some deleted user
on Two Basic Forces by dougsoderstrom
3 Sep 2004, 7:42 PM
1. Suppose there is a gene which causes an individual to risk their life to the degree of < 1/2 in order to save a parent, sibling or child.
2. A parent, sibling or child shares 1/2 of your genes with you.
3. Hence in a population where < 1/2 individuals sacrifice their lives to save their parents, siblings or children, and 1/2 of those parents, siblings or children share the kin-sacrifice gene, > 0 individuals with the kin sacrifice gene will survive and pass on the kin sacrifice gene.
4. Hence according to the simple, deterministic rules of evolution, which you seem to assume must always be self-serving, altruism in favour of one's kin will prosper as a pattern of behaviour.
5. Despite being a self-styled "professor" who "specialises" in the "relationship" between "human" "psychology" and "morality", you fail to grasp even the most basic facts of such a relationship.
6. You are the most guff-filled ballsack of a poemranker contributor that I have ever had the tedious displeasure to have to filter out in my daily trawl of poem-recent.jsp
-10-
A potato chip in a flash flood.
Definitely completely wrong. Prose doesen't have linebreaks.
Now critique:
You begin with two generalities copulating in alliteration rather rudely right infront of the reader's face: "paradox of possibility." The beginning of this poem might be improved all round by some concrete imagery, instead of bland and bald description. Show, don't tell. As a matter of fact, the whole poem does little showing and a lot of telling.
The meter however is a good one. Just don't shoehorn big words into it for the sole purpose of filling in the syllables.
This one is touching, but a little too maudlin, simple, and contradictory. I usually don't comment on these.
A perfect expression of passion.
Mastake?
I enjoyed it, hallmarkey or not.
Maybe. But it's a very common mastake.
Some parts grabbed me much more than others, but I actually liked this a little, surprised? hell shocked me.
Much better than the other one I read. You should spend some time reading some of the stuff here, might do you good.
You mean that was not on purpose? He's so deceptive, isn't he?
oooh k, kinda common, try to spice it up.
You also misspelled "exercise" :(
Well done wilco, I really enjoyed reading this one!
I see it has already headed for that no-good end. And I had such a good answer for your ecumenical American Christianity comment, too.
PS-You misspelled occasionally, ecumenical, and Islam.
Two forces? Pish! I don't understand why you think it impossible that man's capacity to care for the welfare of others could not have been brought about by evolution. Did it ever occur to you that an individual's survival may depend upon the welfare of others? Did it ever occur to you that a group's survival may depend upon its capacity to cooperate, and on the capacity of individuals within the group to compromise for the benefit of the group? Evolution doesn't have an aim as such; as we understand it today, it is brought about by random mutation and natural selection. There is no reason why random mutations couldn't lead to characteristics we'd associate with kindness, and it is not necessarily the case that such characteristics would be disadvantageous. I think you misunderstand evolution. In fact, I think you misunderstand so many things that "Wisdom Poetry" probably isn't your thing. I recommend the moving of bow'ls -10-
Do you mean hostage? Poemranker has always been hostile.
A Gentleman never wrestles with himself, unless it is during a bow'l movement, or following a disastrously inept attempt at the reverse sweep. There is little evidence to suggest either of these two misadventures, here. Frankly, it fails. You fail.
Good gracious! To be narcissistic is bad enough; but to be both narcissistic and self-indulgent is calamitous indeed!
That is a very smooth performance hiding a heavy wieght of emotion. That's really great. And it sounds beautiful too.