heyrabbit

according to your morals. but I don't blame you for not eating greasy dog

rice and beans

longs to buy vogs at a hamilton predators game

looks like my friend's cartoon style. 8

has many opportunities in front of him

oh that's cruel

is that a hotdog?

oh hey bishop, sorry for the late reply. you don't like good girls eh?

are you guys sitll watching lost? still unintelligible and profound? hehehe

hahahh che's bitches. long live worthless man, comrades! if any of are desperate to be someone's slave, I'll boss you around

I don't mind you patronizing me in order to validate your identity as a science enthusiast - I honestly don't - although if that's you're motive, you'll probably want to quit demonstrating a lack of understanding of what evolution is. just a bit of info:right now I'm actually upgrading my high-school credits and I happen to be taking grade 10 science. for all intents and purposes, I'm at a grade 10 level in science LOL. so nobody is challenging your authority as bored science-intellectual. in fact, at some point I may call upon your assistance0 if I may do so. I never said anything about sexual selection.

I really don't think it's flawed. but that's just my conviction, aswell as dawkins' evolution is natural selection. evolution is non-random survival of randomly varying components. the definition goes something like that. precisely what makes it non-random is natural selection. every organism on earth has been naturally selected

although I'm sure owen "believes" in evolition. he couldn't not

that;s why denzel washington is so sexy to say taht there's no natural selection is to say that there's no evolution. and I don't think you're one of those people

LOL. I never claimed to be any kind of authority on the subject, but I don't need your approval to philosophize about my observations. also, theories are born from conjecture

well if youre attracted to your own shapes, angles, and proportions, then you'll look for that in ppl. I haven't read about this. it's just something I've heard about and noticed. it's just apparent to me. and there have been studies done where people are shown a selection of photos of ppl of the opposite sex, one of which is themselves transfigured slightly to look like a girl/boy. the result was that people chose themselves more often than not meg, I noticed yours and owens eyes rae both similar in width. not surprisingly eyes are considered one of the most attractive features

we naturally do not want to fuck apes. in the same respect we naturally prefer certain people over other people. nobody ever thinks they look like their partner. but i see a similarity between owen and meg it's not only for mating, but people are attracted to any object that's like themselves. it sounds silly, but people with round heads wear round bags, or necklaces, earrings etc. square shaped people oftne prefer square items. the same goes for color,texture etc. it's a selective recreation of themselves, art etc. that's what personal style is, art, music, painting, anything as far as genes that aren't expressed, I'm not sure. but I guess freud had the answer to that. the answer probably lies in the fact that girls are attracted to men who're like their fathers, and boys to their mothers etc

that's evolution man, get dawkins' selfish gene. every genes purpose is to fuck itself and propagate itself scarlett creeps me out. she had a disproportionate head theat was for ecnarf. but yeah, it's not really that maladaptive because natural selection takes care of incest progeny. plus, people tend to not screw their families. and I don't think the chances are very high that the children would be fucked up if you procreated with your cousin

I think jake could make a good spidey. I also like what's-her-face as mary jane. the gilmour girl

that's because they're competition. both competing for the skinny black dude and fatness usually isn't hereditary, at least that's my impression

the fascinating thing about the subjectivity of beauty is that YOU are the subject and basis for your ideal beauty that you long for. everyone's inherently attracted to themselves. (proportions of the face, features etc)

first of all, I'll just say that this movie was worth seeing. I enjoyed this movie more than the last 2, for whatever reason. parts of it were great and parts were terrible thumbs up for... - a great job in connecting the stories surrounding the 4 main characters - best fight scenes in the trilogy (in my opinion) - comedy -jameson, the host of the restaurant, parker turning into a swinger. thumbs down for... - the fake rip/skin on spider-man during the latter half. where was the costume guy on that one? they can make sandman look like that but they can't pull off a rip in is costume? - everyone's acting

hegemony or survival - chomsky, based on supecanuk's recommendation. it's like reading a never-ending supercanuk post

has a potty mouth

glock 9mm. I seem to remember they said that he used 2 guns, although i'm not sure if that's true or what the other gun was. they found a receipt for the gun in his bag. that pretty much said it all. that's what's so retarded about the U.S., Canada and elsewhere. there's no moral equivalence regarding rules to protect the safety of their citizens. it's a huge double standard. you can walk into a store and buy a KILLING MACHINE (moonlight's description) as if you're buying a candy bar, or you can buy a lethal dose of alcohol, but it's not okay to buy a gram of weed which will SUBDUE you. that's religion for you at the very least there should be rigorous psychological and behavioral testing before someone's allowed to buy a gun.