Bogie             Booby            Sprint

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 2:38pm:


Lift your game out of the gutter, please.

Aussie wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 3:50pm:


Get your head from up haemorrhoid's arse fool. He posted the picture you nitwit.

Aussie wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 9:46pm:
I reckon you would have been a right little fat bully at school. You havent come far.

Although we share the reproductive imperative, we are not the same as dogs who, for survival, will copulate with as many females in season as possible. Human beings are not only driven by instinct, they are self-aware in a capacity far in advance of those species whose lives are dictated solely by instinct. Or at least, that is what our self-awareness tells us.

Equality in our societies has become an important moral issue, but it is possible some of us function on a lower level of development. Societies make rules to address these discrepancies. From the earliest times such applications have been thought generally worthwhile.

Morals are attitudes that see those rules as desirable. No moral has any value, if it does not have a civilising effect, accordingly, civilisation has been a matter of degree.

Pedantic types will need a definition of civilisation, but that is for another discussion. Suffice it to say that civilisation had to begin somewhere, and as cooperation for the common good must be part of any definition, that development can be assumed with some accuracy. How do I know this? Because, like greater minds than mine, “I hold these truths to be self-evident.” If I saw a person in the street being stabbed, I would know that was wrong. I don't need a moral. Some lower level people might.

It has been said that Civilisation began with cooperation while gather food, but there are animals that do that. The first true cooperation was when a male protected a female during and after pregnancy. We may assume this was firstly a matter of the perpetuation of the genetic line, but at some point empathy between the parents must have developed. Why empathy? Perhaps for a closer bond.

The single male was not capable of protecting and providing for more than one pregnant female, or female and infant, at a time. Polygamy requires a power structure to defend the single male harem owner. Don't start blathering about females with multiple men. That is not Polygamy in any major culture.

It is all very well to cite one wife or ten wives as just a matter of numbers, but it completely dismisses any equality or mutual respect between the sexes. This is only practiced in societies dominated by males, and whose development of civilisation is stagnant. Once having established power, they are free to dictate the rules, to the extent that simple women will accept them as morals. Show me otherwise.

Such a society does not expect much from its women other than obedience. Is dismissing the capacity of half the population a moral or civilised choice? If anyone thinks so, I suggest they take a closer look at their own motives, if they are capable.

Karnal wrote on Dec 15^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

The poll is 5 to 2 against.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 16^th, 2016 at 8:34am:




Quite right so don't embarrassed about what you do.