User Controls

Is there a term for this? *the illusion of sin*

  1. #41
    Seems I was mistaken. Somalia!
  2. #42
    Username Yung Blood [identifiably fuddle this waterdog]
    Originally posted by Sophie Social contract what a load of horseshit, i didn't sign shit motherfucker.

    no, its the kind of ''by living amongst us you agreed to hereby'' kinda of thing like EULA.

    no sigs required.
  3. #43
    NARCassist gollums fat coach
    george clooney said it best in from dusk till dawn. 'we got a real good you don't fuck with me, i won't fuck with you thing going here'.



    .
  4. #44
    Sophie Pedophile Tech Support
    Originally posted by Username no, its the kind of ''by living amongst us you agreed to hereby'' kinda of thing like EULA.

    no sigs required.

    Not how contracts work.
  5. #45
    Originally posted by Sophie Not how contracts work.

    Literally how contracts work

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-implied-contract.html
  6. #46
    benny vader YELLOW GHOST
    Originally posted by Sophie Social contract what a load of horseshit, i didn't sign shit motherfucker.

    We have observed how civilizations, as they progress,
    inevitably become more complex. Each succeeding generation
    elaborates the social environment of the past,
    makes fresh additions, and passes on to the next generation,
    which repeats the process in turn. This ability
    to transmit social acquirements, both material and mental,
    is one of the chief points marking man off from the
    animals. It has, in fact, been happily termed "social
    heredity." Because of "social heredity" each human
    generation is able to start at a higher environment level,
    and is not forced, like the animals, to depend upon
    instinct and blind experience. Indeed, "social heredity"
    forms the basis of all those theories which assert that
    environment is the chief factor in human progress and
    which minimize true (i.e., biological) heredity as a minor
    or even negligible factor.
    These "environmentalist" arguments, however, omit
    one essential fact which vitiates their conclusions. This
    fact is that, while hereditary qualities are implanted in
    the individual with no action on his part, social acquirements
    are taken over only at the cost of distinct effort.
    How great this effort may become is easily seen by the
    long years of strenuous mental labor required in modern
    youth to assimilate the knowledge already gained by
    adults. That old saying, "There is no royal road to
    learning," illustrates the hard fact that each successive
    generation must tread the same thorny path if the
    acquirements of the past are to be retained. Of course,
    it is obvious that the more acquirements increase, the
    longer and steeper the path must be. And this raises the query: May there not come a point where the youthful
    traveller will be unable to scale the height – where the
    effort required will be beyond his powers?
    Well, this is precisely what has happened numberless
    times in the past. It is happening to multitudes of
    individuals about us every day. When it occurs on a
    sufficiently grand scale we witness those social regressions
    of entire communities which we call a "decline in civilization."
    A "decline in civilization" means that the
    social environment has outrun inherited capacity.
    Furthermore, the grim frequency of such declines throughout
    history seems to show that in every highly developed
    society the increasingly massive, complex superstructure
    of civilization tends to overload the human foundations.
    Now why does this overloading in high civilizations
    always tend to take place? For the very simple reason
    that the complexity (and, therefore, the burden) of a
    civilization may increase with tremendous rapidity to an
    inconceivable degree; whereas the capacity of its human
    bearers remains virtually constant or positively declines.
    The sobering truth was until recently obscured by the
    wide-spread belief (first elaborated about a century ago
    by the French scientist Lamarck) that acquired characteristics
    were inherited. In other words, it used to be
    thought that the acquirements of one generation could
    be passed on by actual inheritance to the next.
    Lamarcks's theory excited enthusiastic hopes, and young
    men contemplating matrimony used to go in for "high
    thinking" in order to have brainy sons, while expectant
    mothers inspired their months of gestation by reading the classics, confident that their offspring would be born
    with a marked taste for good literature. To-day this
    amiable doctrine is exploded, virtually all biologists now
    agreeing that acquired characteristics are not inherited.
    An abundant weight of evidence proves that, during
    the entire historic period at any rate, mankind has made
    no racial progress in either physical power or brain
    capacity. The skeletal remains of the ancients show them
    to have possessed brains and bodies fully equal to our
    own. And these anatomical observations are confirmed
    by the teachings of history. The earliest civilized peoples
    of whom we have any knowledge displayed capacities,
    initiative, and imagination quite comparable to ours. Of
    course, their stock of social experience was very much
    less than ours, but their inherent qualities cannot be
    deemed inferior. Certainly these ancient peoples
    produced their full share of great men. Can we show greater
    philosophers than Plato or Aristotle, greater scientists
    than Archimedes or Ptolemy, greater generals than Caesar
    or Alexander, greater poets than Homer or Hesiod, greater
    spiritual guides than Buddha or Jesus? Surely, the peoples
    who produced such immortal personalities ranked
    not beneath us in the biological scale.
    But if this is not so; if even the highest human types have
    made no perceptible biological advance during the last
    ten thousand years; what does this mean? It means
    that all the increasingly vast superstructures of civilization
    which have arisen during those millennia have
    been raised on similar human foundations. It means
    that men have been called upon to carry heavier loads with no correlative increase of strength to bear them.
    The glitter of civilization has so blinded us to the inner
    truth of things that we have long believed that, as a
    civilization progressed, the quality of the human stock
    concerned in building it progressed too. In other words,
    we have imagined that we saw an improving race, whereas
    all we actually saw was a race expressing itself under
    improving conditions.
    A dangerous delusion this! Especially for us, whose
    civilization is the most complex the world has ever seen,
    and whose burden is, therefore, the heaviest ever borne.
    If past civilizations have crushed men beneath the load,
    what may happen to our civilization,
  7. #47
    fag Houston
    This thread is off the rails, everyone has the right to bodily autonomy until you take it away from someone else.
  8. #48
    mashlehash victim of incest [my perspicuously dependant flavourlessness]
    Originally posted by LegalizeSpiritualDiscovery IT'S A DRAW!

    I'll draw your mother
  9. #49
    mashlehash victim of incest [my perspicuously dependant flavourlessness]
    Originally posted by mashlehash I'll draw your mother

    Like it's titanic

    Worry
Jump to Top