The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology

It does seem interesting to me. However, I must admit that I have little to add to that.

---

Here is something to relieve stress.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

Sometimes it is not.Error

quote:

---

Monday, January 17, 2005 Posted: 10:50 AM EST (1550 GMT)

​

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. military rejected a 1994 proposal to develop an "aphrodisiac" to spur homosexual activity among enemy troops but is hard at work on other less-than-lethal weapons, defense officials said Sunday.

​

The idea of fostering homosexuality among the enemy figured in a declassified six-year, $7.5 million request from a laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio for funding of non-lethal chemical weapon research.

​

The proposal, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information request, called for developing chemicals affecting human behavior "so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely affected."

---

---

Here is something to relieve stress.
Assume that a does not equal b.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

When I first read the article, the first question I had in mind was does it actually work? If it does work, I would very much like to order a few cans or so.

---

Here is something to relieve stress.
Assume that a does not equal b.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

I grew up in east Asia and I can assure you that most common people there don't have a clue that is such a thing as TOE.

Could you be a little more specific? By specific, I am referring to examples, not more general assertions. How so? Please be more specific. Again, please be more specific.Blanket statements, though sometimes can be true, should always be avoided, especially about issues that are still up for debate.

Thank you.Perhaps you have a better option for population control and distribution of very limited resources?The article you pointed to forgot to mention the fact that China does not have the vast economic and natural resources like the west. The comparason can never be justified.The cultural revolution in China was a tragedy. However, it belonged to politics and sociology, not the TOE. I don't seem to recall true supporters of TOE to ever use such words. If so, I believe you have referred to them out of context. Citation?This message has been edited by Jacen, 01-27-2005 12:51 AM