You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Female Dr Who?
October 18 2017 11.17pm

Female Dr Who?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 37 of 37 First< 33 34 35 36 37

 

View Part Time James's Profile Part Time James Flag Burgess Hill 22 Aug 17 4.30pm Send a Private Message to Part Time James Add Part Time James as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

Did I hear right? Bradley Walsh to be new assistant!

Is Anne Hegerty the new Dr.Who?

 


"Matches don't come any bigger than FA Cup quarter-finals" - Neil Warnock

Twitter: @PartTimeJames

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View jamiemartin721's Profile jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Aug 17 5.05pm Send a Private Message to jamiemartin721 Add jamiemartin721 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Of course having kids is more valuable than not having kids. Some people are more suitable to it than others but there's no equality here...unless you are into warm words of course....plenty of that about.

You should judge your own behaviour's 'valuableness' by projecting out what the result would be if everybody did what you do.

Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Jul 2017 9.34am)

You seem to think that the end of humanity would be a bad thing My parents always said things like 'what if everyone thought like that', and I'm still not sure that's a good argument. Ok, in terms of kids, they're probably right, some people I think really should have kids and make great parents. Equally, many people also really shouldn't and do.

The problem I think, is that most people seem to assume they should have kids, or don't really think about it.

I have, like most people, no value to society other than that I am one of 7bn or so people on the planet who is engaged in the act of discourse and social engagement, that produces this thing we call society.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View jamiemartin721's Profile jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Aug 17 5.17pm Send a Private Message to jamiemartin721 Add jamiemartin721 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I don't think any of that is proven and I've heard the argument before but it doesn't quite make enough sense to me.

None of what you say here has an advantage for the species compared to an individual who creates children.

Being gay doesn't mean you are interested in the welfare of other people's children, relatives or not. You may be, you may not.

Also another argument against your contention is the fact that homosexuality occurs just as frequently in other species where social 'rearing' isn't a thing.

Personally I don't know why it happens....If I were to guess I think it's down to variations in the wiring for attraction...Also, passed down genetics that occasionally reoccur. I don't know.

I was talking in terms of evolutionary theory. Gay siblings are an advantage, from an evolutionary perspective, to your kids, because the only means they have of passing their traits / genes into the next generation is through ensuring those related to them prosper.

They represent an additional resource beyond your parents that can benefit you, that won't be using their resources on their offspring.

Even if other species, an infertile wolf, for example, is a benefit to the pack in ways that an fertile one - its a disposable resource for the pack, to protect and benefit the pack - It cannot reproduce and if we take the idea of evolutionary biology, its acts to protect the pack (and may even adopt cubs that are orphaned).

Assuming we accept that passing genes and traits on is the functional drive of living species (and we're talking in a biological paradigm here). The more gay people related to you, the better your prospects.

Because we're talking evolutionary theory and biological paradims, individual behaviour isn't considered - its about a species wide scenario - and the basis of evolutionary theory is the imperative to pass genes on into the future generations.

Evolution tends towards scenarios were everything serves a value that occurs frequently in nature - although that role might not be beneficial to the individual themselves.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View jamiemartin721's Profile jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Aug 17 5.24pm Send a Private Message to jamiemartin721 Add jamiemartin721 as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I see heterosexual couples without children and they seem to just carry on doing the same stuff they always did, just trying to find things to amuse themselves in an understandably selfish and self indulgent way while having multiple dogs or cats as stand in children. It's a bit like two single people living together who just happen to have sex and go out occasionally. I'm guessing it is similar for gay couples.
Without a focus for your relationship and re positioning of your importance in the scheme of things, I don't think you really experience the most rewarding part of life or shake off your own self importance. It makes the value of a relationship a bit shaky once the thrill has gone. I know that those without kids will disagree but they would wouldn't they.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Jul 2017 10.03am)

Existence has no meaning, no one has importance, we're all just a transient consciousness, that exists as a brief flash of existence in a vast and uncaring cosmos - You, me, our relationships, our children, everything we do, say and achieve are fundamentally meaningless.

We're probably just acting out of biological driven habits to reproduce, like every other species, for reasons we don't understand. And even those of us who choose not to have kids, are probably doing so because of a biological imperative that we don't understand (possibly to take certain genes and traits out of the line).

Existence with children, is as meaningless as existence with children.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ray in Houston's Profile Ray in Houston Flag Houston 22 Aug 17 5.33pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I was talking in terms of evolutionary theory. Gay siblings are an advantage, from an evolutionary perspective, to your kids, because the only means they have of passing their traits / genes into the next generation is through ensuring those related to them prosper.


The childless - gay or otherwise - are a boon to other people's kids because we* contribute to society with our work output and our taxes, without adding our own kids who would otherwise be drawing from the same resources as everyone else's kids.

* I am childless by choice, and have recently made that choice permanent [snip]. My wife and I decided that, if we ever want kids, we will adopt. Neither of us being so arrogant to think that the world cannot go on unless our genes are perpetuated.

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View nickgusset's Profile nickgusset Online Flag Shizzlehurst 22 Aug 17 5.39pm Send a Private Message to nickgusset Add nickgusset as a friend

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


The childless - gay or otherwise - are a boon to other people's kids because we* contribute to society with our work output and our taxes, without adding our own kids who would otherwise be drawing from the same resources as everyone else's kids.

* I am childless by choice, and have recently made that choice permanent [snip]. My wife and I decided that, if we ever want kids, we will adopt. Neither of us being so arrogant to think that the world cannot go on unless our genes are perpetuated.

And you get a lie in.


Edited by nickgusset (22 Aug 2017 5.39pm)

 


[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 22 Aug 17 6.07pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I was talking in terms of evolutionary theory. Gay siblings are an advantage, from an evolutionary perspective, to your kids, because the only means they have of passing their traits / genes into the next generation is through ensuring those related to them prosper.

They represent an additional resource beyond your parents that can benefit you, that won't be using their resources on their offspring.

Even if other species, an infertile wolf, for example, is a benefit to the pack in ways that an fertile one - its a disposable resource for the pack, to protect and benefit the pack - It cannot reproduce and if we take the idea of evolutionary biology, its acts to protect the pack (and may even adopt cubs that are orphaned).

Assuming we accept that passing genes and traits on is the functional drive of living species (and we're talking in a biological paradigm here). The more gay people related to you, the better your prospects.

Because we're talking evolutionary theory and biological paradims, individual behaviour isn't considered - its about a species wide scenario - and the basis of evolutionary theory is the imperative to pass genes on into the future generations.

Evolution tends towards scenarios were everything serves a value that occurs frequently in nature - although that role might not be beneficial to the individual themselves.

You are just repeating the same points and I've already pointed out the problems inherent with this theory.

It's not proof of anything of course but I recently came across an interview with Dawkins where he refers to this theory and briefly stated that he also doesn't believe it.

A complete argument from authority of course and so as such no proof of anything but still, he's a pretty big hitter. So if he doubts it I'm waiting to hear your answers to the problems with the theory.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Aug 2017 6.10pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 22 Aug 17 6.08pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

And you get a lie in.


Edited by nickgusset (22 Aug 2017 5.39pm)

And get to live a more selfish lifestyle yet pass it off as a virtue.....using points that are nonsensical.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Aug 2017 6.09pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ray in Houston's Profile Ray in Houston Flag Houston 22 Aug 17 6.17pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

And get to live a more selfish lifestyle yet pass it off as a virtue.....using points that are nonsensical.

Is there anything more selfish than deciding that the world absolutely must have more "you"?

Also, thanks for the judgment of how I live my life without a single clue as to how I actually do. It puts into perspective the basis in fact of all of your other opinions that are dotted about this board like pats in a cow field.

Ray in Houston childless? Selfish t***.
Dick Gregory...never heard of him. Can't be important.

And on and on. It's a very, very clear pattern.

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 22 Aug 17 6.29pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Is there anything more selfish than deciding that the world absolutely must have more "you"?

Also, thanks for the judgment of how I live my life without a single clue as to how I actually do. It puts into perspective the basis in fact of all of your other opinions that are dotted about this board like pats in a cow field.

Ray in Houston childless? Selfish t***.
Dick Gregory...never heard of him. Can't be important.

And on and on. It's a very, very clear pattern.

If your parents had used the same logic as you then you wouldn't be here. How terrible of them to use up resources that other kids could have used eh? Bah!

The basis of me regarding the decision making motivation as selfish is what I'd call an 'educated leap'. I could be wrong of course but I've come across this situation and spoken opinion several times before...especially in professionals and I simply compare you to them....Like I say, I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Your summary of how I feel about your decision as selfish and Gregory as not really worthy of much note is about right....though I don't regard you with any dislike as the comment implies. I don't know you for that. I'm just calling a spade a spade based on what I know.

Forums are full of opinions. Don't be surprised if you run into ones you don't like.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 22 Aug 17 6.33pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Existence has no meaning, no one has importance, we're all just a transient consciousness, that exists as a brief flash of existence in a vast and uncaring cosmos - You, me, our relationships, our children, everything we do, say and achieve are fundamentally meaningless.

We're probably just acting out of biological driven habits to reproduce, like every other species, for reasons we don't understand. And even those of us who choose not to have kids, are probably doing so because of a biological imperative that we don't understand (possibly to take certain genes and traits out of the line).

Existence with children, is as meaningless as existence with children.

I'm talking about self-importance and selfishness as opposed to being less important than your children. In existential terms, nothing is important, or so it might appear. Of course, we don't know the end game of existence, so the relative importance of anything is unknown and at the same time as important as the importance we wish to attach to it. Any one event in the grand scheme might be relatively unimportant or meaningless but that is really just in the eye of the sentient beholder if the universe is a self-organising phenomenon with an as yet unknown outcome. That is too complex a discussion to have here.
As biological entities, most have a preconditioned desire to reproduce and nurture and in that sense, it is as important as anything we do. By having no children it is possible that one's life will seem meaningless, which brings me back to my original point.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View johnno42000's Profile johnno42000 Flag 22 Aug 17 6.40pm Send a Private Message to johnno42000 Add johnno42000 as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

Did I hear right? Bradley Walsh to be new assistant!

See what you started

I can't believe he's the new assistant. I'm not sure if there has been many, if any, actors playing the Doctors assistant that are older than the actor playing the Doctor. Very strange.

 


'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 37 of 37 First< 33 34 35 36 37

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Female Dr Who?