we have hedgehogs in our yard!

iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
we have hedgehogs in our yard!

i'm always happy to see these animals, and these two are the first i've seen on our property since my wife and i moved in last november, so i'm very happy.

i'm not an "earth child" kind of person but i feel a certain kinship with hedgehogs: quiet, solitary, prickly but ultimately good-natured, puttering along, minding their own business.  i once saw a dead one at the bus station and literally almost cried.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: i never

Kapkao wrote:

 

i never understood why they couldn't make a cartoon hedgehog cuter than that.  he reminds me more of michael jackson, for some reason, than a hedgehog.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i never

iwbiek wrote:

 

i never understood why they couldn't make a cartoon hedgehog cuter than that.  he reminds me more of michael jackson, for some reason, than a hedgehog.

He was designed in 1991, and the first 3 years of a decade are determined by the previous 7 years of the last decade, in terms of culture (supposedly)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I had a hedgehog when I was

I had a hedgehog when I was a kid. Cute and friendly, I would lay on the bed or couch and let it crawl around, it even seemed to like me scratching its belly. But, when it grew up it got mean and I gave it away. Definitely one of natures more interesting animals though, it's a curiosity about how they developed quills.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Over the years, I saw a few

Over the years, I saw a few hedgehogs around my house too. Unfortunately, the roads all around take their toll on them. I don't even know if there are any sleeping in the winter around the house. I hope we didn't rake the leafs too thoroughly, but our cats probably wouldn't let hedgehogs in peace anyway.

Hedgehog is a wonderful figure of many jokes. For example:

One day in the forest, the bear decided to demand ransom from the smaller animals. He announced:
"Everyone will bring me some meat, or I will beat you up with my huge dick!!!"
Next day the animals got in line and brought the bear the food.
The first was fox, carrying a goose. Bear accepted the goose and let the fox go.
The next was jackrabbit. He brought a carrot. So the bear grabbed his dick, and started slapping the jackrabbit.
But the jackrabbit laughed all the time.
"Hey, why do you laugh when I beat you?!" the bear asked.
"Next one is hedgehog and he has an apple!"

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Definitely one

robj101 wrote:

Definitely one of natures more interesting animals though, it's a curiosity about how they developed quills.

quills=gigantic hairs

just like with porcupines, it's apparently some sort of defense

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i'm always

iwbiek wrote:

i'm always happy to see these animals, and these two are the first i've seen on our property since my wife and i moved in last november, so i'm very happy.

i'm not an "earth child" kind of person but i feel a certain kinship with hedgehogs: quiet, solitary, prickly but ultimately good-natured, puttering along, minding their own business.  i once saw a dead one at the bus station and literally almost cried.

 

Dude, you are of course going to name one of them "Spiny Norman" right?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:robj101

Kapkao wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Definitely one of natures more interesting animals though, it's a curiosity about how they developed quills.

quills=gigantic hairs

just like with porcupines, it's apparently some sort of defense

Well yea, but I meant how they developed them in the first place. Did natural selection by chance make a hard pointy hair?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I had a

robj101 wrote:

I had a hedgehog when I was a kid. Cute and friendly, I would lay on the bed or couch and let it crawl around, it even seemed to like me scratching its belly. But, when it grew up it got mean and I gave it away. Definitely one of natures more interesting animals though, it's a curiosity about how they developed quills.

yeah, as much as i love them, i have never considered having one as a pet.  i just don't think it's a good idea.  i mean, badgers are cute too, you know...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Dude, you are of course going to name one of them "Spiny Norman" right?

yep, and the other one frank.

(boom!  get that reference!)

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Dude, did you just try to

Dude, did you just try to outweird me on the internet?  I am going to go with the eight foot tall invisible talking rabbit.  But not the 50+ year old version of the eight foot tall invisible talking rabbit.  His name was not Frank.

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:robj101 wrote:I

iwbiek wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I had a hedgehog when I was a kid. Cute and friendly, I would lay on the bed or couch and let it crawl around, it even seemed to like me scratching its belly. But, when it grew up it got mean and I gave it away. Definitely one of natures more interesting animals though, it's a curiosity about how they developed quills.

yeah, as much as i love them, i have never considered having one as a pet.  i just don't think it's a good idea.  i mean, badgers are cute too, you know...

They sell them at pet stores. I never saw a badger at a pet store though, lol. Scariest thing I saw at a pet store was a chinchilla. I have this idea that if one of those did not like you, it could make it well known and quickly.

I guess the strangest pet I had as a kid was a skunk named Ralph, he was descented. Awesome pet, friendly, and like a x between a cat and dog in behavior. I have a few funny stories about the skunk.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Hmm, it has been nearly

Hmm, it has been nearly three hours and you have not googled the matter?

 

OK, I have a rabbit in my yard. I named him Carlos and all of my neighbors are going with it. For two years now, nobody has got the joke. Do you?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Well yea, but

robj101 wrote:

Well yea, but I meant how they developed them in the first place. Did natural selection by chance make a hard pointy hair?

Alteration of genetic sequence. Marquis feels as though (lysogenic?) viruses explain this... I have some reservations on that, but.. alas, I think that the alteration of a few genetic codons could cause some of the hairs to become larger than normal. (I know for a fact that our species sometimes develops "horns" simply because of genes that cause hair follicles to become 1000x larger than normal)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Hmm, it has been nearly three hours and you have not googled the matter?

 

OK, I have a rabbit in my yard. I named him Carlos and all of my neighbors are going with it. For two years now, nobody has got the joke. Do you?

 

Names of famous band members?   BLAH! (I like Santana but not that spiny whatchamacallit guy...)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao, Rob

Kapkao wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Well yea, but I meant how they developed them in the first place. Did natural selection by chance make a hard pointy hair?

Alteration of genetic sequence. Marquis feels as though (lysogenic?) viruses explain this... I have some reservations on that, but.. alas, I think that the alteration of a few genetic codons could cause some of the hairs to become larger than normal. (I know for a fact that our species sometimes develops "horns" simply because of genes that cause hair follicles to become 1000x larger than normal)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571558/

This is the most closely related article I could find.  It is talking about birds and beaks and feathers, but the process should be very similar to mammals and quills.  I'm not sure about the hard hair in humans.

Anyhoo, the article talks about how very small changes in the embryonic connective tissue (mesenchyme) produces marked differences in feathers.  There are other places in DNA where a small change genetically makes big changes morphologically.  I'm thinking of an article I read on HOX genes and legs growing out of the heads of drosophila.  Poor drosophila.

But if you want a more detailed explanation of this article, you will have to ask someone else.  I don't have the vocabulary.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, I am not up on the

OK, I am not up on the details here but I am given to understand that rhino horns are modified hair.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I get how they were actually

I get how they were actually formed and all, I just wonder how natural selection found this. Was it a random mutation and selection decided it was good so it became a prolific trait amongst this species, and if so, how did it make this decision. A lot of things in nature are obvious, a few things are not as obvious. Obviously quills work and are an excellent deterrent against predators. However, how nature found this solution is my question. I could only guess by chance, a small mammal was born and had the beginnings of quills, and they evolved to what they have now. But how did nature know these were a good thing? This almost sounds like a theists argument lol.

 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I'll check out your link

I'll check out your link later cj, I have a dad b-day party to go to.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: I get how

robj101 wrote:

I get how they were actually formed and all, I just wonder how natural selection found this. Was it a random mutation and selection decided it was good so it became a prolific trait amongst this species,

 

Yah, that is pretty much how evolutions works.

 

robj101 wrote:
and if so, how did it make this decision.

 

OK, you are dangerously close to attributing intelligent agency to evolution. That is not how it works.

 

Probably, in the distant past, there was some animal that tasted good to whatever preyed on it. Some of them probably developed hard crunchy hairs that had a bad “mouth feel” Perhaps the same mutation also had bearing on the color of the hairs. So the predators did not eat so many of them. The rest is, as they say, history.

 

robj101 wrote:
A lot of things in nature are obvious, a few things are not as obvious. Obviously quills work and are an excellent deterrent against predators. However, how nature found this solution is my question.


Obvious to whom? We were not there when stuff happened. However, here is one way that it might have gone down:

 

To a proto-wolf, a black proto-hedgehog may be great eating. A gray proto-hedgehog, well not so much.

 

To a starving proto-wolf, a gray proto-hedgehog will fill the belly but a black one is still better.

 

So selection pressure puts gray proto-hedgehogs at some advantage.

 

Past that, the more quill like the hairs become, well...

 

robj101 wrote:
But how did nature know these were a good thing? This almost sounds like a theists argument lol.

 

Nature does not “know stuff”. Seriously, the deal with evolution is that “what works, works”. That which works less well tends to fade away. That which works better tends to become dominant.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

Nature does not “know stuff”. Seriously, the deal with evolution is that “what works, works”. That which works less well tends to fade away. That which works better tends to become dominant.

 

 

Neutral - neither good nor bad - tends to hang around in the population, never totally fading away, never becoming dominant. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Neutral - neither

cj wrote:
Neutral - neither good nor bad - tends to hang around in the population, never totally fading away, never becoming dominant.

 

Yes, that is true. However static is not part of the equation.

 

Remember that shit happens. When shit is bad, it tends to go away. When shit is good, it tends to do the opposite.

 

Once again, selection pressure is the deal.

 

Remember that nature is not an intelligence. So it cannot “pick” one thing.

 

So what does nature care about average stuff? In all honesty, it can't care. It can only be a process.

 

Consider a single population in a stable environment. Average is good enough. Any mutation is what amounts to a genetic lottery. Good changes will be fairly rare and bad changes will be common (and will be selected against in general).

 

Then there is an earthquake and a new river forms that breaks the original population into two groups.

 

Now there are two genetic lotteries. Even though the general environment has not changed enough to matter, the lottery winners on both sides of the river are different. A couple of million years later, enough changes have piled up that the two groups are now sufficiently diverse that they are no longer cross fertile.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I'm not implying intelligent

I'm not implying intelligent design lol. I'm just saying what and how many changes might have occured before quills were a solid part of this animals life. When I said some things that occur are obvious, I meant like flippers and webbed feet etc. Those are quite obvious and I doubt there were too many different stages or whatever in between, as compared to say, quills.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

cj wrote:
Neutral - neither good nor bad - tends to hang around in the population, never totally fading away, never becoming dominant.

 

Yes, that is true. However static is not part of the equation.

 

Remember that shit happens. When shit is bad, it tends to go away. When shit is good, it tends to do the opposite.

 

Once again, selection pressure is the deal.

 

Remember that nature is not an intelligence. So it cannot “pick” one thing.

 

So what does nature care about average stuff? In all honesty, it can't care. It can only be a process.

 

Consider a single population in a stable environment. Average is good enough. Any mutation is what amounts to a genetic lottery. Good changes will be fairly rare and bad changes will be common (and will be selected against in general).

 

Then there is an earthquake and a new river forms that breaks the original population into two groups.

 

Now there are two genetic lotteries. Even though the general environment has not changed enough to matter, the lottery winners on both sides of the river are different. A couple of million years later, enough changes have piled up that the two groups are now sufficiently diverse that they are no longer cross fertile.

 

 

All of that is true.  It was my ecology professor who pointed out that what was neutral mutations may be what determines which subgroup of the original population survives when that earthquake happens.  You can determine what is neutral by the change of the percentage of the population that has that mutation over time.  Mutations in the general population may or may not happen quickly enough to take advantage of that earthquake, but a neutral mutation that is suddenly very positive will take over the parent population very quickly.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
DINSDALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DINSDALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

iwbiek wrote:

yep, and the other one frank.

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:It gave

ClockCat wrote:

It gave Gyllenhaal stardom...


Oh, and btw, free asshat avatar for everyone posting in  this thread :X

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:iwbiek

ClockCat wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

yep, and the other one frank.

 

 

That's where I was thinking the reference was from too

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
no, the reference is to

no, the reference is to another monty python sketch, specifically the version seen on the anthology film and now for something completely different rather than the version that aired on flying circus.  it's one of john cleese's classic interview show sketches where he's interviewing a famous film director played by graham chapman and keeps pissing him off by calling him different variations on his name.  finally he asks if he can call him frank.

CHAPMAN: why frank?

CLEESE: frank's a nice name. (turns to the camera.)  president nixon's got a hedgehog named frank.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Toying with English accents is fun!!

iwbiek wrote:

no, the reference is to another monty python sketch, specifically the version seen on the anthology film and now for something completely different rather than the version that aired on flying circus.  it's one of john cleese's classic interview show sketches where he's interviewing a famous film director played by graham chapman and keeps pissing him off by calling him different variations on his name.  finally he asks if he can call him frank.

CHAPMAN: why frank?

CLEESE: frank's a nice name. (turns to the camera.)  president nixon's got a hedgehog named frank.

Ah! So ya are fookin' British/Anglo-Celtic after all! Glad it's settled then, aye matey?! Ah, well... me post... it kinda stinks of shite and bloody Oil of Vitriol!!

Alexander de Large wrote:
Me droogies and I spent the evening on the Ultra-violence. After a good bit of that, we stopped by the Korova Milk Bar for good ol tunes of Ludwig-Van!

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Ah! So ya are

Kapkao wrote:

Ah! So ya are fookin' British/Anglo-Celtic after all! Glad it's settled then, aye matey?!

i gueeeess...  my ancestors were welsh and norman, specifically a baron named robert de lysle who came across with william in 1066, but they came to the states not long after the mayflower, so it doesn't have a direct influence on me.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I feel frustrated all of the sudden

iwbiek wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Ah! So ya are fookin' British/Anglo-Celtic after all! Glad it's settled then, aye matey?!

i gueeeess...  my ancestors were welsh and norman, specifically a baron named robert de lysle who came across with william in 1066, but they came to the states not long after the mayflower, so it doesn't have a direct influence on me.

Grrrr

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)