longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:


You can’t do that, Longy. You already rejected the two topics you were given. You weren’t up to it.

You’re that good.

mothra wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:08pm:


Great!  I appreciate the effort.  And it isnt a testosterone-fuelled endeavour.  You could write a speech praising Julia Gillard or the RSPCA for all I care.  It is about the effort and the challenge to see what you can do when challenged.  Let's face it, no one is hiring any of us as speech writers so let's show them what they are missing!

mothra wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:13pm:



Sorry, speechless!

mothra wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:13pm:


I have to say that I did not regard this as a win thing.  I had a topic, I presented my point of view, (within the 600 word limit) and I defy anyone to knock it down cogently.

In the other hand, all we have from (yeas it has to be done/said/posted....) The Flake's is 'Alice in Wonderland' fantasy, and even that is the work of someone else.

mothra wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:13pm:


Oh I think Karnal's and Aussie's childish reactions were very definitely all the proof I needed.  It was pitiful.  Im not after votes anyhow. There are very few here that would vote on anything other than the author. The challenge is as much to me as anyone else. I've been a bit off my writing game of late and a challenge like this does wonders.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:29pm:



you're pathetic longlooser .... you put together a collection of other writers comments, and want to pretend you wrote every word?



you're just lucky that as far as I was concerned you had zero credibility and are nothing but a liar and a fake, otherwise after this attempt,  you would have lot whatever credibility you had

I find what Professor Storling said in the article quiet interesting in-fact.

However, I think Professor Storling is about 50% right.  In order for a society to change, there must be an underlying environment in which the changes can occur or to take place in order to facilitate a common agreement.   

This is almost the exact point that I tried to get across in the other thread about "the left in support of murderous moderates".  In which I wrote, that in order for things like woman and gay rights to improve, unfortunately, it must be built on some sort of political and economic stability. 

In nature, there is no such thing as moral.  The strong, the cunning or the cruel survive in whichever way.  The reason why there were inequality in the past, was because of competition of resources.   After the period of industrializtion and rapid expansion of higher tech economy, most people no longer had to work on the land for most of their lives.  There are more types of industries and work which require education, which also bought with them higher productivity and hence wealth.   All of sudden, knowledge and learning became a necessity rather than reserved for the previlidged few.  And this formed the basis of modern day democracy, and ultimately to equalization of rights.   

Professor Storling is right in that if this had not occurred, then no matter what, changes would not occur in a society.  However, I disagree with him in that, changes just dont occur automatically.  Because, intrinsically, we all have the selfish genes, and those who have usually want to keep it that way.  This is especially true when it comes to power, and wealth.   In order for change to take place, few brave men and women must step forward to serve as a catalyst for change.

My wish in the future, is that we can move from a limited non-renewable fossil / carbon based economy, into a near endless renewable form of economy.  When, the technologies are so advanced that single battery held in the hand of a child would contain more energy than the total amount of energy we as a race ever produced.  By then, hopefully, we would create a sort of artifician selection environment in which we no longer require the selfish gene.