Milovana.com

Well you can say anything like that, if you like, but that's a mere blabbering of a man who just can't find any arguments to answer with them, so you post something like "go to hell"

Besides, if you'v even REMOTELY read my posts - I do not support fashists. It's just the main idea they had - but it's not new. Roman people thought the same, and British too. It's the ideas of every expansionist. What Hitlet really had good - is the wish for pure and perfect human race - but all he's methods and even the basic plan of achieving it was a failure. But wat am I talking, if you see that I discuss 2WW, and you instantly become offencive. You see a bone - you bark, that's the instinct your master developed from when you were a puppy.
Hitler is not a monster in every way you could imagine - he has some good sides too, and he did some very VERY positive things as a polititian. Also he drew a very good pictures IMO. That doesn't make up to all horrible acts he did and ordered. But you should never look on a persom from the one side. So is fashism. It has _SOME_ good ideas and sides. It's still pretty cruel in general tho. But no matter how horrible it may be - those good components won't become bad just because of it. Too bad you can't understand it, probably.

Also, I'm not whining. I discuss a topic that is interesting to me. With no intention - I'm fully aware that nothing will change and I don't really hate the world as it is. For example, I hate burocracy. But the problems I discuss - hell, why should I care?! I'll die long before anything horrible will happen with the flag of moral. I'll die long before the uneasyness will become laws. I live in a good world to live and die in.
But as a smart person I can't ignore obvious, if you think of them, flaws in modern life. An obvious falling of it's quality. It becomes more and more stressing and complicated, more and more is asked from people, and less is given in return. Say not? Let's argue. I see the way our society moves, and I see it's no good. And that's what I'm talking about because I like to flex my mind thinking on complicated topics. And if my posts will make at least a few users stop for a second and think on a topic, that they thought obvious before, from a different side - good. Not - I won't dive a damn, I write it for my own entertainment.

First of all, what you're referring to is called Social Darwinism.

Second:

I do not support fashists. It's just the main idea they had

Fascism does not imply Social Darwinism; it's an authoritarian political ideology.

Third:

The idea of Social Darwinism, besides having no realistically objective implementation, is flawed at best.

You mention that beauty should play a role in this, which is ridiculous. Beauty contributes nothing except shallowness to the gene pool.

It's not as if natural selection no longer occurs in society; it does. It often occurs on arbitrary (in modern standards) grounds. Intelligence is probably the most important trait in modern times to contribute to the gene pool, and it is fair to assume the human race is getting progressively more intelligent. Your socio-political standing and general health don't affect genes at all, as you seem to misunderstand.

If anything, the only way to "improve" the human race as a whole is to rid society of the very shallowness you advocate, and allow people to select mates based on traits that actually matter.

Nezhul wrote:Well you can say anything like that, if you like, but that's a mere blabbering of a man who just can't find any arguments to answer with them, so you post something like "go to hell"

I'm not trying to argue with you. In fact I make a point of not arguing with idiots. You'd just end up dragging me down to your level and beating me with experience.

Dix.

You mention that beauty should play a role in this, which is ridiculous. Beauty contributes nothing except shallowness to the gene pool.

why id does! I'v already said that beauty is basically the sign of genetical health and some personal traits that matter in growing up children.

It's not as if natural selection no longer occurs in society; it does. It often occurs on arbitrary (in modern standards) grounds. Intelligence is probably the most important trait in modern times to contribute to the gene pool, and it is fair to assume the human race is getting progressively more intelligent.

agree. But if it is the most important - it doesn't meen health is less important. As I said, when we see a beautyfull person, we consider him/her beautyfull because our brain connects the looks with a certain genetic model. We consider beautyfull those people, who are most suited to producing healthy children. Now Medical service first of all rescues people that should have died from some pathology. For example a baby is born and he already has some disorder in he's body. For example his heart is not on the right place. He recieves surgery and he's fine, and when he grows up he looks just like all other people, finds a girlfriend and has children. And with them he spreads hes corrupted genes into the world.
Second, there's such thing as plastical surgery (not sure if I used the needed word). Basically a surgery to change the shape of our body and make people more beautyfull. While that's totally a right for people who can afford it, the fact that they become more appealing while their genes remain the same = improving the chances of their low quality genes to spread, is bad.

Your socio-political standing and general health don't affect genes at all, as you seem to misunderstand.

Your social standing in our society it, I agree, not a sign of individual quality. Though it really should be. But no matter how much smart you are (if you arent a genious), you won't get close to the dumb son of some rich banker no matter what. That's true, and that shouldn't be.
As for the health - it has a great deal. Your genes descide all of you, not just the shape of your body, but how lazy you are, how active, how good you can endure cold and how good your body fights viruses. And with some other ilnesses, - that all is implanted in us from the birth with our genes. I'm not talking about some fate - not like that. It's just, for example, how good your heart works. Some people have greater chances to have heart attack than others simply because the quality of the heart anf flesh it's made of. So health - is a sign of our good genes. Also, we see an athlectic young man and a fat guy next to him. Why the first one is athletic? Genes too. He's less lazy and more active, he gets tired less. That basically means, how good he's nerve system works. The fat guy is eather lazy, eather has some other health problems. Again - all is the sign of a certain genetic qualities. You are right - your genes does NOT depend on the health. It's the opposite - health depends on your genetic material, and shows everyone how good it is.
But again, let's see what are we doing?
1) we treat people from desieses, making them have the same chances that are a natural-healthy men has.
2) We change our looks, tricking the natuaral selection.
3) more over - we teach each other that looks are not important, and that it's a shame to be freaked out by someones looks no matter how bad it is. And year after year humanity becomes more ignorant to the looks - we FORCE ourselves to ignore this.

what we still looking at is intlligence. but I can see the signs of a new moral already, faintly, but it already tells us that intelligence is not important too, that it's the "heart" that matters. Bullshit, IMO. All matters equally.

and allow people to select mates based on traits that actually matter.

That's what I'm talking about! But our opinion differs on a point of what traits matter? I think - all of them. And you try to diverce.

I'm not trying to argue with you. In fact I make a point of not arguing with idiots. You'd just end up dragging me down to your level and beating me with experience.

haha, are we in a school here or something? Such a childish way to hide from the talking. It's a loosers blabbering "If I were to do it I'd definitely sucseed, but I don't want to...". A smart man like you try to pretend to be doesn't need excuses. He just does or he doesn't, but definitely not just talks.

That's not true. Genetics do contribute to health, but a great number of diseases are not genetic or barely genetic. Beauty, such as what a person's face looks like, will probably tell you nothing about their health. Our perceptions of beauty are just genetic leftovers which have little to no use in modern society.

You seem to bring up body weight a lot. While a valid measure of health, it does not tell much about genetic fitness. In the United States, obesity is the most prevalent among the lower class, which has nothing to do with laziness. Also, laziness is not a genetic trait, last time I checked.

That's not true. Genetics do contribute to health, but a great number of diseases are not genetic or barely genetic.

I ever said all of them? A lot - for sure. But at the same time lots of others - due to ciruses, chemical exposure etc...

Beauty, such as what a person's face looks like, will probably tell you nothing about their health. Our perceptions of beauty are just genetic leftovers which have little to no use in modern society.

face will tell very little about health - true. Unless a skin is a greeny-grey colour lol )
But the face as a matter of bone structure, proportions, etc - says a lot. It's just that our btain translates it to a simple feeling of beautyfull or ugly. But in fact it analyses how good the organism of that person is build.

You seem to bring up body weight a lot. While a valid measure of health, it does not tell much about genetic fitness. In the United States, obesity is the most prevalent among the lower class, which has nothing to do with laziness. Also, laziness is not a genetic trait, last time I checked.

It is lazyness. It's due to a habit of eating fastfood, and at the same time lack of willpower to measure the ammount of this food or doing some excersises to keep the shape.
Lazyness IS genetic. What is it? The lack of activity. A man is normally lazy, when it's hard for him to move too much, he'd better lie down a little, or sit near PC. He has no energy for anything else. While others do. Why? Because of our genetic line. It's the same way as how strong we are, or how tall our body will grow. Lazyness is not mental - not completely. Off course there is a great mental deal to it (wich is, by the way, also should be measured, and is also a sign of unreliable partner). But it's also about how hard it is for us to be active, to do lot's of things. For our body.
You know, I have a friend. He sleeps like 5 hours a day, wakes up in the morning, leaves he's home within an hour, works, then goes to a club (not dances, rather board games), then meets a few friends, has some event with them and then returns home long after midnight to sleep. I can't do even a half of this without getting worn out. And it's not the matter of habit - he was like that from childhood, so as I always was a bit on a slower side. For that I can concentrate on something for a long time, and for him sitting on one place for more than 2 hours is a torture. So as having a single hobby or interest for more then a year. If you say that such diversion between us is not genetical - then I don't know what to say else.

It is lazyness. It's due to a habit of eating fastfood, and at the same time lack of willpower to measure the ammount of this food or doing some excersises to keep the shape.

Uh, no. Frankly, I'm tired of people characterizing overweight people as lazy slobs. This is sometimes the case, often not. You take for granted the time and money it takes to cook healthy food and to exercise, food availability, etc.

Imagine a woman living in a poor neighbourhood in the US, with no grocery stores (sounds ridiculous, but this actually exists), supporting three kids, working full-time, and in a situation where fast-food is cheaper than groceries. Could you honestly say she was lazy for not working out or eating healthy food?

Laziness is a much more environmental than genetic factor. And the circumstance you mention is not a matter of laziness, but stamina. Totally irrelevant.

Lazyness is the sign of low stamina. Think deeper, FFS, why are you only looking at the surface of things?! A lazy men often knows that something should be done, and it's better for him to do it, he get only profit, but he thinks then "oooh don't have a strenght to do it now" or something similar.

And yes, fat people are lazy. You protect them, giving an example of a mother with 3 children. I'll say it straight - if hee eats 1 hamburger on every meal (3 times a day) or another fastfood in low ammount - that's more then enough to provide energy for the body, and such a buysy person won't get fat even if he/she eats only fastfood and drinks coke. BUUUUT if that persom will eat a full table of that crap every time - then hello fatty. The reason is not the quality of the food (tho off course good food is better), but the ammount of it, that a fat man eats every time. And this comes from a lack of willpower to control themselves. Wich is a trait to look on too. I never said genes is the only reason for everything and only important thing to do.
Bescides, genes affect this too, I mean self control. Some people know how to control themselves even without a direct attention to that point from the side of a parents. And some don't have it even with a strict and intelligent parents. This comes from our way of thinking, wich is, if you know, chemical-electrical processes in the brain, and that is descided by genes.

Oh, and also, if a mother has 3 children and works on two jobs, having to eat fastfood because of the lack of time... Seriously, let's get this straight - that's in 99.999(9)% her fault. Unsafe sex. Low education that prevents her from getting a good job. Bad choice of a partner who doesnt support her. Her fault only, I don't think you should pity such people.

Nezhul wrote:a buysy person won't get fat

Actually exercising to lose / control weight won't work. It's comes down to total caloric intake, the amount of simple carbs in your diet, the amount of saturated fat, the amount of fiber, and then finally exercise. You simply cannot burn enough calories in a day to make up for a diet packed with sugar. And yes, sugar will make you fat quicker than fat will.

And sugar (especially high fructose corn syrup) is in nearly every inexpensive food in America.

Why do you insist on being wrong about everything?

Oh, and also, if a mother has 3 children and works on two jobs, having to eat fastfood because of the lack of time... Seriously, let's get this straight - that's in 99.999(9)% her fault.

People in poor areas in the US typically get pregnant when they're kids.
Have a kid at 13, and it's approaching 100% your fault. Especially if you drop out of school to be a pubescent mother.
Fantastic logic!

Yes, it is her fault. Whom else could she blame?! Only her's stupidity. And age doesn't release her from responsibility. It's her body and life and every human, no matter how young he could be (well, from the age of 6 and greater) have to watch after himself. Off course parents should interfere. But even if they don't - it's still your main concern. Too bad americans don't teach that to their kids, obviously. It's just common sence. Noone will look after you better than you will. Parents can provide support, sometimes a lot of it, but they arent around you every time. So yes - only stupidity of a girl that puts her into this mess. Also, ever heard of evening school? here comes lazyness.

Oh, where to begin...

Lazyness is the sign of low stamina. Think deeper, FFS, why are you only looking at the surface of things?!

I'm the one looking at the surface of things?

Lack of stamina and laziness are not the same thing. One could have all the physical stamina in the world, but never work an honest day's work. I, for example, am an extremely hard worker. If you ask me to go on a jog, however, I'll probably refuse. Again, not the same thing.

if hee eats 1 hamburger on every meal (3 times a day) or another fastfood in low ammount - that's more then enough to provide energy for the body, and such a buysy person won't get fat even if he/she eats only fastfood and drinks coke

As OldNewspaper said, not true. Caloric intake is a big factor, as well as metabolism, etc. And you could be very busy and still be fat; often work is not physical. Working in an office all day doesn't burn much calories. I'd like to see you eat fast food for a month and not gain any weight.

This comes from our way of thinking, wich is, if you know, chemical-electrical processes in the brain, and that is descided by genes.

What the hell? Ways of thinking are much more influenced by environment than by genetics. For example, I'd be willing to bet you grew up in a highly Conservative household, which is why you have these ideals.

Low education that prevents her from getting a good job.

How exactly is that her fault?

Her fault only, I don't think you should pity such people.

I don't pity her. I would commend her for having the strength to raise three kids. No, I pity you-- you being the ignorant masses who can't look an inch beyond their existence to even consider, let alone sympathize, with the plights of another. Maybe then you could understand that some people have bigger problems than their weight.

So yes - only stupidity of a girl that puts her into this mess.

Oh, I suppose the father isn't responsible in the least?

Whom else could she blame?! Only her's stupidity.

It's clear you don't understand the downwards spiral of poverty, and the effects one's socio-economic position can have on one's life. I suggest you do some research before you make another ignorant post.

Been following along, and I totally agree with handcuffed.

I, for example, am an extremely hard worker. If you ask me to go on a jog, however, I'll probably refuse. Again, not the same thing.

Do you think physical stamina is the only one there is? How about mental? Lazy people don't have low physical stamina - every one of us can do as much as cleaning the room, to lazy people don't. It's the lack of mental stamina, every action they need to take depresses them more, and takes more mental effort than from you. Back to my example with me and my friend - I can't do as much as him not because I can't move as much. I become tired, I want to sleep. Oh, by the way, you know that the desire to sleep is not for the body to rest, but for the brain, right?

As OldNewspaper said, not true. Caloric intake is a big factor, as well as metabolism, etc. And you could be very busy and still be fat; often work is not physical. Working in an office all day doesn't burn much calories. I'd like to see you eat fast food for a month and not gain any weight.

Well, that's troublesome. I have a better conditions to eat fastfood now, bescides we, in russia, don't have it around every corner. It's like 15-20 cafes with such food on a whoole town, and it's big. So for me to eat fastfood is
1) expencive (yea, here it is actually more expencive than normal food)
2) have to go too far.
Not the point. Don't you know, that people with a lot of mental stress, that comes in offices, are less likely to be fat. Not sure why tho. Bescides, even if it isnt. Think of it - 1 hamburger won't give you too many callories. If you eat it two or three times a day - you won't be fat, but still won't be hungry.
Also I know how to cook and like that thing. And you know, I make pretty good stuff, and it takes no more than 40 minutes to do. And in the meantime I watch TV or rest any other way. I doubt that simple products as rice, potatoes, some meat - are more expencive than eating fastfood every day. It's just that those people are lazy to to it.

What the hell? Ways of thinking are much more influenced by environment than by genetics. For example, I'd be willing to bet you grew up in a highly Conservative household, which is why you have these ideals.

and again, I'm talking of one thing, you - about the other. Yes, our ideology and common mood are formed by the enviroment. But our basic brain activity model is not that. It's genetical to the boot. Some people are good in high math, some don't, no matter how hard you teach them. Some have better imagination than others. Some have more percision, some are good schemers. That's not something that's taught to you by parents, that's the way your brain works.

How exactly is that her fault?

How?! Well, lets see. Every man can educate himself. Believe me, public library is not that expencive (or is it free in US i don't know). So as books in a bookstore. Every man who WANTS to be educated - will be such. And I'm not only talking about knowledge - you can get the documents from a univercity that prooves your knowledge - not entirely free, but cheaper than studying in it for years. For ones with a bit more money - welcome to the evening school. And I don't know how in US, but in Russia good students with high grades are taught in univercitys and academys for free - government pays for them. I think in US there are such programs too. And believe me, it's not hard to have a good crades if you are not lazy. No matter how dumb you are, if you'll spend hours on a topic you'll understand it - maybe not as good as a talented one, but enought to have a good mark on exams.

I don't pity her. I would commend her for having the strength to raise three kids. No, I pity you-- you being the ignorant masses who can't look an inch beyond their existence to even consider, let alone sympathize, with the plights of another. Maybe then you could understand that some people have bigger problems than their weight.

that's a basic flaw of a modern society. We (humanity in general) commend that she leaves that way and survives. But at the same time, most of you forgets, that situations that lead her to this mess can't be commended in any way. And she in general is a FAILED person, who made too much mistakes, not a SUCCESSIVE person, who can overcome difficulties. A person should be commended when he/she could get around that difficulties, can live without bringing them upon itself. And the problems of this women is ALL her mistakes. But no - if you see a truly successive person, who used condoms not to get pregnant, who studyed and has a good job. You take that as norma. But you commend a looser who couldnt do it, who should die long time ago, but survives because our society drags him along, no matter how much burden that person is. Who's really should be commended? You and me, people who succeeded in life. And not some dumb weaklings.

Oh, I suppose the father isn't responsible in the least?

come on, have you even read my post? The only way she can't do anything - is while being raped. All other is her fault. Girls most often get pregnant not when raped, but with their boyfriends who cum after the first thrust. While a booy is stupid too, it's the girl who'll have most problems, and SHE should think about herself. And parents? Well, let's get back in time a little and remember ourselves when we were young and had our first relationship. Did you talked to your parents? Did you asked their permission to have sex, or even marked such possibility? Or did they even knew about your girl? Off course every normal parent finds a strength to start a conversation about safe sex, when he's kid grows up. BUT what happens? It's often that both sides are so ashamed of the topic (wich is, by the way, another dumb thing that our morals suggest), that it ends really fast, and happens only once. But even if parents didn't do that - come on, condoms are in every convinience store, and there are so much commersials on them (real and hidden in movies), that every teenages knows their uses and why are they needed. So, back to our poor girl, she was most probably aware of the things, still was stupid enough to get pregnant.

It's clear you don't understand the downwards spiral of poverty, and the effects one's socio-economic position can have on one's life. I suggest you do some research before you make another ignorant post.

you know, I do. And that's because I leave in russia, and remember the hudge crisis of early 90's, when Societ union was completely broken (it started earlyer but those were a smooth changes), and Russian Federatian was formed. What did Yelcin do? You see, we didn't have market that time. Prices for goods were set by the government and gouldn't be changed. Now new government just made a law, that now traders can set their prices. What happened then, is that prices went by 1000% in aa day, and didn't stop. All people's savings became nothing in 3 months. All country was thrown in such poverty, that can't be compared with anything in US that's happening NOWADAYS. But as if that wasnt enough, our government found a solution on how to stop the inflation. They descided to stop paying money to the people, there was simply no salary. So it became useless for the traders to rase prices more, if noone buys it. But as for the people - they haven't got monew from a couple of months up to a year in worst cases. No money at all. The ones who were most lucky recieved their salary with goods - like I know the case when the salary of a worker was 50 boxes of corn cookies a month. And they were happy - because at least that was FOOD.
So believe me, I know about poverty quite a bit to talk about it.