Nature has chosen, and it turns out women are definitely smarter than men.
The aptly-named Darwin Awards recognises people who have improved the human gene pool by removing themselves from it in the most idiotic ways possible.
The annual review found that almost 90 per cent of people who died in foolish ways were men. Included in the poll were the two geniuses who dared each other to test their courage by lying down on a train track, both of whom died instantly when a train passed through the station at 130kmph.
Then there were the two guys in Kenya who took a selfie with a wild elephant, the man who tried to take a steel hawser from a lift shaft by unbolting it while he was standing in the lift, and the terrorist who posted a letterbomb: only to have it returned because he didn’t use enough stamps.
Out of 332 nominations, 14 were ruled non-valid because they were shared by both genders. Of the 318 cases remaining, 89 per cent were awarded to men.
Men are considered more likely to be admitted to an emergency department after accidental injuries and sporting injuries. They are also more likely to be in a road traffic collision with a higher mortality rate.
It's known as the 'idiotic' risk, which the study describes as "a senseless risk where the apparent payoff is negligible or non-existent, and the outcome is often extremely negative and often final".
The report concluded: "These findings are entirely consistent with male idiot theory (MIT) and support the hypothesis that men are idiots and idiots do stupid things."
men are idoits
men are idoits
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21516
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: men are idoits
Also they are egostits
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: men are idoits
I generally try to avoid those..."a senseless risk where the apparent payoff is negligible or non-existent, and the outcome is often extremely negative and often final".



- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21516
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: men are idoits
2010 disabled scooter idoit:
(you have to read the subtitles... must have been Thamsanqa Jantjie all the way from SA, moonlighting)
(you have to read the subtitles... must have been Thamsanqa Jantjie all the way from SA, moonlighting)
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: men are idoits
Testosterone results in some nutty behaviors/decisions, that's for sure.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: men are idoits
Having grown up in a household with three women, I can think of some other hormones that do not always induce pure and uninterrupted rationality.
(ducks)
(ducks)
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: men are idoits
Produce? I thought they outright inhibited them.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: men are idoits
From a population biology point of view it is an advantage to have some members of a community who are risk takers who will find out what the dangerous animals, foods, activities are, and what the beneficial animals, foods, activities are. How else did we learn that oysters are wonderful (if consumed carefully) that rhubarb stalks are edible that psycilocybe mushrooms are interesting, &c? It is also an advantage to have some who are risk-averse so that the entire group does not die off from Camas or Amanita poisoning.
Neither is inherently good. We need both to succeed. We need the Chuck Yeagers and Eddie Rickenbackers along with the cautious ones (who don't get much shrift in history).
yrs,
rubato
Neither is inherently good. We need both to succeed. We need the Chuck Yeagers and Eddie Rickenbackers along with the cautious ones (who don't get much shrift in history).
yrs,
rubato