Katie

Not Christmas yet there killer...

Yeah and ridiculous stuff like that... :nono:

Definately let her win sometimes!

Well as reliable as that source seems to be...

*grin*

Think I'm going with Faf on this one...

I'd go for the first one. Might want to go back to ancient Greece for a bit too, I hear Socrates was quite outspoken on the subject

Hey, feel like some more rumor and speculation?

According to my Bio teacher from last year (who, by the way, is something of an idiot, not a bad person, but a horrible teacher)...

The first real spread of the HIV virus to the North American continent occurred in the early 80s... Apparently a flight attendant(male) from an airline that flew to Africa was infected and decided he'd bring as many people down with him as he could... so he flew back and forth between California and New York, and had as many wild sex parties as he could on each end (and yes, that is exactly what my teacher said to her 9th grade class... shows her intelligence level) and spread the virus to as many people as possible.

Just what Wilson told me... no idea if it's true or not. Anyone have info on that?

As for the antidote... If you want to keep to the conspiracy theory, wouldn't the groups putting out the virus keep the antidote a secret, and only administer it to the people they wanted to keep around? Or, would they sell it on the black market?

TOTAL speculation right there, honestly, I don't believe there's a conspiracy theory at all... Back to Faf's point at the beginning, it's like saying President Bush organized 9/11.

And isn't today National AIDS Awareness Day?

Let's see, I think you all are in dire need of a female perspective here (no offense, but you seem to be floundering).

While I'm sure many girls wouldn't appreciate being compared to a box of chocolates, I, for one, would take it as a compliment. Perhaps unpredictability is one of the things you should enjoy about your girlfriend, instead of begrudging the fact that she doesn't always react how you'd like her to. After all, if you knew exactly what she was going to say, it'd be pretty boring.

And I agree, don't argue, discuss. Just because you don't understand each others' point of view right off the bat doesn't mean that with a little work, you can have a working relationship.

And by all means, listen to what she says! Perhaps she can't back up her beliefs with scientific proof as you'd like her to, but maybe she wants you to have convictions that you can't quite explain. Opposites attract. Compliment each other, give a little, take a little.

Communication is vital-and if you're willing to compromise, she should be too.

Good luck

Not so sure about that...

On the contrary, most people knew the Earth was round before Columbus set sail.

Not that it has anything to do with what you're asking... Just thought you should know. I hate misconceptions.

Affirmative action is on the list of the top 10 things that piss me off.

Okay, let's hear a really loud Amen for that! Agreed Faf, oh agreed.

What exists around x=y? What lies not on our line?

Lol... Eve was from Africa?

Ya think they'd know what a boat is if they can't find the US on a map?

Come again?

Lol Faf, you never cease to amaze me. Heroin indeed

Lol

Thank you

What exactly is empty space? I can't quite fathom it, and my Chemistry teacher was no help in explaining... "There's empty space between gas particles..." But I don't comprehend emptiness, because even in room that we say is "empty" there are gases and walls and a floor and a ceiling. I don't know, maybe it's just a mental block, but if anyone would try and explain it to me I'd really appreciate it. Isn't there something even where there's nothing?

Agreed...

Lol sorry, should've used a quote... Let's try this again.

Among 18- to 24-year-old Americans given maps:

87 percent cannot find Iraq

83 percent cannot find Afghanistan

76 percent cannot find Saudi Arabia

70 percent cannot find New Jersey

49 percent cannot find New York

11 percent cannot find the United States

You're kidding, right? Right? RIGHT??...

Fafalone, I'm all for deporting that 11%...

Yeah, don't think the albino part sounds quite right...

I don't think that the food chain and symbiosis are so closely linked...

Ha I've heard that one before...

Maybe we haven't come far enough to disregard the genetic need for an opposite sex, but maybe we have. In any case, I don't believe that bitchiness is a factor... I mean honestly, how far can war get with catfights?

Although there are differences from "the norm" in every stereotype, especially ones of gender, it is true that MOSTLY there are less aggressive women than men, and thus less chance for wars to erupt. The maternal instinct is to preserve life, if you want to go back to simple insincts. The male instinct was to PROTECT life, which does not necessarily include preserving the lives of others. Translate: women have babies, men go out and gather food and kill things that try and attack the women and babies.

Not to say these roles weren't occasionally reversed, but it was rare.

It's all about probability... if there were less males, then it would be less probable that wars would break out.

Now as to whether this plan would work socially... I'm thinking some kind of mass amnesia would be necessary to start it in the first place, and to keep it up...at least for the first few generations.

Men could grow babies in feeding chambers and eliminate women... in fact I'm sure the government has already perfected the technology.

The point of this thread (correct me if I'm wrong, Ami) was not to debate which sex was superior, it was to determine the psychological effects of such a theory on society, or, the physical effects on humans as a species. Fafalone, we are not trying to insut you personally! On the whole (and yes, this is a sterotype, but it happens to be based in fact) women are more peaceful than men. Okay? Not ALL women and not ALL the time, but on a whole. We're not rivaling theories here, the point is not to decide whether it'd be better to eliminate women or men! No offense... but you missed the point of the thread.

more war seems to be caused by religion and ideology as far as I can see.

That is true as well, but war is usually planned, instigated, and carried out by men. I'm not saying it'd be worth a shot to see what would happen if we eliminated males, but it is true that they are certainly key instruments in war. And, if you want to get back to it, to the roots of religion. Again, this isn't really what the post is about...

Perhaps women have some hard-coded psychological need for a male presence. While this is not apparent in all cases [homosexuals], it is still a possibility. If they don't, an all-female society could likely replace the role of males, keeping only our sperm for reproduction.

It is possible that women may "need" a male presence, but is it also possible that the entire human race could exist soley as homosexuals? I'm not sure, but I don't think this has been resolved as a scientific debate, if it is indeed purely a social matter, it's possible that propoganda (even in something as simple as changing the characters in a romance novel to two women) could press the entire race toward homosexuality. Perhaps that would show us how far we as a species have truly come from evolution-the primary force should be reproduction, and that, for us, is a male and a female. Would females with no knowledge of the existance of males yearn for something more?