These links are NSFW.
Many men talk about “preserving civilization”. But is it worth it? Let me explain..
The difference between a parasite and a commensal or symbiont is that parasites provide no net benefit to their host, and frequently injure/kill it. By that definition, isn’t the current version of “civilization” closer to a parasite than anything remotely useful, reciprocatory or trustworthy- as far as most men are concerned.
A parasite can be impressive, but it is still a parasite. So why care about the well-being of a parasite?
Why would a rational human being care about something that does not reciprocate the favor? Yes.. caring about anything other than your own selfish interest is a favor, one which can be continued only if it is reciprocated.
Would you keep on paying for a product/service that was not delivered or faulty. Would you pay for cars that explode frequently and randomly? What about paying bills to utilities that did not provide you the service/utility they billed you for? Would you pay for treatments/drugs that made you sicker or killed you more quickly?
I bet that most of you would never willingly take that crap from a company/utility or “professional”. So why are you willing to sacrifice for a concept which does not reward you? If anything, “it” treats you as a lesser disposable human who is stupid enough to care and continue caring inspite of the very obvious.
As I have often said before, let “it” die.
Have a look at this clip.
Now consider the following.
Three years ago this week, an intoxicated Christine O’Donnell showed up at the apartment of a 25-year-old Philadelphian and ended up spending the night in his bed. Here’s his story—and photos—of his escapade with the would-be Delaware senator.
Both Benedetto and another neighbor who asked to have her name withheld said they saw O’Donnell lounging, clothed, with a man on top of her, on O’Donnell’s bright yellow and orange flowered couch. Both said these events happened during the daytime, when O’Donnell would sometimes leave her front door open. Neither minded in the slightest at the time, they said, and the latter of the two neighbors thinks generally well of the candidate. Both said they get a little chuckle on hearing her strict stance against sexual activity outside of the confines of marriage.
She would lounge on her front porch in her pajamas some weekends, smoking cigars and drinking wine with a girlfriend. She doted on her cats, but was not always fastidious about her housekeeping, according to neighborhood gossip passed along by her former housekeeper, Pam. She feuded bitterly with the woman next door. And, neighbors couldn’t help but note, for a candidate who’s been so vocally opposed to any pre-marital sexual activity, O’Donnell had frequent overnight visits from her boyfriend Brent, a Philadelphia lawyer who bought her house just before it went into foreclosure and still owns it to this day.
I agree with gawkers response to the “outrage” over their story.
What’s missing from most of the criticism is this essential bit of context: Christine O’Donnell is seeking federal office based in part on her self-generated, and carefully tended, image as a sexually chaste woman. She lies about who she is; she tells that lie in service of an attempt to impose her private sexual values on her fellow citizens; and she’s running for Senate. We thought information documenting that lie—that O’Donnell does not live a chaste life as she defines the word, and in fact hops into bed, naked and drunk, with men that she’s just met—was of interest to our readers.