quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The main reason the "nature / nurture" debate is still going on is that it disappoints parents (or those who want to become parents) to think that, short of abuse or some other extreme situation, their kids would probably turn out much the same even if they were raised by someone else. People want to think that they are the shapers of their kids' souls, when in fact they are mostly just the providers of raw material that is then tempered a little by peer environment. If not for that sentimental factor, things would be nicely wrapped up in favor of genetics.

That's wrong on so many levels. It is NOT in favor of one side or the other. Have you read studies like the Minnesota Twin Studies? Yes, genetics are very, very important, but so is the environment and the parents. The environment shapes what the genetics have predisposed. Parents do have a very important role - just not as important as most parents would like to believe. Both nature and nurture are important and it's impossible to say that one is supremely more important than the other.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree try "Global" cockfag.

Yes, now you can live in abject poverty until age 60 in a lot of countries, and with lower infant mortality rates, already overpopulated nations with diminishing resources are free to continue to blossom unabated - viva globalisation!

And it's Mr. Cockfag to you, cvntknuckle.

___________________
4a.m.deepdarksweatypulsingwarehousemusic

WestsideWax Soundcloud

WestsideWax Mixcloud

New! WestsideWax Archives

Last edited by PivotTechno on Apr-24-2010 at 22:11

I'm really great with kids and have come to like them more as I get older, but I doubt I want any. Life is too short and the world is too big to settle in one place and attempt to teach another human being how to live life for 20+ years. Wouldn't even consider children until I was at least 35 or 40. Maybe even later than that, if at all..

___________________
Awesome House Music Blog: http://thegoodmorningpost.wordpress.com/

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Yes, now you can live in abject poverty until age 60 in a lot of countries, and with lower infant mortality rates, already overpopulated nations with diminishing resources are free to continue to blossom unabated - viva globalisation! And it's Mr. Cockfag to you, cvntknuckle.

just sayin, Mr. Cockfag, that your earlier comment re: "Western vantage" is invalid, because the family unit is valued in the East and all over the world, regardless of resource scarcity. There may be a policy to limit children per household, but having a child is a foregone conclusion.

I think it's you that needs to get off your fucked up, "I'm a selfish prick from the West and I want to keep as many resources for myself" vantage

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree There may be a policy to limit children per household, but having a child is a foregone conclusion.

You forgot the part about how anyone who makes a conscious decision to not have children must be a cocksucking commie bastard, mouthbreather. By all means, be fruitful and multiply wit' yo forgone concluding bad self.

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree I think it's you that needs to get off your fucked up, "I'm a selfish prick from the West and I want to keep as many resources for myself" vantage

Out of which heretofore unexplored quadrant of thin air did you pick this gem?

___________________
4a.m.deepdarksweatypulsingwarehousemusic

WestsideWax Soundcloud

WestsideWax Mixcloud

New! WestsideWax Archives

Last edited by PivotTechno on Apr-25-2010 at 05:37

quote:

Originally posted by Blake I'm really great with kids and have come to like them more as I get older, but I doubt I want any. Life is too short and the world is too big to settle in one place and attempt to teach another human being how to live life for 20+ years. Wouldn't even consider children until I was at least 35 or 40. Maybe even later than that, if at all..

Wait, life is too short to have children? That seems really counter-intuitive. You should want to have children because life is too short not to. Not that I'm specifically telling you what you should want in life, but a genetic transmission is one of those paramount things that gives life fulfillment - not enjoyment in the typical, hedonistic sense, but true fulfillment that what you've done is meaningful both to yourself and your prospective lineage.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

rabbits are very meaningful

Too bad your mother won't let you keep them.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

have you always been a pompous ass or did you have to work at it?

fruit flies are even more meaningful

No, not always. Remember that time I laughed at one of your posts back in January? I thought that meant something between us!

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Wait, life is too short to have children? That seems really counter-intuitive. You should want to have children because life is too short not to. Not that I'm specifically telling you what you should want in life, but a genetic transmission is one of those paramount things that gives life fulfillment - not enjoyment in the typical, hedonistic sense, but true fulfillment that what you've done is meaningful both to yourself and your prospective lineage.

Such small meaning is fitting for small people.