Aboriginal children in care now exceeds stolen generations (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter boris
- Start date
I'm sorry, but I don't see how survival of the fittest fits into this. Survival of the fittest involves posessing favoritable characteristics which help one to survive in their environment. There's usually something in the middle which distinquishs a difference (e.g: birds with long beaks and short beaks), which plays a significant role to help one survive. You don't call snatching children from their parents and murdering them survival of the fittest. The parents mightn't have the ability to fight back without guns, but its wrong to say that its anything close to survival of the fittest.Josip Broz Tito said:
Our government has already begun to establish a better generation of both cultures already. I hope nothing like this happens again.
Last edited:
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
lol, funniest response so far.Motoko12 said:Survival of the fittest usually involves posessing favoritable characteristics which help one to survive in their environment. You don't call snatching children from their parents and murdering them survival of the fittest. The parents mightn't have the ability to fight back without guns, but they weren't much different from the people who salughtered them in cold blood as a human being with all the features of one.
if they were fit and didnt catch their dinner with sticks, their kids wouldnt have been removed
How else would they have caught their food in the absence of technology? If I took away your microwave, oven, bread and anything that was eatable and put you in a dry desert, you would be catching fishes with sticks for the sake of your own survival. Or there is the other option which is to die. By the way, if I didn't mention, life style and characteristic features are two very different things. Get your definitions right.katie tully said:
Last edited:
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Or the other option is to actually evolve and develop technology like most other civilisations managedMotoko12 said:
Evolving takes a long process. It doesn't happen in the snap of your fingers. Why do you think we were once monkeys millions of years ago?katie tully said:Or the other option is to actually evolve and develop technology like most other civilisations managed
Anyway, I don't think that you would stand a chance to survive long enough to evolve.
Last edited:
jb_nc
Google "9-11" and "truth"
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 5,391
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
So were going to harvest and eat the bacteria right.Motoko12 said:I'll try not to be too detailed with my reponse, but I do believe that it would be in my biology book on the topic- Ecosystems, billobongs. Do you also need to know the edition, the company, date, the exact page and the paragraph which I checked seeing as you seem to be so fascinated about where I check my information?
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Pretty sure these guys had 40,000 years to do it, far more than most other races? Like fuck, even the most primitive European civilisations worked out that if it's round it rolls.Motoko12 said:
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Coming soon to an Aboriginal book store near you;jb_nc said:
How the pseudopods got their amoeboid on.
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Please list bacteria that are edible. I am very interested in this.Motoko12 said:You understand that this does apply to a situation in which there is nothing else to eat other than bacteria itself for survival. Other wise, no, no one is going to harvest and eat bacteria.
Thanks for the quick lecture, but Aboriginals are also human beings as well, and they evolved with the human race for the last 40,000 years. They just evolved differently placed in different conditions. It's not wrong or stupid, it is just different. I don't see how that's seen as a big disadvantage for them because most of them are already living the future like most Europeans with the lastest technologies scientist have to offer.katie tully said: