If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   If the thought of descending from apes make creationists retch, wait until they hear that scientists now think humans descended from rats   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 106
    More: Interesting, scientists, apes, King Richard III, creationists, diet sodas, Stony Brook University, dietary habits, rats  
•       •       •

2726 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Feb 2013 at 10:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-08 12:33:17 AM

tinyarena: Boy all the rats are gonna be real pissed when they hear this.
"They get to drive?  And all we get is moldy cheese?!  Thanks a BUNCH evolution!"


www.joelfletcher.com

All Ralph had to do was ask
 
2013-02-08 12:38:25 AM

Mentat: Creationist:  I did not come from a monkey!
Scientist:  No, you and monkeys share a common ancestor.
Creationist:  I'm not a monkey!
Scientist:  No, you're a subspecies of ape.
Creationist:  Do I look like a chimpanzee?
Scientist:  Well, yeah, just with less hair and longer legs.
Creationist:  I am not a monkey's uncle!
Scientist:  Look, I'm trying to explain this-
Subby:  Hey!  We're descended from rats!
Creationist:  RAR
Scientist:  Goddamnit.



Its really very simple
img51.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-08 12:39:02 AM

aerojockey: I always liked the creationist logic.

Me: "What's so bad about being descended from apes? How do you know that wasn't God's plan?"

Creationist: "Because being descended from apes deprecates the value of human life; they are making us out to be animals. That's why I believe in the story of Genesis literally."


No, it's the broader implications: only humans were created, in a separate act of creation, with souls. Which means that only humans can have life everlasting. Only humans get to go to Heaven. Evolutions says that we're just apes. Apes were not created with souls. Ergo: death is final and there is no Heaven.

Evolution undermines the very foundation of their faith.
 
2013-02-08 12:42:02 AM

MrEricSir: But what species did God evolve from, that's the real question. So far I haven't found any creationists who've been able to answer that one.


Jehovah started out as a Hebrew god of war. Which is why He's such a bastard in the OT. (Kind of throws a monkey wrench into the whole Christian "God is love" mantra. You guys should have jettisoned the OT and started from scratch.)
 
2013-02-08 12:47:47 AM
The bible needs some serious retcon-reboot work. Why not remake it all with some edgy counter-terrorism plot lines?
 
2013-02-08 12:49:16 AM

UsikFark: The bible needs some serious retcon-reboot work. Why not remake it all with some edgy counter-terrorism plot lines?


Well, they tried to remake it as a Western.
 
2013-02-08 12:50:32 AM

Ed Grubermann: aerojockey: I always liked the creationist logic.

Me: "What's so bad about being descended from apes? How do you know that wasn't God's plan?"

Creationist: "Because being descended from apes deprecates the value of human life; they are making us out to be animals. That's why I believe in the story of Genesis literally."

No, it's the broader implications: only humans were created, in a separate act of creation, with souls. Which means that only humans can have life everlasting. Only humans get to go to Heaven. Evolutions says that we're just apes. Apes were not created with souls. Ergo: death is final and there is no Heaven.

Evolution undermines the very foundation of their faith.


All dogs go to heaven.  Fark you if you believe otherwise.
 
2013-02-08 12:55:17 AM
i182.photobucket.com

i182.photobucket.com
i182.photobucket.com

I don't know...these guys are usually better to each other than we are...
 
2013-02-08 12:57:48 AM

Fano: UsikFark: The bible needs some serious retcon-reboot work. Why not remake it all with some edgy counter-terrorism plot lines?

Well, they tried to remake it as a Western.


Blondie was God, Tuco was Jesus, and Angel Eyes was the Holy Ghost? Seems like a stretch to me.
 
2013-02-08 01:09:02 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: "Descended from?" "Evolved from?" Bullshiat, we are rats. We eat anything we lay our paws on, despoil everything around us, kill each other in large numbers for no reason whatsoever, and there are over 7 billion of us - constantly gnawing, biting, scratching, killing, infecting, and breeding. How are we not rats?


Well, we don't shiat exactly where we eat. Close, but not exactly.
 
2013-02-08 01:49:17 AM

fusillade762: Philbb: I guess it's nice to know which ancient rat we descended from, but I thought we already knew that all mammals came from some small rat-like creature that survived the dinosaur extinction event.

Shrews?


You take that back!  We came from voles!
 
2013-02-08 01:52:47 AM
a) The fact that we're related to rats (albeit more distantly than primates) is not a huge shocker, as it's been known for some time that the clade including rodents and lagomorphs is a sister clade to primates and their closest ancestors (basically, if Rhesus monkeys are our cousins, rats are basically our aunts and second cousins :D).

And yes, it's pretty much precisely this reason why rats (and, to an extent, rabbits) tend to be used as lab animals--with the exception of a few quirks of metabolism (which, interestingly, tend to be sex-based and relate to things carcinogenic in rats but not humans), rats work similarly to how primates work. :D

(There is also the bit on how Norway rats in general are wonderful, affectionate, smart little critters whose only real downside as companion animals is that they are pretty much the metaphorical lights that burn twice as bright but half as long.  Then again, having been owned by rats, I speak from some experience there.)

b) The critter the article talks about is not strictly a rat, or a rodent, or a member of Glires per se--it's actually an even more important beastie, as it looks like it could be either a good candidate for Most Recent Common Ancestor of all placentals or at least very close to the Most Recent Common Ancestor.  (This is not the common ancestor of Michael Jackson and Ben; this is more the most recent common ancestor between you, your dog, the elephant at the zoo, the "FARK YOU I'M AN ANTEATER" subject, and Bessie the Cow (each of which are in a separate major clade of placental mammals respectively).

c) It's more likely that this was close to the Most Recent Common Ancestor and not the Grandmother Of All Placental Mammals--what this analysis indicates is that it's closer to being a stem placental more than anything (and there have been analyses that have placed this critter as a sort of "ur-ungulate" and some that have even challenged its status as a placental); there are some analyses that put them possibly as a basal boreoeutherian (one of the two or three major uber-divisions of placental mammals, a rather large group that includes not only us and Ben the Rat and Bugs Bunny but also bats and most domesticated animals from pigs to cows to horses to dogs and cats and ferrets; even the clade which includes whales and hippos is in that mess) which is NOT quite as strict as being the Grandmother Of All Placentals (for one, it'd not include afrotherians--pretty much the proboscids like elephants and their kin as well as aardvarks--and it wouldn't include the weird-ass xenarthans (whose very name pretty much means "weird-ass critters"--armadillos, anteaters, sloths, etc. whose general clade split from the mainstream of placental mammal evolution fairly early)).  Some scientists even think this little thing could have been the ancestor of the general clade that includes whales and hippos on one end (yes, hippopotamuses are now known to be the closest living relatives of whales) and the even-toed ungulates on the other.

Of course, part of the difficulty is that whatever clade that little Protoungulatum is in (so named originally because it was thought to be an "ur-ungulate") is a bit hard to determine because pretty much all the mammals around at that time were really only starting to specialise (we now know thanks to the same fossil beds that have yielded spectacular feathered non-avian dinosaur remains that there was SOME specialisation going on in the late Cretaceous, but not to a huge degree, and things still tended to run from "shrewy bitey thing" to "tasmanian-devil-esque bitey thing" in levels of specialisation and size).  Hence why this study is kind of a Big Deal. :D

At best we can say that this was not a rat (true rats are a specific subgroup of rodents) but it might well have been either the grandmother or great-grandmother of us, rats, and bunnies. :D
 
2013-02-08 02:06:03 AM
keep pretending theories are facts, morans.
 
2013-02-08 02:06:54 AM
If you could convince creationists that the rats were Mormon, they would be all over that shiat.
 
2013-02-08 02:49:38 AM
Rats, big farking rats with cocks this long!
 
2013-02-08 02:51:22 AM
studiocut.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-08 02:58:27 AM

SevenizGud: If the thought of descending from apes make creationists retch, wait until they hear that scientists now think humans descended from rats.

Wait until they hear about number agreement.


Yeah, I've heard some say "I don't believe in evolution because I don't like the idea that I'm related to a monkey." As if reality cares what the hell you like or not. I don't like morons like them, but sadly that doesn't prevent them from existing.


KrispyKritter: keep pretending theories are facts, morans.


2/10. You'll probably get some bites.
 
2013-02-08 03:08:37 AM

KrispyKritter: keep pretending theories are facts, morans.


OK, can I keep pretending fairy tales are facts?
 
2013-02-08 03:11:40 AM

King Something: ajgeek: What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A slow start.


Lawyers are proof that you can get pregnant through anal sex.
 
2013-02-08 03:43:29 AM
"Thought"? Are we sure that's the correct word to use here?

Creationism requires a complete and utter absence of any sort of "thinking".

Mystical, magical, skybeard-guy who watches them poop to make sure they don't get too much pleasure out of it doesn't approve of this new fangled "thinking" fad..
 
2013-02-08 04:07:46 AM
Great Porn Dragon:   And yes, it's pretty much precisely this reason why rats (and, to an extent, rabbits) tend to be used as lab animals--with the exception of a few quirks of metabolism (which, interestingly, tend to be sex-based and relate to things carcinogenic in rats but not humans), rats work similarly to how primates work. :D

Yeah, there's some weirdness there, such as orange juice can give male rats cancer.

(There is also the bit on how Norway rats in general are wonderful, affectionate, smart little critters whose only real downside as companion animals is that they are pretty much the metaphorical lights that burn twice as bright but half as long.  Then again, having been owned by rats, I speak from some experience there.)

Know that pain all too well.  Our last one passed the day before my birthday.  This first time we're been ratless in almost 10 years.  It feels weird not having whiskery little noses poking out of the cage as soon as I start moving in the bedroom.
 
2013-02-08 04:42:45 AM

Ned Stark: Mentat: Creationist:  I did not come from a monkey!
Scientist:  No, you and monkeys share a common ancestor.
Creationist:  I'm not a monkey!
Scientist:  No, you're a subspecies of ape.
Creationist:  Do I look like a chimpanzee?
Scientist:  Well, yeah, just with less hair and longer legs.
Creationist:  I am not a monkey's uncle!
Scientist:  Look, I'm trying to explain this-
Subby:  Hey!  We're descended from rats!
Creationist:  RAR
Scientist:  Goddamnit.


Its really very simple
[img51.imageshack.us image 560x525]


Monkeys are a distinct branch of the tree, we're all primates, but apes/humans are hominoid branch and monkeys are  Cercopithecoidea or  Platyrrhini depending on whether they're old-world or new-world monkeys.

So, no, we're not monkeys.  We are apes, though.
 
2013-02-08 05:06:34 AM
www.screeninsults.com
 
2013-02-08 05:10:50 AM
the second ingredient in diet mountain dew is actually concentrated orange juice.  that's why i like it so much.  vitamin C.  mmmm
 
2013-02-08 05:23:35 AM

KrispyKritter: keep pretending theories are facts, morans.


(checks profile, for shiats and giggles...)

Wow.  Hanging out on Fark is kind of the best part of your life, isn't it?

I was going to argue with you, even though I know you're trolling, but now I just feel sorry for you, if your profile is actually true and accurate.
 
2013-02-08 05:39:52 AM
Humans didn't descend from apes, subby; humans *are* apes.
 
2013-02-08 06:07:24 AM
No, this will make creationists happy, as it is the opposing view (evolutionists) calling their colleagues' views into question by admitting that the whole thing is (unquestionably, in this case) up for debate and nothing is certain.  Nothing is certain, they will say, despite everyone assuming the "theory" of evolution is true because they were taught it as indisputable truth in biology class.  (which is kind of annoying to me too, and I fall somewhat into the evolutionist camp)

They will react to this EXACTLY like people react to global cooling being changed to global warming to climate change because no one really knows what is going to happen as a result of human existence.  It just muddies the water and makes them feel more secure in their faith.

kind of a "YEP!  I *KNEW* they didnt know jack about what they were talking about." thing.
 
2013-02-08 06:12:35 AM

Victoly: namatad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikaia

Pikaia is not impressed

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 360x240]

Pika... nyaa?


i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-08 06:15:01 AM

dehehn: Old enough to know better: Humans, and every other mammal species. Duh.

Yeah and we were all reptiles before that, and fish before that and sea cucumbers before that and strands of RNA before that.  The creationists have a lot of things to feel uncomfortable about descending from after apes.


If they need to feel uncomfortable about something, my first pick would be all the clerical child farking and the unaudited fraud, but that's just me.

What happened in the Cretaceous/Paleogene Boundary stays in the Creataceous/Paleogene Boundary.
 
2013-02-08 06:43:32 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: "Descended from?" "Evolved from?" Bullshiat, we are rats. We eat anything we lay our paws on, despoil everything around us, kill each other in large numbers for no reason whatsoever, and there are over 7 billion of us - constantly gnawing, biting, scratching, killing, infecting, and breeding. How are we not rats?


No tails.
 
2013-02-08 06:51:30 AM
That's not what I heard....
i21.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-08 06:51:39 AM
Looking at most of the Virginia [and national] legislature, I'll buy that.
 
2013-02-08 06:59:45 AM
Hasn't that been the prevailing picture for many decades?  Primates evolved from rodents with prehensile tails that allowed them to balance and cling to branches.

The soft sciences must be nice.  Sometimes I wish my chosen field was like this.  It might be kind of cool to be able to announce that I have invented the transistor as a replacement for vacuum tubes, and have journalism and communications majors fawn all over me while I collect grant checks.
 
2013-02-08 07:02:21 AM

ajgeek: Well the lawyers are anyway.

/What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?


I would have said movie studio executives but I guess it depends on who are exposed to the most.
 
2013-02-08 07:03:13 AM

Ed Grubermann: Jehovah started out as a Hebrew god of war.


No.  Jehovah is a direct variant of Jove (Jupiter), the Roman god of sky and thunder, king of gods, but not war.
 
2013-02-08 07:05:28 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: "Descended from?" "Evolved from?" Bullshiat, we are rats. We eat anything we lay our paws on, despoil everything around us, kill each other in large numbers for no reason whatsoever, and there are over 7 billion of us - constantly gnawing, biting, scratching, killing, infecting, and breeding. How are we not rats?


Wow, I hope you have time to make it to my next party.
 
2013-02-08 07:08:26 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com


Thread over.
 
2013-02-08 08:45:44 AM

I saw this story at a competent science news source:


Family resemblance. The ancestor to all placental mammals was a tiny insect-eating creature that evolved soon after the mass extinctions that wiped out the dinosaurs. Although generally similar in appearance, the shrew-sized Ukhaatherium nessovi (inset), which lived alongside dinosaurs, wasn't a placental mammal.


Do note that:

1) Rodent ≠ rat.
2) The scientists do not propose that we are descended from a rodent.
3) They present evidence on the nature of the common ancestor of placental mammals which includes humans, rodents, and bunch of other stuff like elephants,  whales, horse, etc.  Basically all mammals except for the egg layers and the marsupials.
4) There description of the common ancestor hardly surprising though some scientists will argue that it lived earlier than this study suggests.

We can conclude that you should not get your science news from The Atlantic.  It is almost as bad as getting your facts from a fark.com headline.
 
2013-02-08 09:03:42 AM

Jim_Callahan: Ned Stark: Mentat: Creationist:  I did not come from a monkey!
Scientist:  No, you and monkeys share a common ancestor.
Creationist:  I'm not a monkey!
Scientist:  No, you're a subspecies of ape.
Creationist:  Do I look like a chimpanzee?
Scientist:  Well, yeah, just with less hair and longer legs.
Creationist:  I am not a monkey's uncle!
Scientist:  Look, I'm trying to explain this-
Subby:  Hey!  We're descended from rats!
Creationist:  RAR
Scientist:  Goddamnit.


Its really very simple
[img51.imageshack.us image 560x525]

Monkeys are a distinct branch of the tree, we're all primates, but apes/humans are hominoid branch and monkeys are  Cercopithecoidea or  Platyrrhini depending on whether they're old-world or new-world monkeys.

So, no, we're not monkeys.  We are apes, though.


Old world monkeys and new world monkeys can't both be monkeys if apes are not also monkeys.
 
2013-02-08 09:16:54 AM
I thought all mammals were descendent from rodents.

This time around...
 
2013-02-08 09:18:14 AM

Ned Stark: Jim_Callahan: Ned Stark: Mentat: Creationist:  I did not come from a monkey!
Scientist:  No, you and monkeys share a common ancestor.
Creationist:  I'm not a monkey!
Scientist:  No, you're a subspecies of ape.
Creationist:  Do I look like a chimpanzee?
Scientist:  Well, yeah, just with less hair and longer legs.
Creationist:  I am not a monkey's uncle!
Scientist:  Look, I'm trying to explain this-
Subby:  Hey!  We're descended from rats!
Creationist:  RAR
Scientist:  Goddamnit.


Its really very simple
[img51.imageshack.us image 560x525]

Monkeys are a distinct branch of the tree, we're all primates, but apes/humans are hominoid branch and monkeys are  Cercopithecoidea or  Platyrrhini depending on whether they're old-world or new-world monkeys.

So, no, we're not monkeys.  We are apes, though.

Old world monkeys and new world monkeys can't both be monkeys if apes are not also monkeys.



Great, thanks to your semantic disagreement,. the whole Theory of Evolution is disproven, therefore the Garden of Eden must be real and President Romney must never fly the same plane as Vice President Palin.  Thanks a lot
 
2013-02-08 09:20:16 AM

davidphogan: thermo: davidphogan: I'm sitting at a bar next to a creationist as I post this. A real living creationist in Portland. Obviously I'm getting a kick out of that headline, and half tempted to use it to start an argument.

How do you know he's a creationist, is he wearing a sign?

He told me last time we talked. Really nice guy, but he was really offended I don't agree with him and want really interested in reading the multiple books he swore would convince me.


Ask him if he's ever read Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species".
 
2013-02-08 09:27:46 AM
Now think?  This is why I hate the internet, well one of the reasons, thank Jebus it has porn and videogames too or I'd have to have it banned.

Scientists have thought that since the idea of ape -> human came about.  There is nothing special about the idea of a small "rat like" (note not rats) mammal evolving into other forms, thats the whole idea behind evolution.
 
2013-02-08 10:09:06 AM
I'm just some IT-major Christian, but uh... didn't all mammals descend from rodents that lived around the time of the dinosaurs?
 
2013-02-08 10:10:40 AM

Uncontrolled_Jibe: Ned Stark: Jim_Callahan: Ned Stark: Mentat: Creationist:  I did not come from a monkey!
Scientist:  No, you and monkeys share a common ancestor.
Creationist:  I'm not a monkey!
Scientist:  No, you're a subspecies of ape.
Creationist:  Do I look like a chimpanzee?
Scientist:  Well, yeah, just with less hair and longer legs.
Creationist:  I am not a monkey's uncle!
Scientist:  Look, I'm trying to explain this-
Subby:  Hey!  We're descended from rats!
Creationist:  RAR
Scientist:  Goddamnit.


Its really very simple
[img51.imageshack.us image 560x525]

Monkeys are a distinct branch of the tree, we're all primates, but apes/humans are hominoid branch and monkeys are  Cercopithecoidea or  Platyrrhini depending on whether they're old-world or new-world monkeys.

So, no, we're not monkeys.  We are apes, though.

Old world monkeys and new world monkeys can't both be monkeys if apes are not also monkeys.


Great, thanks to your semantic disagreement,. the whole Theory of Evolution is disproven, therefore the Garden of Eden must be real and President Romney must never fly the same plane as Vice President Palin.  Thanks a lot


Semantic? You're the one playing word games to avoid uncomfortable truths.

New world monkeys split off long before there was any division at all between old world monkeys and apes. If they are monkeys, and old world monkeys are monkeys but apes are not monkeys, then the group monkeys is polyphyletic. Two seperate branches on the tree of life that never touch but are inexplicably the same thing. Its nonsensical.

What's next? Humans aren't mammals but share a common ancestor with mammals?
 
2013-02-08 10:35:53 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
4.bp.blogspot.com
blogs.villagevoice.com
We were headed in the right direction for a while, anyway.
 
2013-02-08 12:18:57 PM

Ned Stark: Semantic? You're the one playing word games to avoid uncomfortable truths.

New world monkeys split off long before there was any division at all between old world monkeys and apes. If they are monkeys, and old world monkeys are monkeys but apes are not monkeys, then the group monkeys is polyphyletic. Two seperate branches on the tree of life that never touch but are inexplicably the same thing. Its nonsensical.

What's next? Humans aren't mammals but share a common ancestor with mammals?


==

A monkey is a primate of the Haplorrhini suborder and simian infraorder, either an Old World monkey or a New World monkey, but excluding apes and humans. There are about 260 known living species of monkey. Many are arboreal, although there are species that live primarily on the ground, such as baboons. Monkeys are generally considered to be intelligent. Unlike apes, monkeys usually have tails. Tailless monkeys may be called "apes", incorrectly according to modern usage; thus the tailless Barbary macaque is called the "Barbary ape". The New World monkeys (superfamily Ceboidea) are classified within the parvorder of Platyrrhini, whereas the Old World monkeys (superfamily Cercopithecoidea) form part of the parvorder Catarrhini, which also includes the hominoids (apes, including humans). Thus, as Old World monkeys are more closely related to hominoids than they are to New World monkeys, the monkeys are not a unitary (monophyletic) group.
 
2013-02-08 12:27:30 PM

Mentat: Ned Stark: Semantic? You're the one playing word games to avoid uncomfortable truths.

New world monkeys split off long before there was any division at all between old world monkeys and apes. If they are monkeys, and old world monkeys are monkeys but apes are not monkeys, then the group monkeys is polyphyletic. Two seperate branches on the tree of life that never touch but are inexplicably the same thing. Its nonsensical.

What's next? Humans aren't mammals but share a common ancestor with mammals?

==

A monkey is a primate of the Haplorrhini suborder and simian infraorder, either an Old World monkey or a New World monkey, but excluding apes and humans. There are about 260 known living species of monkey. Many are arboreal, although there are species that live primarily on the ground, such as baboons. Monkeys are generally considered to be intelligent. Unlike apes, monkeys usually have tails. Tailless monkeys may be called "apes", incorrectly according to modern usage; thus the tailless Barbary macaque is called the "Barbary ape". The New World monkeys (superfamily Ceboidea) are classified within the parvorder of Platyrrhini, whereas the Old World monkeys (superfamily Cercopithecoidea) form part of the parvorder Catarrhini, which also includes the hominoids (apes, including humans). Thus, as Old World monkeys are more closely related to hominoids than they are to New World monkeys, the monkeys are not a unitary (monophyletic) group.


Thank you exactly restating my point by quoting the old, broken definition of monkey and explaining what's wrong with it.
 
2013-02-08 01:39:51 PM

CrackpipeCardozo: davidphogan: I'm sitting at a bar next to a creationist as I post this. A real living creationist in Portland. Obviously I'm getting a kick out of that headline, and half tempted to use it to start an argument.

I deal with a petroleum engineer on pretty regular basis who is a young Earth creationist. The mental gymnastics performed by this dude is astounding.


I'll do you one better: A few years ago I worked with a systems engineer at a pharmaceutical company.  The company's top products were radioisotope-tagged drugs.  The engineer discounted radiocarbon dating (or any fossil dating methods) completely.  I wanted to argue that his disbelief in the radioactive decay series made his presence there total hypocrisy, but I figured it probably wouldn't have done any good.

I spent a few minutes sadly trying to figure out how he reconciled his worldview with the science (or if you prefer, engineering) he did on a technical level every single day.  It's like being a brain surgeon who only operates on the heart because the Homeric Greeks thought it was the seat of consciousness.

I've found that engineers, far more than any of the other applied hard sciences, tend to be the most common believers in Creationism or Intelligent Design.  They work at the system level, and systems in their minds need to work in some fashion, from an assemblage of parts functioning together.  Plus, you can always blame the Designer when shiat goes wrong.
 
2013-02-08 01:53:20 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Fuggin Bizzy: "Descended from?" "Evolved from?" Bullshiat, we are rats. We eat anything we lay our paws on, despoil everything around us, kill each other in large numbers for no reason whatsoever, and there are over 7 billion of us - constantly gnawing, biting, scratching, killing, infecting, and breeding. How are we not rats?

Wow, I hope you have time to make it to my next party.


Yeah...this is basically a philosophy I've held for the last 10 years or so, but even after I wrote this I re-read it and thought "Holy shiat that's depressing. That might be the single most depressing paragraph I've ever written."

So...sorry? Try to focus on something else. That's what I do.
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report