Can humans evolve in a self-conscious way by treating the world and those in it better? It's something to aim for anyway.

 

[hanley]

But

was skeptical too til someone told him this

"do I really think that the universe/creator/call it what you may.. would have evolved/created beings that would let sacred sperm leave through a channel which is otherwise used for toxic waste..?"

fair point.
also de babees come out the gicker.

but maybe sperm isnt sacred.so its ok for it leave through the same channel as piss.also babies aren't sacred.if anything there a screaming pile of original sin

 

[taubstumm]

May I be so bold as to suggest he meant "real" to mean change coming from decisions and action as opposed to the unthinking biological evolution which is a moulded by the environment?

yeah, i know... but then he shouldn't have used the word 'evolution', as this still implies the fallacy of 'concious' evolution.

With our brains and opposable digits, we have a power to alter the environment no other species does. Can humans evolve in a self-conscious way by treating the world and those in it better? It's something to aim for anyway.

we can progress in a self-concious way, make better decisions based on moral intuition, and treat the world and everything in it better, but it's not evolution.

in other news: devo - most unscientifically-named band of all time! evolutionary fallacy reduced to four letters!

 

[chickenham]

Thank you Gavin, point taken Tom, we should be clear in the way we express ourselves.

Yes Lala, it was.

 

[chickenham]

To be fair to me though, the idea of evolution is applied to ideas and processes all the time so even though it's divorced from the strict meaning of the word, it has taken on another one.

 

[ICUH8N]

To be fair I don't think the accusation of Lamarckism really applies in this instance. At all.

 

[Bag'o'cans]

but maybe sperm isnt sacred.so its ok for it leave through the same channel as piss.also babies aren't sacred.if anything there a screaming pile of original sin

Ye wouldn't piss in yer wallet though would ye?
(i literally have no idea what i'm talking about)

 

[MDR]

Eventually, we'll evolve so that all we need to survive is publicity and attention.

 

[Lefty Frizzell]

i'm off for a hot lunch. anyone care to join?

 

[Bag'o'cans]

Eventually, we'll evolve so that all we need to survive is publicity and attention.

So this is the pinnacle of evolution

I give you... the celebrity.

 

[MDR]

To be fair I don't think the accusation of Lamarckism really applies in this instance. At all.

The amount of times that sentence has caused a bust-up in the Racecourse Inn in Balydoyle ...

 

[taubstumm]

To be fair to me though, the idea of evolution is applied to ideas and processes all the time so even though it's divorced from the strict meaning of the word, it has taken on another one.

i hear ya. like how, say, inxs are evolving, in such a classy manner, in that tv show.

To be fair I don't think the accusation of Lamarckism really applies in this instance. At all.

how come?

 

[ICUH8N]

A) Because you seized on chickenham's imprecise (though colloquial, as he said) use of the term "evolution" - it looks a bit like a fallacy in search of someone to commit it, in this case.

B) Because Lamarckism (and it's fallacy) refers to the inheritance of biological traits acquired during an organism's lifetime. To suggest that the progression (or evolution) of social traits is a lamarckian fallacy seems incorrect. In fact, Jean Molino proposed that lamarckism could be correctly applied to sociocultural evolution...

 

[taubstumm]

A) Because you seized on chickenham's imprecise (though colloquial, as he said) use of the term "evolution" - it looks a bit like a fallacy in search of someone to commit it, in this case.

didn't mean to be rude like. sorry dee.

B) Because Lamarckism (and it's fallacy) refers to the inheritance of biological traits acquired during an organism's lifetime. To suggest that the progression (or evolution) of social traits is a lamarckian fallacy seems incorrect. In fact, Jean Molino proposed that lamarckism could be correctly applied to sociocultural evolution...

well now. i'd always thought that lamarckism (the idea that traits acquired during the lifetime of an organism can be passed on to offspring) was based on the false assumption of a coherent 'direction' to evolution, and that this was why it became discredited. and that, therefore, a fallacious use of the word 'evolution' to imply direction to evolution could be accused of being derived from a (false) lamarckist basis. does that still hold? or if it is wrong, is there a more accurate way to describe the incorrect use of 'evolution' as implying progress along a set path?

also, i'm afraid i don't know who jean molino is, and wikipedia doesn't give much:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Molino