Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yep, if you break life down into it's simplest parts, it's all about passing on your DNA.

I'm interested in this "as a species we are favouring those who have a strong urge to have kids"?   What does that mean? Who is favouring those, and in what way? You mean things like tax breaks an

One other thing to consider: If Australia still wants to assert the position that whales should not be killed for scientific research, and expect any other country or international body to take their

Increasing numbers of intelligent humans make informed decisions not to "pass on their DNA".


Can't you read? ;)


Yes I can. I am intelligent and have passed on my DNA.


I can also sprout out sentences - watch:


Increasing numbers of intelligent people understand DNA, and also know that humans are perhaps the only, if not one of a small fraction, of animals that participate in sexual activities for pleasure. Moreover, the instinct within our genes, and any species, forces the species to carry on and evolve.


Look at why those people aren't having kids. Is it because of environmental factors? Because of some guilt that there are too many people in the world?


Don't worry GG, if you are intelligent and not passed on your DNA, then the SJ community is safe from your lack of future offspring. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites



The sprog-producing gang always get so fricking up-tight and righteous about the topic.

It's always great to give it a poke.


And vice-versa. Those people who think they are helping the world out by not having kids, yet probably clog the world with pollution always cracks me up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tubby sounds like he has just come back from Sunday School and learnt from the scriptures!




Which is kind of ironic really.


Evolution.......from Sunday school? I think you may have been at the ceremonial wine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway I went for a surf and didn't get eaten.


Had a thought how about the goverment drop bouys out in the water with strong elctronic pulses to scare them away.





Link to post
Share on other sites

And GN I don't read the newspapers I just googled shark attack and this was the 1st article that popped up, to tell you the truth i didn't even read it (2 many words).


How about we change the question .


If a 5M great white shark ate/ fataly injured someone and was hanging around the same spot where other humans were and we were positive it was the same shark would you kill the shark?


yes or no?

Problem is how do we become "certain" that it is the same one? They range over a thousand sq kms, and likely to be well gone after an attack. What happens if you kill one and discover that it doesn't have any human remains in its gut? Too late to say "sorry" and lket it go!


If it was a dog the dog would be dead. If it was a drop bear it would be dead. If it was a crocodile, snake, spider, nearly any other creature would be dead why not a white pointer.

invasion of our space is one thing, invading theirs is another!

Link to post
Share on other sites


For once I agree with you there.



GN ok if it was a Kangaroo and it attacked your daughter in the bush would it be killed?


No. My daughter has been attacked by a roo. She wasn't bitten in half but did get a shock and cried. Good learning experience for her. There's been a couple of snakes at the nursery as well, an area that my daughter spends a lot of time in, and I haven't killed them. I usually catch them and move them to another part of the property.

The way I look at it is this. With regards to the sharks we are going into their environment, it's not them coming into ours. So if you choose to enter their environment you take that risk. It's not their fault that we make a good snack.

Just like those of us who ski in the backcountry take on the risk of avalanches or injury far from any help I can't see why you just can't accept that when you enter the ocean over there you take on the risk of getting eaten alive. As you probably know from previous discussions over the years I'm not an advocate of the nanny state. I like to decide for myself the risk levels I'm comfortable with for not only myself but also my daughter. I don't expect or want those in power to step in and impose a level of safety I don't need or want. And I think advocating killing these sharks is a nanny state sort of attitude. You want the state to step in and make the world a little safer for you. Personally I think you should just accept that the world isn't a safe place, the oceans aren't a safe place. If you can't accept that level of risk (which is still incredibly small) then go swim in a public pool or a lake where the big biteys can't get you. At the end of the day the most dangerous thing you'll probably ever do in your daily life is drive a car. Statistically you would be much more likely to die on the drive to a beach than whilst you're in the water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the sharks are having the same kind of debate as this...



'Hey, they killed so-and-so, should we go and eat them all??'

No one kills Great Whites (well not in Australia) it's illegal anything else (apart from Whales) in the water is fair game.


So unless Great Whites talk to other sharks (like in Nemo) they are most probably lying around doing nothing.



Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: ha ha. what he says is true but he left out the part where he decides to pick a side and then bomb the crap out tof the other side.
Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Create New...