|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 19, @12:36AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 19, @01:23AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
If we really are going to go extinct, then that's just natures way. No point fighting it really. No point even really worrying about it either. **If** it happens it will just happen, naturally, you don't really have to worry about it.
To me that's painfully obvious.
Folks, you have to realize, feminism and the promotion of faggotry is really just done to destabalize society, destroy the family unit, and lower the birth rate. that's what it's all about. The owners of the system know that there is an awakening taking place, the men's movement is a part of that awakening. A story like this is nothing more than propaganda, contrived to make peopl think "well, the men's movement (part of the awakening) is just a waste of time right..I mean, men are doomed anyways?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 19, @01:23AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes I like to sit back and laugh at the monkeys, you know. The behaviour of the mokeys is so predictable.
You find the monkeys in many organizations, the KKK is full of them, so are womens studies courses. There's even some in the men's movement. If you fabricate some statistics and come out with some emotionally stirring stories you can make the monkeys hate group X. If you feed the monkeys enough banannas, they will eventually do your bidding, and try to destroy group X if that's whatyou want.
I find it quite entertaining actually.
The monkeys are so simple, so predictable. Hate is a tool. You can use it to control people. Like I said, I find it rather entertaining. Even intelligent people, you give them enough banannas, off comes the disguise, and we see what they really are. Just another monkey.
Just to give you an example. Remember in the first gulf war, they had that video of the little girl crying saying Iraqi soilders were throwing babies on the floor or something to that effect...All of a sudden after that, support for the war shoots way up. Later it turns out it was all fake. You give the monkeys what they wants (lots of bannanas), they give you what you want (the destruction of group X).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't've said it better myself. Ever hear of the phrase "sheeple" to describe the masses? So true, there, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 19, @02:26AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.iwf.org/bookstore.shtml
You can take the boy out of his jeans, but you can't take the genes out of the boy.
I think this book would strongly refute the theory that men are not strongly inclined to survive or that nature will soon lightly dispense with them.
Heck of a book: "As Nature Made Him" by John Colanpinto
I don't want to give away the book except to say it is about a bothced circumcision where the problem was compounded by medical/scientific arrogance and bias.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... well then, men are doomed. What's all the whinging about then. If a matriarchal dictatorship started rounding up men and exterminating them, then needless to say I'd be greatly unhappy with the turn of circumstance, but if what happens rather is that the Y chromosome just quits working, well then, that's the path of evolution. If the Y was so useful it would have stuck around for longer. There's nothing immoral about evolution, so there's nothing immoral on women's behalf about any possible disappearance of the Y chromosome. If otoh women conspired to _delete_ Y chromosomes - by eliminating men, or banning reproduction involving men, etc, then that would be immoral. But if they don't, then there's nothing immoral occurring and hence nothing to complain about. In short, women's collective responsibility is not to ensure the preservation of the Y chromosome, but rather, to not seek to destroy it.
Second: if two women want to have a child together, then it's not the business of anyone, men or women, to interfere with that. They're not impinging on men's rights to exclude men from their breeding process any more than the opposite would be the case if the shoe was on the other foot.
As long as we ensure that no-one's freedoms are forcibly removed, then we can be sure that there will be few if any moral dilemmas.
-aym
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 19, @11:25AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
That whole line of reasoning has been debunked... REAL genetic research has indicated that the Y chromosome has ways of correcting transcription errors and maintaining it's integrity. Recent research has additionally indicated that those supposedly "junk" dna segments are in fact used for something (we don't know what yet though). I find it fairly embarrasing for the news organization that printed the article.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030618_1120.html
Dave K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 19, @02:13PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know anything about genetics or biology but it would seem to me that this would affect all animals - not just humans. Don't other animals follow the same pattern? female=XX male=XY? Because if the Y chromosone is going extinct wouldn't it mean that all male animals on the planet are going extinct? Now I think they would look pretty silly and nobody would take any notice of them if they said all male animals in the world are going to go extinct at the same time in 125,000 years. Seems like a pretty stupid statement to make and I don't think nature is apt to make a colossal mistake like that. Mammals have been around since the time of the dinosaurs but our time is up in 125,000 years. Yeah, OK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 20, @01:06PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, actually with some animals, its quite diffent.
Example: Birds have an XX chromosomes for male, and XY chromosomes for female...(I think...)
(But still, that example supports your comment.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 19, @02:35PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
This story has been gleefully reported in the UK now since about Saturday. I've also heard quite a few radio shows either directly discuss it or make reference to it.
Of course, the newsworthiness is only there because it's men that are dying out. I am pretty confident that a study predicting the demise of women would not be treated with the same glee, fun and overall smugness by the news media.
If you're in any doubt that an agenda (intentional or not) exists, the proof is in the small print. Depending on the level of detail in the article that you read on this guy's book, it becomes apparent that he suggests a few ways to avoid this - namely genetic manipulation of the male to compensate for this pesky Y chromosome. Of course, the articles only major on the fact that women will still be able to propagate the species through other scientific advances, hence men die out.
So, if it's acceptable that scientific advances could allow women to bear children without men, then it would be just as acceptable to carry out the other scientific processes that would prevent the scenario of men dying out.
Of course, in that scenario, there would be no story, no smug smiles from the females news anchors as they read the story, no one-liners from the weather girls as she accepts the hand-over from her, and finally, millions of trees would not have been wasted on the paper that our UK national press have lavished on this story.
The only thing I would love to see hyopthetically, is the scenario where there really were no men and all these peacenik, multi-tasking, safe driving cleverer women slowly realised that bullying, cheating, violence and discrimination is not gender specific.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind, I'm well aware of the more recent discovery which debunks this doomed-Y-chromosome theory. This little food for thought is intended for those who insist on gleefully embracing the doomed-Y theory.
If Man disappears, then so may Woman as we know her. I'm not sure Woman as we know her could possibly have existed in her present form without the insulation she's always had from her male counterpoint.
It seems to me that men, historically, have served as buffers between women and the ravages of nature, survival and evolution. This is not to say that men are nothing more than human lint filters. I think men have been destined to evolve in a different direction than women, and the harsh elements we sustained and weathered were beneficial to that process. But they would not have been at all good for the direction women were destined to take.
If, in fact, women are, on average, less violent than men, then why is this? Because men have historically assumed the violent roles, taking the necessary fall from grace so that women would not have to? Somebody had to take on those violent roles. They were necessary to survival.
If women have been coddled and softened and protected so that they might have a less coarse and cynical demeanor than the average man, then who was it that did all the coddling, softening and protecting?
In a sexless society, would women wear make-up, cute dresses, and primp themselves? No. They'd be forced to assume the dowdy, unglamorous male role of being human cogs in the great apparatus of life.
And, if women are truly so superior for having two X chromosomes, who was it that provided them that extra X? If male offspring are inferior for having only one X chromosome (the maternal X chromosome, mind you), and a world without fathers would theoretically leave female offspring with only their maternal X chromosomes, then . . . heh!
In other words, females would be taking a step backward. They would not necessarily become men (because they wouldn't have the Y chromosome, which probably served to compensate in its own way for whatever males seriously lacked for not having two X's), but they would be far rougher diamonds than they are with men.
(Of course, if science - male scientists, ironically - can engineer female self-reproduction which maintains the double-X chromosome makeup of female offspring, then I guess women don't have anything to worry about. Ah, well...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Y-chromosome is where the 'genetic junk' accumulates, then it seems likely to me that the Y-chromosome is where the most rapid evolution is happening.
Evolutionary processes don't have specific aims, but simply run everything through the wringer and keep what works in the context of the environment. Rapid biological evolution would seem to depend on presenting a wide range of variation in a species and letting those variations that work, reproduce. In a species like humans, with relatively low birth rates and long childhoods, species survival would be severly impacted if evolution worked by weeding out unfit infants. The primary thrust of evolution has to take place somewhere else. Human females can't be the primary area of evolution - too long a gestation time for that to be safe. That leaves sexually adult males as the main area where biological evolutionary selection must take place.
It has often been noted, here and elsewhere, that human males show a much wider variation than do females - more idiots and more geniuses, as well as a somewhat wider physical variation. Perhaps that is because we males are the evolutionary test-bed, the 'cutting edge', and females the benificiaries of the successful results. That would suggest that the 'genetic junk' of the Y chromosome is the raw material of species evolution.
If human males become 'obsolete' for purposes of reproduction, I suspect that elimination of males from the reproductive cycle will eliminate most the flexibility the species needs to survive. Those females that don't eliminate males from the reproductive cycle will be greatly improving the odds that their offspring will be able to survive, in the long term. Result - the tendency to be 'male-free' winds up not selected for and drops out of the evolutionary race.
According to what I understand, human evolution has been remarkably fast - only about 3 million years from the startup to the current release. If it is true that species evolutionary pressure occurs primarily in human males, then our rapid biological evolution is a product of our Y chromosome, at least in large part.
Similarly, sexual reproduction has been around for a long time - plenty of time for the Y chromosome to go obsolete and be withdrawn from use. Check out those species that use asexual reproduction - some species of plants, jellyfish, corals - that is where our 'male-free' sisters are bound, even with technological intervention. As a human, I pity their children. From the evolutionary point of view - looks like a dead end, to me.
I am not an evolutionary biologist and do not play one on TV, so this is just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
