Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: sams on April 19, 2011, 04:24:01 am

Title: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 19, 2011, 04:24:01 am
So the plot advance by Rhonda getting the inner Pedo Bear of her soldier to jump over a 12 years old and almost get shot ?

UW being pedophiles won't make bad PR for them :-\
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 19, 2011, 07:27:43 am
I'm betting the 12 year-old is fully aware of what's going on, just like the vast majority of those around the hotel. Rhonda's contempt for Cererean society is blinding her to what's happening around her. A 12 year-old with a gun must seem like an obscenity to her, and her statist ideology permits her to think of her as a tool rather than a girl. As a PO, she'd know, where possibly the rest of the company doesn't, that subjugating Ceres is vital to the UW's survival. The plan to provoke an incident hasn't been going well at all, so she has to be a little desperate.

Like to add that Rhonda is augmented nicely and fills out that jumpsuit very well -- or does that belong on another thread? :)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Azure Priest on April 19, 2011, 08:55:44 am
I knew pointing ALL of the cameras at the hotel was a mistake.

It could easily have taken the form of a sniper shooting one or more of the people "fraternizing" there from outside the camera's field of vision.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 19, 2011, 09:41:49 am
I knew pointing ALL of the cameras at the hotel was a mistake.

Nice pick-up!
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 19, 2011, 11:55:30 am
Quote
Nice pick-up!

You have got to be kidding. All those people, including Guy, haven't been tracking the movements of every member of a company? Guy knows the UW the best; I'll bet he wasn't fooled.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 19, 2011, 12:26:06 pm
Quote
Nice pick-up!

You have got to be kidding. All those people, including Guy, haven't been tracking the movements of every member of a company? Guy knows the UW the best; I'll bet he wasn't fooled.

I'm not kidding at all. The Belt is not a surveillance society like in 1984, modern England or New York City. Sure, the plaza has some security cameras, but it is a large commercial area. Even then, Ed had to put out the word for videographers. Azure Priest was spot on.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 19, 2011, 05:41:22 pm
Modern England is a surveillance society? Shocking that we haven't noticed. Hang on let me go see if I can find the cameras in my home....hmm no cameras. In fact I don't recall having seen any cameras outside private property or local council buildings or the army barracks anywhere in York.
You know the last time I actually saw cameras observing the streets was in Manchester. It's more common in London as I recall but London is not England.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 19, 2011, 06:03:24 pm
Quote
Modern England is a surveillance society? Shocking that we haven't noticed.

The UK has more CCTV's per capita than any other national entity in the world. I'm reasonably sure that most people who live there know that.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Archonix on April 19, 2011, 06:27:22 pm
I know it. It is more common around Manchester (they just started putting up those Trafficmaster traffic cameras on all the A-roads around here too) but I've seen plenty of cameras in York last few times I was there. They're usually quite high up and look fairly innocuous most of the time but there are more around than you may realise. Every single bus has at least one camera on it, all trains have them now, the railway station has loads of them, most traffic junctions have at least one somewhere. Yes, even in York, they're just more obvious around my way because they paint them a more visible colour.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Xavin on April 19, 2011, 06:44:23 pm
Quote
Modern England is a surveillance society? Shocking that we haven't noticed.

The UK has more CCTV's per capita than any other national entity in the world. I'm reasonably sure that most people who live there know that.

Lots of people here have heard that, and it might be true. It does rather assume that we a) know how many CCTV cameras there are here, and b) we know how many there are in other countries - neither of which appears to be the case.

The figure commonly thrown around is 4.2million cameras in the UK (approx 1 for every 14 people), but that's based on some pretty shonky statistics from 2002:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/factcheck+how+many+cctv+cameras/2291167.html (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/factcheck+how+many+cctv+cameras/2291167.html)

The police claim it's more like 1.85 million (approx 1 for every 32 people): http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2011/03/01/only-1-8-million-cameras-in-uk-claims-acpo-lead-on-cctv (http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2011/03/01/only-1-8-million-cameras-in-uk-claims-acpo-lead-on-cctv)

Frankly, that still seems to be a lot to me, and there seems to be little evidence that they actually do much good for their stated purpose (reducing/solving crime):
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3360287&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3360287&page=1)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-tens-of-thousands-of-cctv-cameras-yet-80-of-crime-unsolved.do (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-tens-of-thousands-of-cctv-cameras-yet-80-of-crime-unsolved.do)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-big-question-are-cctv-cameras-a-waste-of-money-in-the-fight-against-crime-822079.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-big-question-are-cctv-cameras-a-waste-of-money-in-the-fight-against-crime-822079.html)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cctv-in-the-spotlight-one-crime-solved-for-every-1000-cameras-1776774.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cctv-in-the-spotlight-one-crime-solved-for-every-1000-cameras-1776774.html)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 19, 2011, 06:58:46 pm
I know it. It is more common around Manchester (they just started putting up those Trafficmaster traffic cameras on all the A-roads around here too) but I've seen plenty of cameras in York last few times I was there. They're usually quite high up and look fairly innocuous most of the time but there are more around than you may realise. Every single bus has at least one camera on it, all trains have them now, the railway station has loads of them, most traffic junctions have at least one somewhere. Yes, even in York, they're just more obvious around my way because they paint them a more visible colour.

Yes buses and trains are private property. A private company can put a camera in its private property.
You'd be wise to note that many of the "high up and out of the way" cameras are private property observing private property.
The number of "big bad evil government cameras" is so minuscule it's not worth bothering with. You've got traffic cameras which aren't exactly about oppressing the masses just making you not decide to drive like a lunatic and kill some people.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 19, 2011, 08:49:14 pm
Quote
The number of "big bad evil government cameras" is so minuscule it's not worth bothering with.

That's because there are no "big bad evil government cameras" in existence, only "big, bad, evil government people." :)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 20, 2011, 06:00:38 am
Quote
The number of "big bad evil government cameras" is so minuscule it's not worth bothering with.

That's because there are no "big bad evil government cameras" in existence, only "big, bad, evil government people." :)

Well we don't exactly have many of those here. Those we do have tend to stay in London or the major cities. This isn't the USA where our police are constantly fondling their penis replacements itching for a chance to shoot someone.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 20, 2011, 07:01:07 am
Quote
The number of "big bad evil government cameras" is so minuscule it's not worth bothering with.

That's because there are no "big bad evil government cameras" in existence, only "big, bad, evil government people." :)

Well we don't exactly have many of those here. Those we do have tend to stay in London or the major cities. This isn't the USA where our police are constantly fondling their penis replacements itching for a chance to shoot someone.

Well but it is true that in London they do have lots of freaking cameras :P

Maybe the other towns aren't that big you know ... I can tell you that as a Dime British  ;D
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: spudit on April 20, 2011, 10:29:36 am
Dry spell here and so I'm too busy to do more than lurk, but Holt, "penis replacements"?

Paging Dr. Freud. Dr Freud to Mr. Holt's room, stat.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: spudit on April 20, 2011, 10:48:57 am
I saw some Utube stuff on the Japanese disaster. People sought different views just to be different. So say guy A is filming the mall washing away, guy B says, ok now what isn't being covered. Ah the Honda dealership is afloat.

Ed's camera persons will do the same, who needs or wants 37 videos of the fountain.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 20, 2011, 06:50:26 pm
Well but it is true that in London they do have lots of freaking cameras :P

Maybe the other towns aren't that big you know ... I can tell you that as a Dime British  ;D

It's mostly just that London is the only place a lot of foreign media (and even our own) really pays attention to. Hell the MPs are just as bad at times.
Probably got more cameras per square mile than a fucking camera factory.

Dry spell here and so I'm too busy to do more than lurk, but Holt, "penis replacements"?

Paging Dr. Freud. Dr Freud to Mr. Holt's room, stat.


Oh hey Freud. Well it's those dam Americans. The way they keep obsessing over their guns and fondling them is just getting perverse.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Archonix on April 21, 2011, 02:42:08 am
I know it. It is more common around Manchester (they just started putting up those Trafficmaster traffic cameras on all the A-roads around here too) but I've seen plenty of cameras in York last few times I was there. They're usually quite high up and look fairly innocuous most of the time but there are more around than you may realise. Every single bus has at least one camera on it, all trains have them now, the railway station has loads of them, most traffic junctions have at least one somewhere. Yes, even in York, they're just more obvious around my way because they paint them a more visible colour.

Yes buses and trains are private property. A private company can put a camera in its private property.
You'd be wise to note that many of the "high up and out of the way" cameras are private property observing private property.
The number of "big bad evil government cameras" is so minuscule it's not worth bothering with. You've got traffic cameras which aren't exactly about oppressing the masses just making you not decide to drive like a lunatic and kill some people.



Three things

1) You're assuming that the phrase "surveillance society" necessarily requires all the camera to be run by the government. This is not true. It simply means that there are cameras everywhere filming everything, giving people a false sense of security and producing a population a little more compliant with the need to be watched all the time.

2) Trafficmaster cameras are not speed cameras, they are set up to monitor general traffic flow, are usually seen on motorways but have started to appear on A roads, and are alleged to "forget" your numberplate once they've recorded it. Even so, I don't like being "made" to decide how to drive. The assumption that I will drive like a lunatic because there aren't speed and junction cameras around is insulting, degrading and a very good example of the way government inevitably becomes oppressive and proscriptive.

3) When referring to cameras "up high" I wasn't talking about those privately owned ones attached to buildings, but government-owned cameras placed on very tall poles for local police "enforcement". Most people don't spot them because they tend to look like lampposts or something else innocuous. And many of those cameras you assume to be private are not private at all.

There are rather more state-owned cameras around than you seem to realise but, even if there weren't, the prevalence of privately owned cameras, often pointing at public spaces, is a symptom of a much larger belief that the world an be saved if only someone is watching everyone else.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 21, 2011, 06:16:43 am
I know it. It is more common around Manchester (they just started putting up those Trafficmaster traffic cameras on all the A-roads around here too) but I've seen plenty of cameras in York last few times I was there. They're usually quite high up and look fairly innocuous most of the time but there are more around than you may realise. Every single bus has at least one camera on it, all trains have them now, the railway station has loads of them, most traffic junctions have at least one somewhere. Yes, even in York, they're just more obvious around my way because they paint them a more visible colour.

Yes buses and trains are private property. A private company can put a camera in its private property.
You'd be wise to note that many of the "high up and out of the way" cameras are private property observing private property.
The number of "big bad evil government cameras" is so minuscule it's not worth bothering with. You've got traffic cameras which aren't exactly about oppressing the masses just making you not decide to drive like a lunatic and kill some people.



Three things

1) You're assuming that the phrase "surveillance society" necessarily requires all the camera to be run by the government. This is not true. It simply means that there are cameras everywhere filming everything, giving people a false sense of security and producing a population a little more compliant with the need to be watched all the time.

2) Trafficmaster cameras are not speed cameras, they are set up to monitor general traffic flow, are usually seen on motorways but have started to appear on A roads, and are alleged to "forget" your numberplate once they've recorded it. Even so, I don't like being "made" to decide how to drive. The assumption that I will drive like a lunatic because there aren't speed and junction cameras around is insulting, degrading and a very good example of the way government inevitably becomes oppressive and proscriptive.

3) When referring to cameras "up high" I wasn't talking about those privately owned ones attached to buildings, but government-owned cameras placed on very tall poles for local police "enforcement". Most people don't spot them because they tend to look like lampposts or something else innocuous. And many of those cameras you assume to be private are not private at all.

There are rather more state-owned cameras around than you seem to realise but, even if there weren't, the prevalence of privately owned cameras, often pointing at public spaces, is a symptom of a much larger belief that the world an be saved if only someone is watching everyone else.

I don't much mind having a lot of cameras around provided I get to look at the results. Like, there's a lot of traffic congestion where I live, particularly from around 6 to 9 AM and 4 to 8 PM. It would be convenient if I could see how bad it is when I'm planning my route. My wife hates being in crowds and it would be convenient if we could check how long the grocery store lines are, or the restaurant wait, before we got there. Etc.

And I wouldn't at all mind if every automobile had traffic cameras to watch all the cars nearby. So when you see somebody doing something that looks unsafe, you could send them your video to show them how it looked from where you were. In theory police are supposed to improve traffic safety, but it seems like most of what they do is arrest people for speeding or running red lights, or if they see somebody who looks like his reflexes are impaired they stop him and test him for alcohol. They want arrests that are clearly not their fault, that result in big fines. Reckless driving is a gray area that leads to lots of aggravation. Far better if people got actual feedback about their driving behavior.

Privacy in itself doesn't have to be such a big issue. But hey, let's make those video recordings public, for everybody to use as they want. Fair's fair.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Xavin on April 21, 2011, 07:13:14 am
I don't much mind having a lot of cameras around provided I get to look at the results. Like, there's a lot of traffic congestion where I live, particularly from around 6 to 9 AM and 4 to 8 PM. It would be convenient if I could see how bad it is when I'm planning my route. My wife hates being in crowds and it would be convenient if we could check how long the grocery store lines are, or the restaurant wait, before we got there. Etc.

Feeds from many of the UK's traffic-monitoring cameras are publically accessible over the internet - certainly all the ones on the motorway network - and I have used them for route-planning.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: spudit on April 21, 2011, 09:52:11 am
Cameras are creepy.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: mellyrn on April 21, 2011, 12:09:00 pm
I think cameras are creepy too.  I wonder if hats with veils, especially veils with dotted bits in, will come back into fashion.  I wonder if the Japanese fondness for face masks is only about hygiene.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 21, 2011, 04:46:12 pm
Let's see.... Rhonda expatiates at great length in a thoroughly monitored public place about how her thugs have put the arm upon "Kate, a cute freckly little 'pre-majority belter woman' - I think she's twelve" and she doesn't expect her boasting to show up all to hellangone over the Tanglenet?

Hm.  The U.W. bureaucrats seem to have "augmented" everything about Rhonda except her common sense.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 21, 2011, 05:06:50 pm
Let's see.... Rhonda expatiates at great length in a thoroughly monitored public place about how her thugs have put the arm upon "Kate, a cute freckly little 'pre-majority belter woman' - I think she's twelve" and she doesn't expect her boasting to show up all to hellangone over the Tanglenet?

Hm.  The U.W. bureaucrats seem to have "augmented" everything about Rhonda except her common sense.
I'm confused by this too. However, Sandy explained that although the Tanglenet can't be controlled itself, the public on Earth doesn't have legal direct access to the Tanglenet.

Hence, if the UW doesn't care what Mars thinks, but only needs a provocation for the Earth captive audience... well, they could almost have filmed their provocation in a studio. Still, I suppose it's useful to have some element of truth in one's lies.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 21, 2011, 06:27:52 pm
I think cameras are creepy too.  I wonder if hats with veils, especially veils with dotted bits in, will come back into fashion.  I wonder if the Japanese fondness for face masks is only about hygiene.

Well the USA they'd run around shooting cameras. Britain generally won't give a fuck although in some areas the cameras will no doubt be stolen.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 21, 2011, 10:03:49 pm
Quote
Hence, if the UW doesn't care what Mars thinks, but only needs a provocation for the Earth captive audience... well, they could almost have filmed their provocation in a studio. Still, I suppose it's useful to have some element of truth in one's lies.

I was think that, too, but Sandy says that there are illegal receivers on Earth that can get the message out, something like Radio Free Europe.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 21, 2011, 10:46:14 pm
I was think that, too, but Sandy says that there are illegal receivers on Earth that can get the message out, something like Radio Free Europe.
True, but if people are afraid to admit in public that they've obtained information from illegal sources, it can be kept out of public debate.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 22, 2011, 09:06:28 am
... if people are afraid to admit in public that they've obtained information from illegal sources, it can be kept out of public debate.

Think Wikileaks and internet conspiracy theorists. Information wants to be free.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Outsider on April 22, 2011, 11:59:19 am
So the plot advance by Rhonda getting the inner Pedo Bear of her soldier to jump over a 12 years old and almost get shot ?

UW being pedophiles won't make bad PR for them :-\

True,

As I understand it, the UW is looking to take over the belt without breaking it (in their opinion) so as they can tax the heck out if it in order to delay their financial meltdown.  Towards this end, they are looking to manufacture an incident that they can use for propaganda purposes back home.  My question is, why manufacture something outrageous to the average UW prole at all?  Just find some aspect of an ancap society that the average UW prole would find outrageous, and work from there.   In keeping with the 'Pedo Strike' subject line, I would suggest just finding the Cerean pedophile subculture*, and going from there along the "its not ilegal on Ceres" line, and then toward the "we have to intervene to protect the children" route.


*Given that we have people here and now who practice pedophila despite laws against it and severe punishments if they are caught, I would find it difficult to believe that Ceres has none.    And before anyone says that the parents of the children involved would be aggreived by a pedophile's attentions towards their offspring, and thus seek mediation on their child's behalf, keep in mind that :

1) There is probably good money to be made renting one's child out to a pedophile, and not all people are scrupulous or moral about how they make money.
2) The parents themselves may be pedophiles, either directly abusing their own children, or as part of a subculture that swaps its children among themselves.  If the parent/guardian of a pre-emancipated (chattel) child deems that there is no harm, and the child is unwilling/unable to declare its emancipation, then what standing would another Cerean have for intervening?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 22, 2011, 12:03:15 pm
... if people are afraid to admit in public that they've obtained information from illegal sources, it can be kept out of public debate.

Think Wikileaks and internet conspiracy theorists. Information wants to be free.

And lunatics are convinced that the royal family are evil space lizards who drink human blood.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 22, 2011, 12:22:56 pm
Excellent Analysis!

As to pedophilia, it is a fact in every culture, everywhere, throughout time. No doubt, it would also exist in the Belt and throughout the solar system.

Having said that, in the Belt kids can arm themselves and they can "divorce" their parents anytime they can make it stick if they desire to do so.

Essentially every modern culture strongly disapproves of the practice. Belters would probably disapprove also. And probably more so, on the basis of personal ownership and the ZAP. If the sexual contact with the "pre-majority" woman or man were not voluntary, it would violate the ZAP, big time. Remember, the ZAP not only recognizes self-defense, but defense of another...

As I understand it, the UW is looking to take over the belt without breaking it (in their opinion) so as they can tax the heck out if it in order to delay their financial meltdown.  Towards this end, they are looking to manufacture an incident that they can use for propaganda purposes back home.  My question is, why manufacture something outrageous to the average UW prole at all?  Just find some aspect of an ancap society that the average UW prole would find outrageous, and work from there.   In keeping with the 'Pedo Strike' subject line, I would suggest just finding the Cerean pedophile subculture*, and going from there along the "its not ilegal on Ceres" line, and then toward the "we have to intervene to protect the children" route.


*Given that we have people here and now who practice pedophila despite laws against it and severe punishments if they are caught, I would find it difficult to believe that Ceres has none.    And before anyone says that the parents of the children involved would be aggreived by a pedophile's attentions towards their offspring, and thus seek mediation on their child's behalf, keep in mind that :

1) There is probably good money to be made renting one's child out to a pedophile, and not all people are scrupulous or moral about how they make money.
2) The parents themselves may be pedophiles, either directly abusing their own children, or as part of a subculture that swaps its children among themselves.  If the parent/guardian of a pre-emancipated (chattel) child deems that there is no harm, and the child is unwilling/unable to declare its emancipation, then what standing would another Cerean have for intervening?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 22, 2011, 12:33:58 pm
I wager there would be rampant child molestation. After all nothing to stop some guys picking up the kids who run away from home and pimping them out. If they can pull it off when there's a lot of people whose job is to try and stop them. They can certainly pull it off when nobody cares.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 22, 2011, 12:35:20 pm
About the Cerereans are pedophiles strategy:

Sandy could address this better than I could because its his universe, but I can think of three reasons why that might not work very well:

It's not graphic enough. Stating that something like that would be legal under some conditions (and I have no idea how the Cerereans and Belters would handle it) is not the same as showing it. Kicking a man on the ground is a strong visual display, and is what put a couple of L.A. cops behind bars for the Rodney King incident. Everyone knows what NAMBLA wants and does, but they aren't thrown in jail unless there's hard evidence.

Ceres has a highly limiting feature, guns at an early age. When a ten year-old has a gun and is liable to use it, pedophiles, I imagine, would think more than twice about indulging in a little forced January - June romance.

I'm not at all sure that the UW would have a good track record to compare to the Cerereans and Belters. Dictators tend to concentrate on keeping themselves in power and less on protecting the hoi polloi, and with power comes a sense of superiority; many of those who rule might well have unsavory appetites of their own.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 22, 2011, 12:36:07 pm
And lunatics are convinced that the royal family are evil space lizards who drink human blood.

Jeez, you mean they're not and they don't?  So what accounts for all those blood bank deliveries in the dead of night? 

I'd always heard that they're especially fond of diabetics.  A couple of 'em have a sweet tooth. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 22, 2011, 12:44:38 pm
Quote
And lunatics are convinced that the royal family are evil space lizards who drink human blood.

That's absurd. They are evil space lizards, but everyone knows they swallow rodents whole. I saw it all on "V," and I don't know why someone doesn't do something about it.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 22, 2011, 12:51:09 pm
Quote
And lunatics are convinced that the royal family are evil space lizards who drink human blood.

That's absurd. They are evil space lizards, but everyone knows they swallow rodents whole. I saw it all on "V," and I don't know why someone doesn't do something about it.

No they're not evil space lizards. They're German. For fucks sake people I can understand the confusion but come on.  ;)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 22, 2011, 01:01:07 pm
As to pedophilia, it is a fact in every culture, everywhere, throughout time. No doubt, it would also exist in the Belt and throughout the solar system.

Having said that, in the Belt kids can arm themselves and they can "divorce" their parents anytime they can make it stick if they desire to do so.

Essentially every modern culture strongly disapproves of the practice. Belters would probably disapprove also. And probably more so, on the basis of personal ownership and the ZAP. If the sexual contact with the "pre-majority" woman or man were not voluntary, it would violate the ZAP, big time. Remember, the ZAP not only recognizes self-defense, but defense of another...

If it's understood that "in the Belt kids can arm themselves and they can 'divorce' their parents anytime they can make it stick", then the definition of pedophilia as assumed by the discussants in this exchange has got to be considered invalid.  

To the extent that we consider pedophilia as a pathology - a paraphilia not only without reproductive function but objectively demonstrably pernicious in its effects - it is profoundly wrong to speak of adolescents and preadolescents voluntarily involving themselves in sexual activities with adults as "pedophilia," particularly if there is recognition that it is morally correct for them to exercise the ability to arm themselves and to remove themselves from adult control by "divorcing" their parents.

The defense of another human being suffering the aggressive violation of his/her rights is certainly consistent with the ZAP.  No problem.

But is the ZAP not undeniably breached when someone intervenes in another person's voluntary non-violent activities "for his/her own good"?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 22, 2011, 01:08:51 pm
No they're not evil space lizards. They're German. For fracks sake people I can understand the confusion but come on. 


So how do you know that Germans aren't evil space lizards?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 22, 2011, 01:12:30 pm
So how do you know that Germans aren't evil space lizards?

The Germans are space nazis from the future. It's all insanely complicated. Pretty much Hitler and the Nazis went into space after WW2 and built a superpower civilisation out there but decided to repopulate Germany with their own people through time travel thus changing the history of the Earth to better suit them in the future seeing as it was their ancestral home. Didn't really work out.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Brugle on April 22, 2011, 01:50:26 pm
I wager there would be rampant child molestation.

Holt's posts have the highest concentration of psychological projection that I've ever seen.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 22, 2011, 02:21:54 pm
Essentially every modern culture strongly disapproves of the practice.

We only have one modern culture that disapproves of the practice, and the earliest age at which disapproval offically sets in has been rapidly rising.

Belters would probably disapprove also. And probably more so, on the basis of personal ownership and the ZAP. If the sexual contact with the "pre-majority" woman or man were not voluntary, it would violate the ZAP, big time. Remember, the ZAP not only recognizes self-defense, but defense of another...

Most heterosexual pedophilia is consensual.  Lots of pre puberty girls are fascinated by older males.  My nieces had to be frequently restrained, and sometimes I have been on the other end of that issue, I would be minding my own business at the beach or some place, a pre puberty girl starts chatting me up, and then her somewhat embarrassed father or elder brother shows up to haul her off.  In one case, a long way pre puberty.

Obviously, in an anarchy, the age of consent is a parental judgment.  If parents have a great deal of authority over even older children, the society will end up with the rule that a woman is virgin until marriage, and you need to ask dad's permission for the marriage, and if you don't, you are likely to get your balls cut off.  If, as in today's society, very little authority, the girls are going to start screwing at ten and sometimes earlier.   

In most past societies with little or no government, there has been no separate crime of pedophilia, rather the issue has been one of violation of parental authority. 

In past societies, with or without strong government, If there was not much restriction on adult females, there was also not much restriction on pre puberty females.  Our society is extraordinary, remarkable, and unique, in failing to restrict adult females while attempting to restrict younger females.  It is also extraordinary and unique in that it does not stigmatize bastardry.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 22, 2011, 03:39:39 pm
I wager there would be rampant child molestation. After all nothing to stop some guys picking up the kids who run away from home and pimping them out. If they can pull it off when there's a lot of people whose job is to try and stop them. They can certainly pull it off when nobody cares.

To the contrary. Given the conditions prevailing on Ceres and in the Belt as thus far described, there would be as much "child molestation" as there is violent rape - providing, of course, that we hew honestly to the definition of "molestation" as coerced sexual contact.

If there is market demand for the sexual services of children and adolescents of either gender there might well be pimping, but in what way does pimping breach the ZAP?  Let's draw upon Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable (1976): 

Quote
The function of the pimp qua pimp is that of a broker. In the same way as do brokers of real estate, insurance, stock market shares, investments, commodity futures, etc., the pimp serves the function of bringing together two parties to a transaction at less cost than it would take to bring them together without his good offices. Each party to a transaction served by a broker gains from the brokerage, otherwise they would not patronize him. And so it is in the case of the pimp. The customer is spared useless or wasteful waiting and searching time. It is easier to phone a pimp for an assignation with a prostitute than to spend time and effort searching one out. The customer also has the security of knowing that the prostitute comes recommended.

The prostitute benefits too. She gains the time that would otherwise be spent in searching for the customer. She is also protected by the pimp — from undesirable customers, and from policemen, part of whose profession, qua profession, is to prevent prostitutes from engaging in voluntary trade with consenting adults. Assignations arranged by the pimp afford the prostitute additional physical security over street walking or bar hopping.

The prostitute is no more exploited by the pimp than is the manufacturer exploited by the salesman who drums up business for him, or the actress who pays an agent a percentage of her earnings to find new roles for her. In these examples the employer, by means of the employee’s services, earns more than the cost of hiring the employee. If this were not so, the employer/employee relationship would not take place. The relationship of the prostitute to the pimp (employer to employee), contains the same mutual advantages.

The professional pimp performs the necessary function of brokering. In this performance he is if anything more honorable than many other brokers, such as banking, insurance, and the stock market. They rely on restrictive state and federal laws to discourage their competition, whereas the pimp can never use the law to safeguard his position.


It is reasonable to assume - though definitely not likely - that self-emancipated immature people in the Belt might find prostitution a better way to gain valuta than engaging in "honest work" (which we might as well define as labor that is difficult, boringly repetitious, intrinsically uninteresting, and/or otherwise noxious).  The brokering function of the Belter pimp in that light becomes valuable, as does the likelihood that in aggregating maintenance expenditures for a number of prostitutes (child and adult) the pimp provides cost efficiencies that sex workers would tend to find advantageous. 

I would think that child-adult sexual activity in the Belt would be conducted much more pour l'amour o pour le sport than for payment rendered, chiefly because the Belter economy must necessarily be extremely labor-poor when we consider that the absence of government regulation means that politically connected business interests cannot impair competing productive enterprises.  Combine that with the fact that in microgravity the brawn of an adult male is not necessary even for heavy construction, and it can be seen that even a child in the first decade of life should be able to get himself/herself a living without having to subject himself/herself to any arguable prostitutional indignities. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 22, 2011, 03:44:10 pm
It is reasonable to assume - though definitely not likely - that self-emancipated immature people in the Belt might find prostitution a better way to gain valuta than engaging in "honest work" (which we might as well define as labor that is difficult, boringly repetitious, intrinsically uninteresting, and/or otherwise noxious).
Here, I will interject with a damning indictment of our current statist system.

A 15-year-old girl who is running away from home because of sexual abuse is very likely to support herself in our present society through prostitution... because our helpful statist society prevents places like McDonalds from interfering with parental authority by hiring her.

Under an AnCap system, at least she would have an alternative.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 22, 2011, 03:50:33 pm
To be fair child labour laws were put in place to make it possible for children to get an education rather than spending their childhoods working in the factories.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: mellyrn on April 22, 2011, 03:58:57 pm
Quote
To be fair child labour laws were put in place to make it possible for children to get an education rather than spending their childhoods working in the factories.

In another thread, months ago, I quoted a ~1913 survey of some 400 child factory workers, nearly all of whom preferred the factory to school, and a 1980s survey of some 8000 high school students who were asked whether they would choose school or work if they were paid for school at the same rate as their jobs and only 16 chose school.

I believe child labor laws were put in place to restrict the available workforce and keep wages up.  But "to protect the kiddies" plays so well, doesn't it?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 22, 2011, 04:12:12 pm
Aye but an education opens up further opportunities for the child. If they simply worked a factory then they'd never have the chance to do more than that. You'd be lucky if they were even literate. Now to corporate feudalists this is great. The peasants must be poorly educated after all. But to anyone who gives half a fuck about people? It's unacceptable.

Libertarians and Anarchist Capitalists whether they want to admit it or not are simply variants of corporate feudalists. In any system they propose the corps will inevitably become the new kings and lords, the worker will return to being the peasant and the people at the bottom will suffer while those at the top engage in wanton foppery.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 22, 2011, 04:51:15 pm
But is the ZAP not undeniably breached when someone intervenes in another person's voluntary non-violent activities "for his/her own good"?

Okay, I think I have parsed the double negative. "Is the ZAP violated when a third-party uses force to interfere with another person's solo or consensual activity, whether violent or not?"

Yup.

However, if the interference does not use force (e.g., "Stop that or I will tell your mother!"), there is no violation. Whether the activity is non-violent or violent is pretty much irrelevant. If two guys agree to have a fight to the death with 10-pound sledgehammers, more power to them. Hell, if they want to sell tickets, that's their right too.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 22, 2011, 04:53:46 pm
I wager there would be rampant child molestation.

Holt's posts have the highest concentration of psychological projection that I've ever seen.

Consider it a warning. Do not leave your kids alone with Holt!
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 22, 2011, 04:56:23 pm
I wager there would be rampant child molestation.

Holt's posts have the highest concentration of psychological projection that I've ever seen.

Consider it a warning. Do not leave your kids alone with Holt!

I will sell them. Because you love unrestrained capitalism.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 22, 2011, 04:58:21 pm
Obviously, in an anarchy, the age of consent is a parental judgment....

Obviously? How do you figure that?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 22, 2011, 05:00:36 pm
To be fair child labour laws were put in place to make it possible for children to get an education rather than spending their childhoods working in the factories.

Nonsense. It is politically economically impossible for laws criminalizing the productive employment of children to have any beneficial effect whatsoever, or even any practical puissance providing that the value of a child's work product is in any way significant.

For subsistance farmers all over the world, the ability of children in the first decade of life to perform agricultural chores provides a value that so commonly exceeds the cost of that child's upkeep that (except in times of profound famine) it has been customary for farmers to actively foster and adopt such children, male and female.  Recall the "orphan trains" of late 19th Century America. 

Moreover, a child can be extremely productive as a worker without any real impairment of his/her education.  Children employed as actors in the theater, in the film industy, and in television are gainfully engaged in intensively laborious remunerative activities while sustaining no objectively demonstrable adverse consequences with regard to their educations.  Horror stories about "child stars" focus on the gaudy exceptions, not the experiences of most youngsters so engaged. 

The professional educationalists - particularly those employed in government school systems - have increasingly stressed the value of total immersion in the pedagogical process, and in recent years have demanded that children given into their control live lives utterly committed to didactic instruction of one kind or another.  When children are not directly under the command of teachers, they're hammered with homework set to reinforce the ideological conditioning ordained by their captors.   

But the experience of child actors offers proof that very little formal classroom time is really needed to provide youngsters in the first two decades of life with the structured educational experience required to perform intellectually at levels of function equal or superior to those attained by age-peers compelled to suffer through six or eight hours of daily schooling for five days a week, nine months a year. 

The truth about child labor in manufacturing is the same as holds for adult unskilled manual labor in the same venues.  Repetitious "donkey work" functions in factories are far more cost-efficiently fulfilled by way of systems engineering solutions, which also have the advantages of quality enhancement and consistency. 

One of the truths most inconvenient for the professional educationalists (and the vast pork-barrel machinery of government schooling) is that children and adolescents would almost certainly be better off - not only more content but also better educated - were their school days cut in half, their classroom time confined to the inculcation of those skills which best facilitated the individual's acquisition of such knowledge as he or she would tend to find of greatest utility and enjoyment. 

The rest of their time the children can and should put to such purposes as they find most beneficial.  In a free society, ceteris paribus, that would tend to see many of them seeking and engaging in profitable enterprise of one kind or another.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 22, 2011, 05:05:22 pm
Children employed in the film, theatre and television industries also have a habit of turning out completely fucked up.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: VonZorch on April 22, 2011, 05:19:49 pm
I wager there would be rampant child molestation.

Holt's posts have the highest concentration of psychological projection that I've ever seen.

Is that what you call it?  I was thinking Weapons Grade Stupidtm.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 22, 2011, 05:37:15 pm
Is that what you call it?  I was thinking Weapons Grade Stupidtm.

"He disagrees with me ergo he is stoopid!"
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 22, 2011, 05:50:53 pm
Children employed in the film, theatre and television industries also have a habit of turning out completely fracked up.

Heck, I thought I'd pre-empted such idiocy by observing that "Horror stories about 'child stars' focus on the gaudy exceptions, not the experiences of most youngsters so engaged.

In truth, the overwhelming majority of children who have spent years functioning as gainfully employed actors tend to suffer no adverse educational outcomes no matter what the other stressors of their careers might have imposed to leave any particular minority of them "completely fracked up." 

We have to wonder whether there is any statistically significant difference between the incidence of "fracked up" among child actors relative to the general non-acting population of their age-peers, don't we?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Bob G on April 22, 2011, 06:43:14 pm
... if people are afraid to admit in public that they've obtained information from illegal sources, it can be kept out of public debate.

Think Wikileaks and internet conspiracy theorists. Information wants to be free.

And lunatics are convinced that the royal family are evil space lizards who drink human blood.

My hat's off to you, Holt. That's the nonest non sequitur with which you've yet come up .
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 22, 2011, 06:44:27 pm

In another thread, months ago, I quoted a ~1913 survey of some 400 child factory workers, nearly all of whom preferred the factory to school, and a 1980s survey of some 8000 high school students who were asked whether they would choose school or work if they were paid for school at the same rate as their jobs and only 16 chose school.

An example of preferring the devil you don't know. If they had spent as much time working the particular job as they had spent in school, then they could make an informed choice.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Bob G on April 22, 2011, 07:02:03 pm
et cetera,et cetera,
Libertarians and Anarchist Capitalists whether they want to admit it or not are simply variants of corporate feudalists.
et ad nauseam cetera


Continually repeating your assumptions and assertions does not make them any more true.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 22, 2011, 07:05:37 pm
My hat's off to you, Holt. That's the nonest non sequitur with which you've yet come up .

Knew it would go over your head. Anarchists have trouble seeing more than the surface of anything.
Ok lets explain it all for you.

You have Four groups.
Groups A, B and C live together in one social structure. Group D lives on its own far away.

Group A tells groups B and C what to do. But for the most part Group C shirks any responsibility and constantly says Group A are out to kill them despite this being proven false consistently. Group B therefore tends to ignore whatever Group C says because chances are its incorrect.

Group A decides it wants to hassle Group D for some reason. So it does so. Group B due to its circumstances is unable to become directly aware of this while Group C can, Group C then spreads this information to members of Group B saying Group A are finally showing their true colours. Naturally Group B ignores Group C because they have been proven to be idiots in the past.
As such Group A is free to continue hassling Group D and because Group A has been less consistent in terms of being incorrect than Group C, they are believed when they give "their side of the story".

Group D cries. Group B doesn't care and continues with its collective lives. Group C doesn't actually care either and was just looking for ammunition to bring Group B to their side and thus they move onto their next story. Group A laughs and laughs and laughs.

Continually repeating your assumptions and assertions does not make them any more true.

You are either that or a fool. There could be no other result to the establishment of an anarchist society. After all we're social creatures at heart.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Brugle on April 22, 2011, 07:09:27 pm
To be fair child labour laws were put in place to make it possible for children to get an education rather than spending their childhoods working in the factories.

No, that is the excuse believed only by the terminally naive.  The actual reason for child labor laws was to increase the power of government officials allied with labor union leaders.

Besides, you confuse government schools with education.  Government schools are designed and operated to turn curious children into "good citizens", which means preventing education.  Read any of the books by John Taylor Gatto--some are online.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 22, 2011, 07:11:59 pm
No, that is the excuse believed only by the terminally naive.  The actual reason for child labor laws was to increase the power of government officials allied with labor union leaders.

Besides, you confuse government schools with education.  Government schools are designed and operated to turn curious children into "good citizens", which means preventing education.  Read any of the books by John Taylor Gatto--some are online.


You know what? You're clearly right. The rise of literacy and numeracy along with general knowledge from schools is all an evil scheme. You figured it all out. Bravo.
Ignorance is bliss and they seek to rob you of that bliss.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 22, 2011, 07:39:39 pm
You know what? You're clearly right. The rise of literacy and numeracy along with general knowledge from schools is all an evil scheme. You figured it all out. Bravo.
Ignorance is bliss and they seek to rob you of that bliss.


If only there had been such a "rise of literacy and numeracy" as the result of the imposition of compulsory, coercively-funded government schooling in these United States.  Qualitatively and quantitatively, the effects of forcibly substituting political indoctrination for genuine education were a degradation in prevailing levels of "literacy and numeracy." 

Among the works of educator John Taylor Gatto fully available online is the complete text of his book The Underground History of American Education (see http://tinyurl.com/4zjoj).  From this source I quote:

Quote
Abundant data exist to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent, wherever such a thing mattered. Yet compulsory schooling existed nowhere.

So what accounts for your ignorance, Holt?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Outsider on April 22, 2011, 08:11:29 pm
About the Cerereans are pedophiles strategy:

Sandy could address this better than I could because its his universe, but I can think of three reasons why that might not work very well:

It's not graphic enough. Stating that something like that would be legal under some conditions (and I have no idea how the Cerereans and Belters would handle it) is not the same as showing it. Kicking a man on the ground is a strong visual display, and is what put a couple of L.A. cops behind bars for the Rodney King incident. Everyone knows what NAMBLA wants and does, but they aren't thrown in jail unless there's hard evidence.

I was assuming that the UW govt doesn't just spread the story (though that might be part of the initial campaign)  but would collect a body of dirt (video, etc) through the employment of agents recording the subculture.   There's the strong visual display that really stirs up the hoi palloi.  



Ceres has a highly limiting feature, guns at an early age. When a ten year-old has a gun and is liable to use it, pedophiles, I imagine, would think more than twice about indulging in a little forced January - June romance.

How early of an age?  I agree that trying to physically force a precocious* and armed 10-12 year old into anything is probably a losing proposition for Pedobear, but there will be some younger age at which the child is not so aware of their rights and isnt effectively armed.  Younger children are also more easily manipulated by adults, and thus physical force would probably not need to be employed anyway.  Small children, unfortunately in this case, have an innate desire to please adults, especially ones they know.



I'm not at all sure that the UW would have a good track record to compare to the Cerereans and Belters. Dictators tend to concentrate on keeping themselves in power and less on protecting the hoi polloi, and with power comes a sense of superiority; many of those who rule might well have unsavory appetites of their own.

Also true.  But (again with the but) you have to remember that their propoaganda campaign isnt being targetted at a group that has good (or any) access to unbiased factual information on the excesses of the UW government or its members.  One need not be virtuous, but just appear virtuous to the mass of the people.  
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 22, 2011, 08:59:17 pm
Quote
Aardvark
Ceres has a highly limiting feature, guns at an early age. When a ten year-old has a gun and is liable to use it, pedophiles, I imagine, would think more than twice about indulging in a little forced January - June romance.

Quote
How early of an age?  I agree that trying to physically force a precocious* and armed 10-12 year old into anything is probably a losing proposition for Pedobear, but there will be some younger age at which the child is not so aware of their rights and isnt effectively armed.  Younger children are also more easily manipulated by adults, and thus physical force would probably not need to be employed anyway.  Small children, unfortunately in this case, have an innate desire to please adults, especially ones they know.

Yeah, that is a concern, and I don't have an answer for it. If a three year-old child decides to pitch a fit and leave home, what's to stop him? Common sense would say that there must be some agreed on age of consent, some ruling authority, but what would that be? The ancient Romans decided that girls were adults at 14. What would it be for Ceres? 

Quote
Aardvark:
I'm not at all sure that the UW would have a good track record to compare to the Cerereans and Belters. Dictators tend to concentrate on keeping themselves in power and less on protecting the hoi polloi, and with power comes a sense of superiority; many of those who rule might well have unsavory appetites of their own.

Quote
Also true.  But (again with the but) you have to remember that their propoaganda campaign isnt being targetted at a group that has good (or any) access to unbiased factual information on the excesses of the UW government or its members.  One need not be virtuous, but just appear virtuous to the mass of the people. 

That was my first thought, as well. An advanced future dictatorship, I would have thought, would be able to clamp down on outside sources of information, feeding their subjects only what they wanted then to see and hear, but for the EFT universe, this appears not to be the case. Illegal receivers on Earth can pick up the outside world, so there are other, apparently significant voices for the peons to listen to.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 22, 2011, 11:05:31 pm
Quote
How early of an age?  I agree that trying to physically force a precocious* and armed 10-12 year old into anything is probably a losing proposition for Pedobear, but there will be some younger age at which the child is not so aware of their rights and isnt effectively armed.  Younger children are also more easily manipulated by adults, and thus physical force would probably not need to be employed anyway.  Small children, unfortunately in this case, have an innate desire to please adults, especially ones they know.

Yeah, that is a concern, and I don't have an answer for it. If a three year-old child decides to pitch a fit and leave home, what's to stop him? Common sense would say that there must be some agreed on age of consent, some ruling authority,

Not only would an anarchic society not have some agreed on age of consent, nor ruling authority, but lots of societies got on fine without any clearly defined age of consent, nor any state intervention on such matters.

Parental violence against badly behaved children generally has social support, because people assume the parent intends to do the child good, even if he is using a large stick to do it with.  Governments tend to be more interventionist than neighbors, because they think that all their subjects are children.

Throughout most of history, the rule has usually been that girl children were married off by their parents as soon as they were potentially capable of getting pregnant, while boys got married when they were able to earn a living and support children of their own - which was five to fifteen years older than the age of marriage for girls.  For the lower classes, a romantic marriage was a thirteen year old girl marrying an eighteen year old boy, and a practical marriage was a thirteen year old girl marrying a twenty four year old man.  For the aristocracy, seventeen was more typical, probably because they could afford the manpower to guard the girl's chastity, so could wait a little longer for the girl to be fully ripe.  William the Marshal married a seventeen year old heiress at the age of forty three, which seems fairly typical for the ruling elite.  A wealthy heiress was going to marry a successful warrior, someone who had personally killed lots of people with his own sword and led men in battle, and it often took a while for a successful warrior to demonstrate success.

Contraception will probably result in different rules.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 23, 2011, 12:21:49 am
Quote
Not only would an anarchic society not have some agreed on age of consent, nor ruling authority, but lots of societies got on fine without any clearly defined age of consent, nor any state intervention on such matters.

Okay ... so who makes the call if sex with someone is okay or a crime? Can a girl of 6, 8, or 10 reasonably make that decision for herself? A girl isn't given a gun when she's five, so does she reach the age of responsibility when she gets her piece? What about coercion or extenuating circumstances, a statute of limitations beyond which one couldn't blow a past rapist away? If there isn't an age of consent, what is the determining factor? If NAMBLA decided to relocate to Ceres, would they have the time of their lives? These aren't pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals, these would be legitimate issues.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 23, 2011, 01:38:50 am
Okay ... so who makes the call if sex with someone is okay or a crime? Can a girl of 6, 8, or 10 reasonably make that decision for herself? A girl isn't given a gun when she's five, so does she reach the age of responsibility when she gets her piece? What about coercion or extenuating circumstances, a statute of limitations beyond which one couldn't blow a past rapist away? If there isn't an age of consent, what is the determining factor? If NAMBLA decided to relocate to Ceres, would they have the time of their lives? These aren't pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals, these would be legitimate issues.

To what extent is sex with anyone a crime?

Is mutally agreeable sexual stimulation as injurious - even potentially - as offering someone a stick of chewing gum?

There is a powerful and altogether unthinking presumption in present-day Anglophone cultures that sexual pleasure is morally, psychologically, and even physically deleterious, not only for putatively incompetent legal infants but also for adults. Why is that?

When one speaks about "a girl of 5, 8, or 10" and her ability to "reasonably make that decision [to engage in sexual activity] for herself," there seems never to be any thought given to whether or not her voluntary participation in sexual intercourse is going to cause her injury of any kind. Is such injury an inevitable or even a high-probability outcome? Fixating on the potential for adult male pudenda to lacerate, abrade, or otherwise damage immature female penetralia blanks out appreciation of the fact that in consensual interaction engaged for the mutual pleasure of the participants, the onset of any such damage would almost certainly cause pain sufficient to make the partners moderate or even end the activity.

If the physically more powerful individual overrides the protestations of the party dissenting (for whatever reason), consent is withdrawn and the contact becomes a matter of violent aggression.  That's rape, and this is true whether the participants are age-peers or not. 

As has been already considered in Escape From Terra, the injured party's right of retaliation against violent aggressors knows no temporal limitations, and to speak of one in this context makes no sense. But there must be the initiation of violent aggression involved in order to justify a person's effort "to blow a past rapist away." If a female (or male) comes the next day - or a year later - to the conclusion that she (or he) has the unarbitrated right to kill someone who took sexual advantage of the fact that "it got a little drunk out that night," the fabric of even an AnCap society isn't going to be able to sustain the strain. 

Finally, it must be understood as an inevitability that potential future members of NAMBLA would be among the first people to relocate to Ceres.  They'd be some of the earliest pioneers.  Given the persecution they suffer, can there be anyone on Earth with greater incentive to get out from under tyrannical nanny-state government?

Hell, they're been on Ceres and scattered throughout the Belt, going peaceably about their business, since before the first EFT story arc opened.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 23, 2011, 05:28:51 am
Quote
Not only would an anarchic society not have some agreed on age of consent, nor ruling authority, but lots of societies got on fine without any clearly defined age of consent, nor any state intervention on such matters.

Okay ... so who makes the call if sex with someone is okay or a crime?

Family - they being the ones that have to do something about it if they think it is a crime.  See the story of Abelard and Heloise.  No one else is likely to intervene.

Sandy thinks an anarchic society would be highly progressive.  I doubt this, because one's relationship with groups that applied organized violence would be mediated by the income earning members of the household, usually the husband, thus parental authority would be enforced by violence if necessary, and patriarchy would tend to be enforced.   A child that wanted to divorce his parents would need to have his own job and income first.  I predict that having sex with a dependent female without parental permission would generally be punished by death or castration or similar, regardless of the age of the female, and regardless of whether she consented or not.

Because organized violence has to be paid for, I predict that an anarchic society would be rather socially conservative, because parental authority, and patriarchal authority, would be stronger.  He who pays the piper, calls the tune.  The author of this cartoon, however, thinks otherwise.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 23, 2011, 06:29:07 am
Quote
Family - they being the ones that have to do something about it if they think it is a crime.

That's what I would think. Parents have responsibility to the children and to society to protect and raise their children well. A socialist society like the UW would control their upbringing, but on Ceres, it would be like anything else, taking personal responsibility. They would likely determine when he or she was grown enough to carry a weapon, and therefor have full rights in the society. The child, of course, if he thought his parents were taking too long, might seek arbitration, but I doubt that would happen too often.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 23, 2011, 08:08:04 am
Okay ... so who makes the call if sex with someone is okay or a crime?

Family - they being the ones that have to do something about it if they think it is a crime.  See the story of Abelard and Heloise.  No one else is likely to intervene.

Sandy thinks an anarchic society would be highly progressive.  I doubt this, because one's relationship with groups that applied organized violence would be mediated by the income earning members of the household, usually the husband, thus parental authority would be enforced by violence if necessary, and patriarchy would tend to be enforced.   A child that wanted to divorce his parents would need to have his own job and income first.  I predict that having sex with a dependent female without parental permission would generally be punished by death or castration or similar, regardless of the age of the female, and regardless of whether she consented or not.

Because organized violence has to be paid for, I predict that an anarchic society would be rather socially conservative, because parental authority, and patriarchal authority, would be stronger.  He who pays the piper, calls the tune.  The author of this cartoon, however, thinks otherwise.

At the outset, I'd like to recommend that non-Americans bear in mind the fact that the term "progressive" has over the past century become in these United States yet another synonym for "authoritarian," and really should never be used when the intention is to characterize a political, social, or economic disposition toward maximal individual autonomy in any aspect of human action.

"Progressive" is also the term used in clinical oncology to describe a malignancy which continues to grow - and will eventually kill the patient - after surgery and chemotherapy has failed to destroy it.

That aside, it should be realized that a person seeking "to divorce his parents" and thereby secure a condition of emancipation does not "need to have his own job and income first."  Throughout human history, there have been plenty of children and adolescents who have (since the foundation of Ur, in defiance of prevailing law treating them as the property of their parents) simply removed themselves from their families of origin and made their way in society.  Whether they rely on friendly householders ("You can crash on my couch") or do the My Side of the Mountain bit, they leave, and there's damn-all that authoritarian adult family members can practically undertake to prevent them from doing so, or to bring them back and keep them under restraint when these legal infants evince their determination to get away.

Besides, just who the devil is supposed to have the lawful authority - especially in an AnCap society - to utter a determination that a self-emancipating child or adolescent has a "job and income" sufficient to validate his/her decision to divorce his/her parents, anyway?

Not that this would be much of a problem even for a healthy child in the latest year or two of the first decade of life.  Ceres and the Belt by definition comprise a labor-poor economy, where there is great demand for even the most marginally capable minds and eyes and hands.  Moreover, it is an economy functioning in microgravity, where the brute strength of an adult or late adolescent body is not necessary to undertake economically valuable work.  Without statute law to impair people from engaging the services of such youngsters (and without civil government to tax away, directly or indirectly, seven-eighths of the value created by the individual's productive efforts, as presently prevails in these United States), the resources at the personal disposal of a nine-year-old child would be sufficient for him/her to secure himself/herself an independent living, and the pretense of family ownership be damned. 

Sam, your prediction "that having sex with a dependent female without parental permission would generally be punished by death or castration or similar, regardless of the age of the female" in the Belt or any other AnCap society is simply idiotic, first because the foundation of such a society is the Zero Aggression Principle (is "having sex" with anyone necessarily aggression?), second because the issue of dependency in a highly productive labor-poor economy where children can get their own living and support themselves more effectively than even during the days of Horatio Alger is something you obstinately refuse to consider.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: enemyofthestate on April 23, 2011, 09:58:49 am
Holt's posts have the highest concentration of psychological projection that I've ever seen.
I wondered about that too but it is more likely he is just trolling.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 23, 2011, 12:04:48 pm
Quote
Family - they being the ones that have to do something about it if they think it is a crime.

That's what I would think. Parents have responsibility to the children and to society to protect and raise their children well. A socialist society like the UW would control their upbringing, but on Ceres, it would be like anything else, taking personal responsibility. They would likely determine when he or she was grown enough to carry a weapon, and therefor have full rights in the society. The child, of course, if he thought his parents were taking too long, might seek arbitration, but I doubt that would happen too often.

You folks place a lot of value on weapons and having them. Suggests certain psychological disorders. Perhaps you were bullied as children?

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 23, 2011, 01:06:37 pm
Is such injury an inevitable or even a high-probability outcome?
The default assumption in our culture is that sex is a very emotionally intense experience, and thus females are in constant grave danger from men who would exploit them for their own gratification.

Because it's the woman who gets pregnant, women tend, more than men, to reject the view of sex as being legitimate as a mere physical pleasure, and instead see it as belonging to a context of a committed romantic relationship.

Traditionally, of course, our views derive from a situation that no longer exists to the same extent in the developed world. A peasant farmer family keeps its sons home to work on the farm; the daughters can't work as hard, so they're married off. If one loses her virginity, that becomes impossible.

While we no longer quite have the strict morality of those times, that still very much forms the basis of our society's thinking in these matters.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 23, 2011, 01:16:26 pm
Hi Sam,

In the past, I have appreciated most of your posts. Lately, however, you seem to be posting a lot more rants with a lot less thought. That may be just my perception, though.

In the instant case, I think you reasoning is based on too many unsupported assumptions. You wrote:

Family [makes the call on what is sexual permitted] - they being the ones that have to do something about it if they think it is a crime.  See the story of Abelard and Heloise.  No one else is likely to intervene.

Bad assumption. In our current society, everyone is intervening all the time. Not only via force of law, but via voluntary non-violent means. Examples are private organizations which help rehabilitate alcoholics, junkies, prostitutes, etc. There are organizations that provide shelter, aid and assistance to battered women, orphans, street people and disaster victims. Why should it be any different in the Belt?

People help and protect other people; it is our nature. I personally know of families who have taken in abused or outcast minors. I have taken in people under threat of domestic violence and even under credible threat of death. Chances are, you have too. True, most families are likely to be the first to intervene to protect a child (unless they are the abusers), but do not count out friends, neighbors or concerned strangers.

Sandy thinks an anarchic society would be highly progressive.  I doubt this, because one's relationship with groups that applied organized violence would be mediated by the income earning members of the household, usually the husband...

Bad assumption. I'm not sure what your "groups that applied organized violence" is all about, but in a free society, everyone is more likely to be able to earn their own income and thus, not be under the dictatorial control of the patriarch you seem to envision. If our society were free, I would not hesitate to hire a competent 10-year old to operate farm machinery. If that were permitted, the 10-year old would be capable of living independently.

A child that wanted to divorce his parents would need to have his own job and income first. 

Bad assumption: Do you really believe that in a free society, their wouldn't be social organizations to provide the sort of aid to such children as already exists today? I'm sure Reggie's "King's Court Unfortunates Fund" would step up to the plate. Where to Bobcat send Robyn when he dropped her off on Ceres? Anyway, once Robyn's plight was discovered she had job offers immediately.

I predict that having sex with a dependent female without parental permission would generally be punished by death or castration or similar, regardless of the age of the female, and regardless of whether she consented or not.

Well, see you in court. I wouldn't expect the killers or castrators not to face consequences. In the case of castration, the castrato could bring an action in arbitration himself. In the case of killing, actions could be brought by family, friends or whomever. In a future arc, I plan to introduce an ACLU-like organization that would have an advocate call the Speaker for the Dead, that would bring suits in arbitration in wrongful death cases.

Because organized violence has to be paid for, I predict that an anarchic society would be rather socially conservative, because parental authority, and patriarchal authority, would be stronger.  He who pays the piper, calls the tune.  The author of this cartoon, however, thinks otherwise.

Since this prediction is based on your erroneous assumption of patriarchal authority, it does not stand.

Also, I find the use of "comic" to be a bit disrespectful. I think "graphic novel" or "graphic series" is a bit pretentious, but I would appreciate at least "comic strip." It is acceptable for historic reason. Also, remember, this strip is derived from prose short stories, which you might find more informative.

http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Human-Space-Sandy-Sandfort/dp/0979987741/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1280156129&sr=8-3
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 23, 2011, 02:37:09 pm

If our society were free, I would not hesitate to hire a competent 10-year old to operate farm machinery. If that were permitted, the 10-year old would be capable of living independently.

I can imagine that. One thing I notice is that currently dangerous farm machinery itself tends not to be real fragile. So a farmer who gets badly injured or killed in an accident will likely still have a machine that is undamaged or can be repaired cheaply. If you hire someone to use it and he is injured but you are not considered liable, then you haven't lost very much.

I find myself imagining something different for Ceres, something which would not necessarily be so. Say it was automated farm machinery. Basicly you tell it what to do and it does what you say. This makes some sense to me -- if automation is reasonably cheap and there's a labor shortage, why pay someone to follow simple orders when a machine can follow them better?

In that case, you would not be paying a 10-year-old to operate the machinery, you would be paying him to program the machinery. He would have to know what you want and convert it into terms the machinery understood, clearing up any little bugs in the specifications that might cause bad results to the crops or to the machinery itself.

And that's something that I would tend to prefer to do for myself, though I might trust an exceptional 10-year-old to do it.

I can easily imagine that whole classes of jobs might simply not exist -- particularly things which are highly repetitive; things that don't take much judgement, things that are relatively easy to program.

At the same time, if I owned 1000 farms I wouldn't want to set them all up the same way and use the same software to automate all of them. I might prefer to give 1000 people part ownership and watch what they do. 2000 eyes checking the software is better than just 2. Lots of chances for people to make improvements. And the more they redo it their own way the less chance that some bug wipes out everybody's production at once.

Today we haven't worked out the issues of automation. By EFT time they might have solutions. I don't know how it would work. Maybe 10-year-olds would tend to have the sort of judgement that would make them valuable employees. Maybe they could run around and find problems that automated systems didn't know to look for.

I can't expect anybody to give a definitive solution today, but I can easily imagine there would be a labor shortage and that the sort of labor we had shortages of might be something that we currently don't even notice.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 23, 2011, 03:13:40 pm
So the ten year old would just have the skills you need by magic huh?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 23, 2011, 04:22:34 pm
Throughout human history, there have been plenty of children and adolescents who have (since the foundation of Ur, in defiance of prevailing law treating them as the property of their parents) simply removed themselves from their families of origin and made their way in society.  Whether they rely on friendly householders ("You can crash on my couch") or do the My Side of the Mountain bit, they leave, and there's damn-all that authoritarian adult family members can practically undertake to prevent them from doing so, or to bring them back and keep them under restraint when these legal infants evince their determination to get away.

For boys, this is not a problem, but for girls, absent a welfare state, the likely outcome is that a low IQ poor impulse control girl eventually returns to her parents with two fatherless children by two different thugs for the grandparents to look after, and that a high IQ high impulse control girl winds up with thirty abortions, thirty cats, and her parents never become grandparents.  Either way, because of the notorious tendency of women, especially younger women, to make poor sexual choices, parents may choose to use forceful means to exert parental authority - and in an anarchic society, no one has obvious authority to prevent them.

This is not only a problem with low impulse control ten year old girls.  Twenty year old women with PhDs in feminism are notorious for making astonishingly incompetent sexual choices, though in their case the likely outcome is lack of children, rather than fatherless children.  Indeed, the more they write essays on the topic and study literature on the topic, the worse their actual choices, though having high impulse control, they generally get abortions and in the end, around thirty five or so, collect cats for company.

I suspect the fifteen year old girl with two children by two different thugs is in the end likely to be better off than the twenty four year old with a dozen abortions from a dozen men, in which case the parents are perhaps even more justified in hauling the eighteen year old home and giving her a good spanking before she becomes that twenty four year old than they are hauling the twelve year old home and giving her a good spanking before she becomes that fifteen year old.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 23, 2011, 04:34:24 pm
If a three year-old child decides to pitch a fit and leave home, what's to stop him?

I don't know what others would do, but at age four my mother punished me for something which I thought was unfair. I went to my room, packed a bindle and then told her that I was leaving home. She said, "I'm sorry to hear that. We will miss you. Here, let me fix you some sandwiches to take." I took the sandwiches, went into the woods, ate the sandwiches and was home before dark. So based on personal experience, I think calling the kids bluff is pretty effective. (Holt's problem was that when he tried that, his family moved to a different "estate.")  ;D


Common sense would say that there must be some agreed on age of consent, some ruling authority...

Why do you think that is common sense? Everybody is different. Why must there be some "agreed on age of consent"? As my old printer used to say, "Nothing's 'gotta be.'"

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 23, 2011, 05:02:31 pm
The religious groups would enforce their opinion of sexual politics on others
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 23, 2011, 06:10:01 pm
I
Quote
don't know what others would do, but at age four my mother punished me for something which I thought was unfair. I went to my room, packed a bindle and then told her that I was leaving home. She said, "I'm sorry to hear that. We will miss you. Here, let me fix you some sandwiches to take." I took the sandwiches, went into the woods, ate the sandwiches and was home before dark. So based on personal experience, I think calling the kids bluff is pretty effective. (Holt's problem was that when he tried that, his family moved to a different "estate.")

Not the same situation. On Ceres, work at all levels is readily available, and there aren't child labor laws (that I know of). A child could conceivably find work by standing in a corridor with a sign on him. And yes, there is something wrong with Holt. I've seen it before: when one is indoctrinated with nonsense, reason cannot penetrate. Or perhaps it's become a custom to shake babies over there to make more socialists. :)

Quote
Quote from: Aardvark on April 22, 2011, 07:59:17 PM
Common sense would say that there must be some agreed on age of consent, some ruling authority...

Quote
Why do you think that is common sense? Everybody is different. Why must there be some "agreed on age of consent"? As my old printer used to say, "Nothing's 'gotta be.'"

Read it as "... some agreed upon age of consent or some ruling authority ..." (and so forth) The comma in this case takes the place of a missing word in a continuing thought.

Why do I think it's common sense? Maybe because it works rather well in other societies? Because it sets a goal that both child and parents can agree upon? Because on Ceres an arbitrator is used to solve conflicts, and so might be able to resolve a conflict of manumission? Because rights and responsibilities sometimes conflict with each other?

Ex: a parent feels responsible for her child and thinks that he is too young and irresponsible to be on his own.  She has a right to raise her child as she wishes, and the responsibility to do it well. He has rights as a person: he owns himself. Obviously there is potential conflict when these rights and responsibilities overlap.

If you don't think that's "common sense," then what's your solution? This is your universe. Instead of me guessing in the dark, why don't you simply state how your universe works?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 23, 2011, 06:15:21 pm
Well I'd rather be shaken into an insane socialist than pumped full of steroids to make me an insane capitalist.
Least then I can say I care about my fellow man.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 23, 2011, 09:10:58 pm
The religious groups would enforce their opinion of sexual politics on others

Oh? Better be wearing their holy body armor, oughtn't they?

Action taken to "enforce their opinion of sexual politics on others" would likely get 'em kilt deader'n Hamilton.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 23, 2011, 09:42:42 pm
Quote
Tucci78: At the outset, I'd like to recommend that non-Americans bear in mind the fact that the term "progressive" has over the past century become in these United States yet another synonym for "authoritarian," and really should never be used when the intention is to characterize a political, social, or economic disposition toward maximal individual autonomy in any aspect of human action.

Actually, it's come to mean "socialist." Originally they called themselves "socialists" in the 30's. That became a bad name, so they switched to "progressive." That turned sour after a time, so they switched to "liberal," which has become a synonym for "socialist" again. They're back to "progressive," now. Hillary Clinton describes herself as a "Progressive."
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 23, 2011, 09:46:56 pm
Quote
Holt: Well I'd rather be shaken into an insane socialist than pumped full of steroids to make me an insane capitalist.

Then consider yourself "shaken, not sterred." ;)

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 23, 2011, 10:11:59 pm
Actually, [the term "progressive" has] come to mean "socialist." Originally they called themselves "socialists" in the 30's. That became a bad name, so they switched to "progressive." That turned sour after a time, so they switched to "liberal," which has become a synonym for "socialist" again. They're back to "progressive," now. Hillary Clinton describes herself as a "Progressive."

All sorts of problems with nomenclature among the nomenklatura, aren't there?

I hold that "authoritarian" subsumes "socialist" satisfactorily, as well as "mercantilist" and "monarchist" and "theocrat" and "conservative." 

Ever since the Blue faction of our great permanently incumbent bipartisan Boot-On-Your-Neck Party enacted Obamacare over the enraged objections of most of their own core constituencies, I've called them the "National Socialist Democrat American Party" (NSDAP) because they've proven that there's precisely nothing "democratic" about them.

And I won't use the word "Liberal" in discussing them without capitalizing the "L" and maintaining the expression between quotation marks.

Conscientious taxonomic precision is so important, don'tcha think?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 23, 2011, 11:05:53 pm
Why do I think it's common sense? Maybe because it works rather well in other societies?

Age of consent, around the world, is generally sixteen to eighteen, even in Muslim cultures, which uniformity is odd, since when I was a kid it was generally twelve to fourteen.  Further, notwithstanding this world wide law, girls usually start having sex at eleven to fourteen, making most of them lawbreakers, so I would not say the law is working well.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 23, 2011, 11:34:50 pm
Ex: a parent feels responsible for her child and thinks that he is too young and irresponsible to be on his own.  She has a right to raise her child as she wishes, and the responsibility to do it well. He has rights as a person: he owns himself. Obviously there is potential conflict when these rights and responsibilities overlap.

I don't think that conflict can be resolved by having some fixed definite age, partly because in an anarchic society there is no one to fix it, partly because in our society that age is being massively ignored.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: GlennWatson on April 23, 2011, 11:38:08 pm
notwithstanding this world wide law, girls usually start having sex at eleven to fourteen,

Do you really believe girls "usually start having sex" between 11 and 14?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 24, 2011, 12:27:11 am
Do you really believe girls "usually start having sex" between 11 and 14?

One aggregation of available U.S. information (see http://tinyurl.com/2ylwsl, published 2005) states that the then-prevailing median age at first intercourse was 16.9 years for males and 17.4 years for females with the percentages of adolescents reporting first sexual intercourse below the age of 14 trending downward over the preceding decade.

Whether or not the assessments drawn upon for this review publication sought information on what might be called "sex play" (non-fecundative activities not characterized in the respondents' opinions as "intercourse" and yet still undeniably sexual) I offer no opinion. 

Inasmuch as we had in these United States a chief of government who tried seriously to contend that irrumation - getting a blowjob - was not "sex with that woman," the proclivity of American children and teenagers to consider mutual masturbation, oral stimulation, frottage, and even anal copulation as not being real sexual intercourse is understandable.

Do significant numbers of "legal infants" begin undertaking non-orthosexual stimulatory activities - those not involving immissio penis - with partners (both of the same and the opposite gender) as early as in the first decade of life?

Absolutely.  Get an honest answer out of any pediatrician, gynecologist, family doctor, emergency medicine practitioner, or epidemiologist.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 24, 2011, 03:29:51 am
notwithstanding this world wide law, girls usually start having sex at eleven to fourteen,

Do you really believe girls "usually start having sex" between 11 and 14?

Yes.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 24, 2011, 03:32:35 am
One aggregation of available U.S. information (see http://tinyurl.com/2ylwsl, published 2005) states that the then-prevailing median age at first intercourse was 16.9 years for males and 17.4 years for females

It does not seem at all plausible that age of first intercourse was older for females than males.

Claimed age of first intercourse might be older, given that actual age was usually illegal.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 24, 2011, 06:58:41 am
Quote
Tucci78: At the outset, I'd like to recommend that non-Americans bear in mind the fact that the term "progressive" has over the past century become in these United States yet another synonym for "authoritarian," and really should never be used when the intention is to characterize a political, social, or economic disposition toward maximal individual autonomy in any aspect of human action.

Actually, it's come to mean "socialist." Originally they called themselves "socialists" in the 30's. That became a bad name, so they switched to "progressive." That turned sour after a time, so they switched to "liberal," which has become a synonym for "socialist" again. They're back to "progressive," now. Hillary Clinton describes herself as a "Progressive."

Bloody yanks. There is a reason the rest of the world just shakes its head at your internal politics.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 24, 2011, 07:23:25 am
Bloody yanks. There is a reason the rest of the world just shakes its head at your internal politics.
The word "progressive" has many meanings.

Thus, in Canada, the federal Conservative party was for many years the Progressive Conservative Party, in an attempt to convince Canadians that they weren't hopelessly reactionary stuck-in-the-mud quasi-Luddites.

In the United States, the word "progressive" has a specific historical meaning, as referencing the LaFollette Progressives.

But it acquired other meanings as well, and not due to it being misused by any mainstream American source. The Communist Party and its supporters used the term "progressive" to refer to those who, basically, did not regard the U. S. S. R. as a threat to American liberty. That euphemistic use can reasonably be expected to turn it into a curseword.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 24, 2011, 07:53:18 am
notwithstanding this world wide law, girls usually start having sex at eleven to fourteen,

Do you really believe girls "usually start having sex" between 11 and 14?

This is Sam you're talking to.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 24, 2011, 08:10:11 am
Socialist/Social Democratic/Liberal/Progressive/Democrat: it's all the same thing, now, whatever they call themselves. It's become obvious that the last conservative Democrats are gone and the moderate Democrats are almost gone. The Democrats vote as a unified socialist bloc, with the occasional few unnecessary votes split off for cover.

No kidding, that is the unvarnished state of the US Democratic party as it exists today. This business of rotating names has always been about creating a plausible euphemism for something less palatable, and the mainstream media, who are 90+ Democratic, are only more than willing to cover for them, especially lately. I have the impression that they are expending their last bit of credibility so they can finish the job before the nation can recover its senses.

Could the UW be the product of the Democratic vision joined with the rest of a socialist/totalitarian nightmare world? It's possible. The UW doesn't seem to be quite as bad as it could be. I would have thought, with the high-tech tools at their disposal, the UW would consolidated their power better, but who knows, there could be a revolution at the end of this trip.  
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: qoheleth on April 24, 2011, 08:12:45 am
I knew pointing ALL of the cameras at the hotel was a mistake.

You got to it before I did.  I was wondering why "all those cameras" didn't pick up the exchange between Ted and Rhonda.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 24, 2011, 08:25:45 am
Quote
Bloody yanks. There is a reason the rest of the world just shakes its head at your internal politics.

Bloody Eunics: the worlds' most destructive and insane philosophies come from there: Communism, Fascism, and Post-modernism. :)

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: GlennWatson on April 24, 2011, 08:48:32 am
Quote
Bloody yanks. There is a reason the rest of the world just shakes its head at your internal politics.

Bloody Eunics: the worlds' most destructive and insane philosophies come from there: Communism, Fascism, and Post-modernism. :)



I agree.  The very idea that Europe after WWI and WWI somehow feels superior to the United States of America in the political or any other realm is laughable.  Let them giggle if they like.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: mellyrn on April 24, 2011, 08:55:36 am
Quote
It does not seem at all plausible that age of first intercourse was older for females than males.

How odd.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 24, 2011, 08:58:14 am
Socialist/Social Democratic/Liberal/Progressive/Democrat: it's all the same thing, now, whatever they call themselves. It's become obvious that the last conservative Democrats are gone and the moderate Democrats are almost gone. The Democrats vote as a unified socialist bloc, with the occasional few unnecessary votes split off for cover.

No kidding, that is the unvarnished state of the US Democratic party as it exists today. This business of rotating names has always been about creating a plausible euphemism for something less palatable, and the mainstream media, who are 90+ Democratic, are only more than willing to cover for them, especially lately. I have the impression that they are expending their last bit of credibility so they can finish the job before the nation can recover its senses.

Could the UW be the product of the Democratic vision joined with the rest of a socialist/totalitarian nightmare world? It's possible. The UW doesn't seem to be quite as bad as it could be. I would have thought, with the high-tech tools at their disposal, the UW would consolidated their power better, but who knows, there could be a revolution at the end of this trip.  

Could certainly be a product of the USA. Unlikely to be a product of European social democracies though. They demand accountability far too often.
Remember Americans work on a different (and incorrect) political scale in comparison to the rest of the world.

Bloody Eunics: the worlds' most destructive and insane philosophies come from there: Communism, Fascism, and Post-modernism. :)
I agree.  The very idea that Europe after WWI and WWI somehow feels superior to the United States of America in the political or any other realm is laughable.  Let them giggle if they like.

Well communism is closer to anarchy than most others. A classless society where all work for the benefit of everyone with no leaders, etc? Yeah fairly close to anarchy just without that self centered slant you all love. Remember Americans have a big blind spot in regards to Communism in that they are incapable of discerning between Stalinism, Socialist tendencies and Communism. Therefore their opinions on the subject are irrelevant.

Fascism? The idea that we are stronger together than we are apart. A philosophy that the whole must come before the individual and promotes civic minded ways of thinking. Mind you Fascists tend to be too nationalist or just plain balls crazy. The fundamental concept of "We're stronger together than alone" is true though.

Post modernists? Well they do raise good points. Few things are absolute. Mind you this doesn't fit into your world view and as such you reject it.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 24, 2011, 09:02:11 am
Socialist/Social Democratic/Liberal/Progressive/Democrat: it's all the same thing, now, whatever they call themselves. It's become obvious that the last conservative Democrats are gone and the moderate Democrats are almost gone.

And the Republicans are about the same.

If you don't want a nanny-state watching over you, you vote Republican and you get it anyway.

If you don't want the government to do lots and lots of crony capitalism then you vote Democrat and you get that anyway too.

If you don't like either one you can go Tea Party and what's the chance it won't be more big government crony capitalism? They have the bases covered.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 24, 2011, 09:13:00 am
Socialist/Social Democratic/Liberal/Progressive/Democrat: it's all the same thing, now, whatever they call themselves. It's become obvious that the last conservative Democrats are gone and the moderate Democrats are almost gone.

And the Republicans are about the same.

If you don't want a nanny-state watching over you, you vote Republican and you get it anyway.

If you don't want the government to do lots and lots of crony capitalism then you vote Democrat and you get that anyway too.

If you don't like either one you can go Tea Party and what's the chance it won't be more big government crony capitalism? They have the bases covered.



Psssst. The American system is a total sham. You're living in a dolled up corporate feudal state
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 24, 2011, 09:51:59 am
Leaving aside Commissar Holt for the moment, who I am reasonably certain is a troll, although sometimes an entertaining one, I went back and looked at the monitors in Guy's office on page 638. It looks like at least two, maybe three cameras were covering the area by the fountain where Ed, Chang, and Rhonda were having their conversation. There are also cameras mounted on poles that seem to be pointed their way in some of the recent pages.

I don't know about sound, but I'd say there's a very good chance that Rhonda's plans aren't going to go down as she expects.
 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 24, 2011, 09:57:05 am
They have the bases covered.

Psssst. The American system is a total sham. You're living in a dolled up corporate feudal state

Sure, and we don't like it one little bit. We have a tradition of freedom, that didn't really slip away until the frontier was gone.

Right now most Americans refuse to admit the situation. But when we do, watch out! We will get a big surge of votes for the Tea Party and then the new Tea Party Congress and Tea Party President will make sweeping cosmetic changes.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 24, 2011, 10:02:39 am
They have the bases covered.

Psssst. The American system is a total sham. You're living in a dolled up corporate feudal state

Sure, and we don't like it one little bit. We have a tradition of freedom, that didn't really slip away until the frontier was gone.

Right now most Americans refuse to admit the situation. But when we do, watch out! We will get a big surge of votes for the Tea Party and then the new Tea Party Congress and Tea Party President will make sweeping cosmetic changes.


Psssst you don't have a tradition of freedom. it was a sham concocted by rich white landowners who were angry they couldn't control parliament like the rich white land owners in Britain. Also the tea party is also a scam cooked up to ensure the disgruntled elements don't upset the system.

The entire thing is just as planned.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 24, 2011, 12:20:28 pm
It does not seem at all plausible that age of first intercourse was older for females than males.

Claimed age of first intercourse might be older, given that actual age was usually illegal.


I haven't looked into the methodologies of the surveys upon which the authors of this Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) document drew to utter those statistics with regard to age of first intercourse, but your use of the word "Claimed" is certainly advised.  I strongly suspect not only interpretive and subject selection bias on the part of the primary researchers but also questionnaire characteristics which would make the collected data liable to be colored thoroughly by respondents' tendencies to waffle, weasel, equivocate, and otherwise indulge in the sorts of "I did not have sex with that woman" evasions which so many Americans consider useful technicalities.

To quote Heinlein (who kept his own personal history of lustful adventuring behind well-maintained bullwarks of duplicity and misdirection): "Everybody lies about sex."
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: GlennWatson on April 24, 2011, 12:37:00 pm
Americans have a big blind spot in regards to Communism in that they are incapable of discerning between Stalinism, Socialist tendencies and Communism. Therefore their opinions on the subject are irrelevant.

Irrelevant until Europe wants us to save them from it.  Then its all, hale fellow and well met.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: GlennWatson on April 24, 2011, 12:38:46 pm
I'd say there's a very good chance that Rhonda's plans aren't going to go down as she expects.

Having read more than three days worth of this comic I can guarantee it.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 24, 2011, 01:03:32 pm
Americans have a big blind spot in regards to Communism in that they are incapable of discerning between Stalinism, Socialist tendencies and Communism. Therefore their opinions on the subject are irrelevant.

Irrelevant until Europe wants us to save them from it.  Then its all, hale fellow and well met.

Nah Europe wanted your help dealing with the Soviet Union. Not an ideology.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 24, 2011, 01:09:26 pm
This is  my THIRD time starting a long response to your post. I will give you the quick and dirty version. If that raises further questions, just let me know and I will get more specific.

Ex: a parent feels responsible for her child and thinks that he is too young and irresponsible to be on his own.  She has a right to raise her child as she wishes, and the responsibility to do it well. He has rights as a person: he owns himself. Obviously there is potential conflict when these rights and responsibilities overlap.

There is no conflict, because:

Parents have no absolute right to rear their children as they wish. Their right is limited by the rights/desires of the child.

Parents do not have a mandatory obligation of responsibility to their children. Harsh as it may sound, they may withhold any support, if they wish.

If you don't think that's "common sense," then what's your solution? This is your universe. Instead of me guessing in the dark, why don't you simply state how your universe works?

You should have seen my original post!  :D

Failing that, what I have written above might give you an idea, about what I have in mind. Basically, it is all derived from the ZAP. I am sorry, I gave up rewriting my original response, but I make myself available to questions about specific situations or conditions.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 24, 2011, 02:12:16 pm
Could the UW be the product of the Democratic vision joined with the rest of a socialist/totalitarian nightmare world? It's possible. The UW doesn't seem to be quite as bad as it could be. I would have thought, with the high-tech tools at their disposal, the UW would consolidated their power better, but who knows, there could be a revolution at the end of this trip.  

I never thought it through in this manner, but that sounds about right. As to why the UW has had problems consolidating its power. First, it is united in name only. Some other countries still exist, more or less on their own. They pay lip service to the UW, but total control is far from reality. You already know that Mars is an "associated state." There are others that will be feature in upcoming arcs. Also...

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 24, 2011, 02:20:34 pm
Your best post, ever. Short, sweet and to the point.

Socialist/Social Democratic/Liberal/Progressive/Democrat: it's all the same thing, now, whatever they call themselves. It's become obvious that the last conservative Democrats are gone and the moderate Democrats are almost gone.

And the Republicans are about the same.

If you don't want a nanny-state watching over you, you vote Republican and you get it anyway.

If you don't want the government to do lots and lots of crony capitalism then you vote Democrat and you get that anyway too.

If you don't like either one you can go Tea Party and what's the chance it won't be more big government crony capitalism? They have the bases covered.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 24, 2011, 02:24:36 pm
...if automation is reasonably cheap and there's a labor shortage, why pay someone to follow simple orders when a machine can follow them better?

In that case, you would not be paying a 10-year-old to operate the machinery, you would be paying him to program the machinery. He would have to know what you want and convert it into terms the machinery understood, clearing up any little bugs in the specifications that might cause bad results to the crops or to the machinery itself.

And that's something that I would tend to prefer to do for myself, though I might trust an exceptional 10-year-old to do it.

I can easily imagine that whole classes of jobs might simply not exist -- particularly things which are highly repetitive; things that don't take much judgement, things that are relatively easy to program.
....
Today we haven't worked out the issues of automation. By EFT time they might have solutions. I don't know how it would work. Maybe 10-year-olds would tend to have the sort of judgment that would make them valuable employees. Maybe they could run around and find problems that automated systems didn't know to look for.

I can't expect anybody to give a definitive solution today, but I can easily imagine there would be a labor shortage and that the sort of labor we had shortages of might be something that we currently don't even notice.

In response to this (apparently) we have:

So the ten year old would just have the skills you need by magic huh?

...which suggests that Holt is unfamiliar with the discriminatory capabilities and potential for the exercise of effective action among ten-year-olds, even those who are not arguably "exceptional."  

I've got to suppose that most readers in this forum are familiar with Ayn Rand's 1970 essay on progressive education, "The Comprachicos" (collected in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution).  She later went on to write:
Quote
The academia-jet set coalition is attempting to tame the American character by the deliberate breeding of helplessness and resignation - in those incubators of lethargy known as "Progressive" schools, which are dedicated to the task of crippling a child's mind by arresting his cognitive development.

This is, of course, even more pervasive and pernicious today than it was during the last decades of Mrs. O'Connor's life.

It is profoundly stupid to anticipate the technical and moral capabilities of a ten year old child raised and educated in the Belt (in an AnCap society as depicted in EFT) on the basis of what we see today among modern Anglophone ten-year-olds subjected to the effects of systematic comprachico "Progressive" schooling.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 24, 2011, 02:36:12 pm
Congratulations. Two in a row! And you had me going until the very end. Bravo! Short and sweet rules!

Right now most Americans refuse to admit the situation. But when we do, watch out! We will get a big surge of votes for the Tea Party and then the new Tea Party Congress and Tea Party President will make sweeping cosmetic changes.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 24, 2011, 02:53:34 pm
Ya know you keep on saying your brand of anarchy is better and I'll keep asking the same old question.
Why hasn't it ever worked then?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 24, 2011, 03:33:13 pm
In the United States, the word "progressive" has a specific historical meaning, as referencing the LaFollette Progressives.

But it acquired other meanings as well, and not due to it being misused by any mainstream American source. The Communist Party and its supporters used the term "progressive" to refer to those who, basically, did not regard the U. S. S. R. as a threat to American liberty. That euphemistic use can reasonably be expected to turn it into a curseword.

Rather than "euphemistic," the term "duplicitous" is more accurate.

Unless, of course, we're using the word "progressive" in its clinical oncological meaning, to characterize the politics in question as cancerously malignant. 

Most modern Americans, deprived by government schooling of historical literacy, would doubtless be surprised to learn that the "Progressive" movement afflicting us today began in the Republican faction of our permanent institutional "two-party" incumbency, and was staunchly opposed by the Democratic Party until that faction was taken over (first at the national level and then eventually in state and local governments) by "populists" begining in the 1890s. 

Anybody reading here know that H.L. Mencken, an explicitly avowed extreme libertarian, was a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party up through the national elections of 1932?  Until Franklin "The Crooner" Roosevelt exposed himself as the Woodrow Wilson "Progressive" he truly was, the central policies of the Democratic Party had been the antithesis of everything the Republicans fundamentally espoused.

We get a good look at the reality behind the Republican charade by examining the stock stump speech used by Whig politician Abraham Lincoln when he began his political career.  To quote economist Thomas J. DiLorenzo (see http://tinyurl.com/lmkkc):
Quote
When Lincoln first entered state politics in 1832 he announced that he was doing so for three reasons: To help enact the Whig Party agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare subsidies for railroad and canal-building corporations ("internal improvements"), and a government monopolization of the nation's money supply. "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance," he declared: "I am in favor of a national bank . . . the internal improvements system, and a high protective tariff." He was a devoted mercantilist, and remained so for his entire political life. He was single-mindedly devoted to Henry Clay and his political agenda (mentioned above), which Clay called "The American System."
 
Astonishing though it might seem today, the Democratic Party of the 19th Century was proundly anti-imperialistic, committed to free trade (the abolition of both protective tariffs and pork-barrel government spending on "infrastructure" to benefit politically connected business interests), and supportive of the retirement of Republican "greenback" fiat currency in favor of the complete restoration of money based entirely on precious metals.  It was for this last reason that the Bourbon Democrats of Grover Cleveland's faction were also known as "Solid Gold Democrats." 

The "Progressive" pathology started in the Republican Party, and has been most deeply rooted in that corrupt, evil, malevolent faction ever since. 

I would as soon vest my political hopes in the Red faction as I would seek to transplant into an otherwise healthy patient a heart or kidney or liver riddled with metastatic carcinoma.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 24, 2011, 03:46:05 pm
Parents have no absolute right to rear their children as they wish. Their right is limited by the rights/desires of the child.

Obviously this theory is untrue at age four.  So when does it become true?

Supposing it to be true, is such a right likely to be respected in an anarchic society?

In an anarchic society, people without income, assets, or reputation, are likely to receive a lesser level of protection.  Also, most people will be inclined to view that a parent punishing his child is probably doing it for the child's own good, and are likely to be disinclined to protect a child against his own parents.

Protection, the application of organized force, will be mediated through the adult income earning members of the family, and to the extent that force is applied by the individuals directly concerned, the male members of the family, thus whatever you believe should be the case, an anarchic society is likely to have greater parental and patriarchal authority than a state society, hence will tend to be socially conservative in family matters, regardless of what anyone thinks it should be.

No welfare payments for single mums, no free childminding and brainwashing services, weak limits on patriarchal use of force, therefore socially conservative.  Fathers are likely to use violence to ensure that their daughters and those courting their daughters behave in a manner likely to ensure support for their grandchildren.  Such violence is likely to be socially acceptable because widely applied, and because no one with means to prevent it has any individual interest to prevent it.

In an anarchic society, whatever use of force is common and normal and people generally get away with it becomes legal, or not illegal, and whatever acts are apt to result in violence being successfully used against one, become illegal.  Patriarchy, therefore, is apt to be legal.  Whatever laws should be in theory, in practice they are apt to be biased in favor of those doing the enforcing.

Analogously, i
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 24, 2011, 03:59:49 pm
Ya know you keep on saying your brand of anarchy is better and I'll keep asking the same old question.
Why hasn't it ever worked then?

Something mighty close to anarchy worked fine in the old west, in Saga period iceland, and in California until 1910 or thereabouts.  The Stanford who founded Stanford university was apt to himself judge and hang evildoers.  As late as the 1930s bankers in the west would themselves hunt down and kill bank robbers.  The "Gunsmoke" series depicts a marshal doing the enforcing, but this is anachronistic.  "Bonanza", where the Cartwrights (landowners) do the enforcing, is historically more accurate.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 24, 2011, 04:42:34 pm
Quote
J Thomas: Right now most Americans refuse to admit the situation. But when we do, watch out! We will get a big surge of votes for the Tea Party and then the new Tea Party Congress and Tea Party President will make sweeping cosmetic changes.

I agree with you on most things, but I'm not willing to give up just yet. It's true that the Republicans have been slow poison to the Democrats' fast poison, but if the Tea Party conservative Pubbies can get a solid majority in the House, the Senate and take over the White house in 2012, there's a chance to turn this around. If not, I may be adopting your very negative position; if it's the same ol' in 2013, the USA, as we knew it, is over.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 24, 2011, 06:17:20 pm
Quote
Me:
Ex: a parent feels responsible for her child and thinks that he is too young and irresponsible to be on his own.  She has a right to raise her child as she wishes, and the responsibility to do it well. He has rights as a person: he owns himself. Obviously there is potential conflict when these rights and responsibilities overlap.

Quote
Sand Sandfort: There is no conflict, because:

Parents have no absolute right to rear their children as they wish. Their right is limited by the rights/desires of the child.

Parents do not have a mandatory obligation of responsibility to their children. Harsh as it may sound, they may withhold any support, if they wish.

All right, let's get down to basics. I believe that human beings are best served by a limited government whose only purpose (other than national defense) is to create a groundwork where the people might advance themselves as they desire. I believe this because of human psychology. We don't have a hive mentality and self-interest is thoroughly ingrained in all of us. No one cares to be told what to do, and attempts to make a "Soviet Man" have ended in misery, poverty and death.

The above is not an iron-clad philosophy like some fundamentalist religion or Communism, it's based in reality of what human beings are. And that is also why I say that a five year-old is not equipped to have a gun and defy his parents. Forget about the argument that they need to be taught the values of a society before they should be fully released into it. There's a physical reason: a five year-old brain is not fully formed. It's mush. It makes irrational decisions sometimes. It's not ready for a gun.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 24, 2011, 06:44:03 pm
Ya know you keep on saying your brand of anarchy is better and I'll keep asking the same old question.
Why hasn't it ever worked then?

Something mighty close to anarchy worked fine in the old west, in Saga period iceland, and in California until 1910 or thereabouts.  The Stanford who founded Stanford university was apt to himself judge and hang evildoers.  As late as the 1930s bankers in the west would themselves hunt down and kill bank robbers.  The "Gunsmoke" series depicts a marshal doing the enforcing, but this is anachronistic.  "Bonanza", where the Cartwrights (landowners) do the enforcing, is historically more accurate.

Yes but note something.

They all fell apart or were absorbed or stopped. There was an anarchist microstate in Denmark. Really it was just a pretense for growing and selling weed but the authorities were quite happy to let them be for a while before politely asking if they could stop selling weed on the street to blatantly. Didn't even ask them to stop. The anarchists were dickish about and covered their stalls with camo netting. Last few years Danish government said "Right fuck this. Bringing you back into Denmark."

Anarchy has never survived. If it is as awesome as you claim then why not?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 24, 2011, 07:04:25 pm
In an anarchic society, people without income, assets, or reputation, are likely to receive a lesser level of protection.

Is anybody else taking note of this correspondent's arguably neurotic fixation on "income" to the detriment of any appreciation of an individual's capabilities?  

Also, most people will be inclined to view that a parent punishing his child is probably doing it for the child's own good, and are likely to be disinclined to protect a child against his own parents.

Protection, the application of organized force, will be mediated through the adult income earning members of the family, and to the extent that force is applied by the individuals directly concerned, the male members of the family, thus whatever you believe should be the case, an anarchic society is likely to have greater parental and patriarchal authority than a state society, hence will tend to be socially conservative in family matters, regardless of what anyone thinks it should be.

There is in this magnificently illogical leap to an unsupported conclusion the presumption that "parental and patriarchal authority" would be impaired by no counterforce in an anarchocapitalist (AnCap) society, and that's not only not necessarily so but also vanishingly unlikely.  

Indeed, in a social milieu where individual autonomy - not only one's own but also that of others - is highly valued, the forcible exercise of "parental and patriarchal authority" over the voiced objections of any human being (no matter what that person's age or other condition might be) is particularly likely to evoke defensive intervention by others.  

One of the social effects of the widespread carriage of personal weaponry which really disquiets authoritarians is that the voluntary individual choice to acquire, train with, and use instruments of violent force necessarily engages in the person making that choice a greater sense of personal responsibility to protect not only his/her own rights but also the rights of others. Certainly greater than would otherwise be the case.

The American Heart Association counts on that "preparedness" factor when encouraging the most widespread possible participation in their basic life support (BLS or "cardiopulmonary resuscitation) courses. It was discovered early on that even if BLS protocols are not themselves guarantees of effective rescue, people who had even once in the past been BLS certified are far less likely to freeze up in the presence of an acute cardiopulmonary emergency.  They may not act to perfect standards of performance, but they will act in response, and that beats hell out of standing there with one's thumbs up one's ass.  

People conscious of their personal ability to intervene with real effect in situations requiring moral judgement tend reliably to acknowledge and act upon what they perceive to be their responsibility to see that moral conduct prevails within the scope of their capabilities.  It's the "Good Samaritan" imperative in Western culture.  Anything less is dishonorable, contemptible.

No welfare payments for single mums, no free childminding and brainwashing services, weak limits on patriarchal use of force, therefore socially conservative.  Fathers are likely to use violence to ensure that their daughters and those courting their daughters behave in a manner likely to ensure support for their grandchildren.  Such violence is likely to be socially acceptable because widely applied, and because no one with means to prevent it has any individual interest to prevent it.

In an anarchic society, whatever use of force is common and normal and people generally get away with it becomes legal, or not illegal, and whatever acts are apt to result in violence being successfully used against one, become illegal.  Patriarchy, therefore, is apt to be legal.  Whatever laws should be in theory, in practice they are apt to be biased in favor of those doing the enforcing.

Were it not for the fact that statists and other cement-heads accept such senseless contrafactual surmises as if they were in any way congruent with objective reality, I'd take this non sequitur substitute for reasoned argument as nothing more than a manifest of incompetence.  As it is, to speak of "Such violence" as ever being considered "socially acceptable because widely applied" in the kind of community depicted on Ceres in this graphic novel has got to involve either the method of the "big lie" or evidence of a debilitating psychiatric disorder.

Which is kinder and more courteous?  To assume that sam is willfully and with malice aforethought pushing a duplicitous presentation of the writers' and artists' work thus far provided in EFT, or that he's suffering through no fault of his own from a condition which appears to have rendered him non compos mentis?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 24, 2011, 07:48:06 pm
Something mighty close to anarchy worked fine in the old west, in Saga period iceland, and in California until 1910 or thereabouts.  The Stanford who founded Stanford university was apt to himself judge and hang evildoers.  As late as the 1930s bankers in the west would themselves hunt down and kill bank robbers.  The "Gunsmoke" series depicts a marshal doing the enforcing, but this is anachronistic.  The "Bonanza" series, which depicts the Cartwrights (landowners) doing the enforcing, is historically more accurate.

They all fell apart or were absorbed or stopped.

Saga period iceland lasted about four hundred years, which is a lot longer than the American Republic looks like it will last.

Every political system falls apart eventually, and/or is conquered or some such, but of all the political systems that have been tried, it is democracy, not anarchy, that is notorious for its brevity.  In a democracy, once the masses discover they can vote themselves rich, everything falls apart.  And if it does not immediately fall apart, the politicians import cheaper votes.

The Ivory Coast, where the banks are closed, the ports are closed, and the cocoa crop is rotting in untended fields, is the future of democracy.  The city of Detroit is the future of democracy.  Democracy collapses faster when you have blacks and/or Muslims voting, but Liverpool is starting to look a lot like Detroit.  In Detroit, the two legged feral animals are entirely black, in the ivory coast, entirely Muslim, but in Liverpool, mostly white,  Democracy, rather than race is the critical factor. The Ivory Coast would still be one of the most prosperous nations in Africa were it not for democracy.    In the Ivory Coast, democracy means that they really do eat the rich.  They have always been black, but were not eating people until the recent elections.  In the US, towards the end, we will very likely see members of one voting block eating members of another voting block, just as we are now seeing on the Ivory Coast.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 24, 2011, 07:58:25 pm
No welfare payments for single mums, no free childminding and brainwashing services, weak limits on patriarchal use of force, therefore socially conservative.  Fathers are likely to use violence to ensure that their daughters and those courting their daughters behave in a manner likely to ensure support for their grandchildren.  Such violence is likely to be socially acceptable because widely applied, and because no one with means to prevent it has any individual interest to prevent it.

In an anarchic society, whatever use of force is common and normal and people generally get away with it becomes legal, or not illegal, and whatever acts are apt to result in violence being successfully used against one, become illegal.  Patriarchy, therefore, is apt to be legal.  Whatever laws should be in theory, in practice they are apt to be biased in favor of those doing the enforcing.

Were it not for the fact that statists and other cement-heads accept such senseless contrafactual surmises as if they were in any way congruent with objective reality, I'd take this non sequitur substitute for reasoned argument as nothing more than a manifest of incompetence.  As it is, to speak of "Such violence" as ever being considered "socially acceptable because widely applied" in the kind of community depicted on Ceres in this graphic novel has got to involve either the method of the "big lie" or evidence of a debilitating psychiatric disorder.

All actually existent anarchic and near anarchic societies, for example saga period iceland and the old west, were socially conservative and somewhat patriarchal.  Courting someone's daughter without permission was apt to be hazardous.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 24, 2011, 08:41:42 pm
Parents have no absolute right to rear their children as they wish. Their right is limited by the rights/desires of the child.

Obviously this theory is untrue at age four.  

No, it still applies, but clearly the average 4-year old will not be able to unambiguously articulate any desire to be independent that other adults would deign recognize. Yes, there is theory, but you have to consider its application to practical realities. I was a very precocious 4-year old, but I knew I could not do without my parents, nor did I wish to. My mother knew that, so did not even try to stop me. The result was a foregone conclusion.

Sure, we can posit all sorts of fanciful "what ifs," but the world is not made up of weird coincidences and lifeboat situations.

Supposing it to be true, is such a right likely to be respected in an anarchic society?

żQuien sabe? Who knows? Also, you still have to consider the efficacy of our current system. ZAP solutions might, or might not, end up being different from our current system(s). In any case, the comparison is not between ZAP and perfection, but between ZAP and non-ZAP.

The rest of your post is basically speculation and projection. Interesting, but hardly persuasive. One point, though.

Protection, the application of organized force, will be mediated through the adult income earning members of the family, and to the extent that force is applied by the individuals directly concerned, the male members of the family, thus whatever you believe should be the case, an anarchic society is likely to have greater parental and patriarchal authority than a state society, hence will tend to be socially conservative in family matters, regardless of what anyone thinks it should be.

I just do not get this reasoning. Why you and others continue to posit this silly, archaic patriarchal expectation in a world of inherent sexual equality, is beyond me. Patriarch is a emergent aspect of collectivism. Without a shred of evidence or reason, you attempt to transplant this hierarchal monstrosity onto a free society. Why is thinking outside of the collectivist box so difficult?

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 24, 2011, 08:49:27 pm
I just do not get this reasoning. Why you and others continue to posit this silly, archaic patriarchal expectation in a world of inherent sexual equality, is beyond me. Patriarch is a emergent aspect of collectivism.

The physical and mental differences between men and women are glaringly obvious, and anyone who denies them is merely being pious.  Saying that men and women are equal is like saying Islam is the religion of peace.  No one who says such things can be taken seriously.

If one believes in immortal souls, it might be true in the sense of true of the next world, that their souls are equal, but it is transparently obvious it is not true of this world.  Political correctness transliterates beliefs about the next world, to this world, with nonsensical results.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 24, 2011, 08:57:13 pm
All right, let's get down to basics. I believe that human beings are best served by a limited government whose only purpose (other than national defense) is to create a groundwork where the people might advance themselves as they desire.

That would be great!... If it were only possible. However, it is apparently a fantasy. No government in the history of the world has ever stayed limited to its original mandate. None.

Heck, I would be satisfied to live a country with a government  "whose only purpose (other than national defense) is to create a groundwork where the people might advance themselves as they desire." If only. It would be great, but I would rather take my chances with market anarchy and the ZAP. YMMV.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 24, 2011, 09:00:54 pm
So how about a country which runs government as a private enterprise and seeks to remove upfront taxation by making you want to pay for its services?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 24, 2011, 09:19:20 pm
I just do not get this reasoning. Why you and others continue to posit this silly, archaic patriarchal expectation in a world of inherent sexual equality, is beyond me. Patriarch is a emergent aspect of collectivism.

The physical and mental differences between men and women are glaringly obvious, and anyone who denies them is merely being pious.

Obviously, I am speaking about political equality, not the fact that statistically, women have bigger boobs than men. I don't see how that renders them second-class status, however.

Saying that men and women are equal is like saying Islam is the religion of peace.  No one who says such things can be taken seriously.

Agreed, but fortunately I have said neither. Reread my exact words.

Now here is something I would really like to know. What mental differences between men and women do you believe are "glaringly obvious"? This should be amusing.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 25, 2011, 12:25:59 am
The physical and mental differences between men and women are glaringly obvious, and anyone who denies them is merely being pious.

Obviously, I am speaking about political equality

But in an anarchic society you do not really have politics, or at least should not have politics, hence no politics to be equal before.  The differences between men and women are such that men will do most of the enforcement and provide most of the protection, while women will do most of the housework.  This will have consequences significantly different from a society where the state does the protection, most of the childminding and much of the economic support of women with children.

Now here is something I would really like to know. What mental differences between men and women do you believe are "glaringly obvious"? This should be amusing.

Famously, or infamously, women cannot read the map, and men cannot find the butter.

Men are markedly braver than women, so much so that "pussy" means cowardly, and "man up" means "be brave"  Almost all men are braver than almost all women.

Upper body strength:  Any man whose upper body strength is no more than that of a strong woman is seriously ill.  There is zero overlap between healthy men and healthy women in upper body strength.  Some female athletes look like they are counterexamples to this, but those athletes look they are taking male steroids.

Most women are worse at judging position and motion than most men, thus almost all women perceive almost all men's driving as scary, and almost all men perceive almost all women's driving as incompetent.

Because of differences in ability to judge time, motion, and position, a woman, after backseat driving her husband all day, will take a painfully long time parking the car.

While her husband drives, a woman will frequently tell her husband "watch out for that thing", when there is no possibility that that thing will intersect with the car the husband is driving if the car and the thing continue on their respective courses.  When the wife drives, the husband will never do this.

Women talk a lot more than men, and are better at it.  We automatically apply higher standards to women speaking than men speaking.  If a woman speaks no better than a man, we think she is mighty stupid.

Women are better at human relationships in a small number, close and intimate relationships.  Men are better at people in a large number of distant relationships.  Men are better than women in negotiating hierarchies, at acting within a hierarchy, within a team or large group.  Thus men are better at team sports, and enjoy them more than women.

Men are better at logic than women, which creates problems with efforts to affirmative action a sufficient number of women in science and such like.  A male computer science graduate can always parse a boolean expression, because he could not graduate if he could not.  A female computer science graduate usually cannot parse a boolean expression, indicating that if they required them to do that sort of stuff there would be very few female computer science graduates.

Similarly the fact that we are taught about so much about female scientists who are made famous for strikingly unimpressive accomplishments demonstrates that women just cannot do science very well.  If women could do science, those promoting women in science would have more impressive poster girls.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: dough560 on April 25, 2011, 12:50:25 am
An example:  The military defines the age of mental competence as 7 years old.  Unless the individual manifests non-competence.  The age of sexual consent is 16 years of age male or female.  However local laws will be applied, if more sever than the military/federal laws/regulations.

In a country where prostitution was legal for a consenting adult (18 years old and older) I stumbled across a Prostitution Ring organized and operated by girls between 12 and 17 years of age.  In other postings, the local age of sexual consent was 13 and marriage was 14 years of age.

Cpt. Rhonda reminds me of a prostitute I knew back then.  All curves, physically a walking wet dream.  With her attitude/demeanor, no one touched her.  She only lasted a few weeks before the houses black-balled her.  She was bad for business.

Raise your kids to make choices in their implied self interest.  Do it right and they will make good choices.  I gave up a job that paid more than double what I make now, so I could be home with them.  As my kids have developed, they've proven to me, I made the right choice.  They aren't perfect but I have good reasons to be proud of them.

Government Functionaries?  See my views in earlier posts on changing language and TransProgs.  Taxes?  Government Interference?  Current Government Societal Damage?  See earlier posts.

Ceres has developed a body of law.  Whether the laws developed through a series of adjudications, based on general principles established by the earliest settlers.  Were voted on and approved by 90% of the population.  Or were initiated by early settlers as contractual functions and adjudications;  Sandy hasn't said.  At this point, it doesn't mater.  There is law.  Enforced by the general population who are conscious of their liberties and duties to each other.  These people are survivors.  People surviving via their resources, duties and obligations;  whether individual or societal.  Re:  ZAP and  Implied Self Interest.  The widespread availability of personal arms insured this would happen.  Just as the rule of law developed in the early U.S.

Holt, I know you won't get this.

Sam, I thought I was a dinosaur.....  You really should get out more.

That's a really one dimensional view of the opposite sex.  Almost on par with Barefoot and Pregnant.  Not even close to most of the women I've worked with or trained with firearms over the years.  Individuals have talents.  How they use them depends how they were raised, plus their training and experience as adults.  All of us have had to overcome limits imposed by family, friends and society in general.  Some of us, are just better at it than others, and that's normal.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 25, 2011, 03:30:28 am
That's a really one dimensional view of the opposite sex.  Almost on par with Barefoot and Pregnant. 

Whenever we are taught about women scientists, the implicit and unintended message is the opposite of the explicit and intended message.    By giving special and extraordinary attention to women who have done rather ordinary and routine science, the unintended message is that it is extraordinary for women to do science, that a woman scientist is like a three headed goat.

You know who discovered radium.  Why don't you know who discovered the other hundred elements?  But in fact you do not know who discovered radium.  Marie Curie was the least important member of a three man team that discovered radium.  Why don't you know who the number two man was?   Radon is another highly radioactive element, much more radioactive than radium.  It was much more important in the history of science, since the discovery of transmutation of elements by radioactive decay started with the discovery of the decay of thorium into radon.   That you don't know who discovered radon, while you imagine you know who discovered radium, implies that for women to discover things is remarkable and extraordinary, like a three headed goat or a man giving birth, an extraordinary event, while for men to discover things is ordinary and routine - and implies that everyone knows what they deny

Similarly, that the press gets orgasms because Obama can read fluently from a teleprompter, and he only occasionally stumbles slightly over the longer sentences, implies that black males cannot talk as well as white males - and implies that everyone knows what they deny.  If they, or you, actually believed what they say they believe, they would be entirely unimpressed by the fact that Obama can read fluently from a teleprompter, and no one would have heard of the third member of the team that discovered radium.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 25, 2011, 04:30:51 am
Quote
Sam: Whenever we are taught about women scientists, the implicit and unintended message is the opposite of the explicit and intended message.    By giving special and extraordinary attention to women who have done rather ordinary and routine science, the unintended message is that it is extraordinary for women to do science, that a woman scientist is like a three headed goat.

It's the bell curve of intelligence. The XX chromosomes tend to average instead of one being dominant. Men, having only one X chromosome, take all their intelligence from that. It means that there are a lot of women in the midrange of intelligence and fewer at either end. The men are spread out more along the curve. There are a lot more stupid guys than stupid women, but a lot more geniuses, too. That's why the top scientists are almost always men. There are also a couple of studies that show that average overall intelligence favors men, but the difference is slight: 5 IQ points in a study done in the UK and 3 points in a study in the US. I have no idea how rigorous these studies were, but I thought I'd mention them. :)

If one really wants to break it down, men and women have different instincts, preferences, and mating rules. Still, there's not enough there to make different sets of laws. Each individual has to taken on their own merits.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 25, 2011, 06:44:58 am

It's the bell curve of intelligence. The XX chromosomes tend to average instead of one being dominant. Men, having only one X chromosome, take all their intelligence from that. It means that there are a lot of women in the midrange of intelligence and fewer at either end. The men are spread out more along the curve. There are a lot more stupid guys than stupid women, but a lot more geniuses, too.

That's a plausible story, and the evidence is weak.

In any one cell, the XX chromosomes mostly don't average out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation
One of them is mostly inactive. (But not completely inactive.)

But different cell lines can have different X chromosomes active. So there could be room for some sort of averaging. The genetics of intelligence is not worked out well at all, and there are stories about difficulties getting funding to study it. Maybe a lot of people just don't want to know.

Quote
That's why the top scientists are almost always men. There are also a couple of studies that show that average overall intelligence favors men, but the difference is slight: 5 IQ points in a study done in the UK and 3 points in a study in the US. I have no idea how rigorous these studies were, but I thought I'd mention them. :)

It's a plausible JustSo story. Intelligence is in general hard to study. One of the problems is that it's hard to get good results studying people who are more intellingent than the researchers, and somehow the most intelligent researchers appear to consider this a field worth staying away from. I could make up JustSo stories why they might feel that way.

Quote
If one really wants to break it down, men and women have different instincts, preferences, and mating rules. Still, there's not enough there to make different sets of laws. Each individual has to taken on their own merits.

In general, if you make laws designed to discriminate on some criterion, there will be people who officially meet that criterion who do not in fact meet it who will manipulate the situation in their own favor. You'd have to look at individual laws to decide whether this is "ants at a picnic" or whether it's important enough to change the law.

I like the idea of paying close attention to individual circumstances. But I also like the idea of one-law-fits-all, particularly when I don't get to choose who tries the case. What if the other guy is rich or popular? I don't want him to get everything his way because that's taken too much into consideration.

And yet, on the other hand, what's the point in being rich if it doesn't let you flout the laws? I might be rich someday, and then it would be good for me to be above the laws the peons have to follow.

These moral issues have a lot of complications.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 25, 2011, 07:17:48 am
While there are many differences between men and women, racial groups and such. Studying them is difficult. Physical ones can be studied fairly easily despite controversy. Psychological and mental ones are much much harder to study because we still don't understand a lot about our own minds.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: mellyrn on April 25, 2011, 07:41:39 am
Studying a phenomenon is easier when the phenomenon has a rigorous definition.  "Intelligence" seems to be more like "art" -- "I know it when I see it."

Defining "men" and "women" should be straightforward enough.  And yet -- what do we call an XXY person?  What do we call an XY with androgen insensitivity syndrome -- this person appears to be female up until "she" doesn't menstruate and then tests reveal a male-normal amount of testosterone in "her" system (and these people tend to be unusually beautiful women)?  Do we classify homosexual people according to their genes or their psyches?

On amusing little tests that purport to tell your sex, I typically score "male" (despite having borne and suckled 3 kids) and my husband typically scores "female" (despite having sired said kids).  He does drive a little more boldly than I -- but he will also freely stop and ask directions, and I won't until I'm sick with desperation.

Oh, and I'm starting to think that "sam" is "jamesd" returned to us. . . .
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 25, 2011, 07:52:46 am
In terms of physical characteristics I would categorise the abnormalities as exactly that. Abnormalities.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 25, 2011, 09:23:40 am

Oh, and I'm starting to think that "sam" is "jamesd" returned to us. . . .

The similarities are large and the differences small. More difference between Sam and Sams than between Sam and Jamesd.

But what difference does it make? It's basicly an anonymous medium with no proof whether two user names have the same brain behind them or not. Better to consider the ideas for themselves, unless the possibility of meeting for hot wet unsanitary sex is under consideration.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 25, 2011, 09:33:08 am
So the differences between men and women, you consider to be "glaringly obvious," turn out to be nothing more than statistical trends, correct? In fact, when a woman walks into a room, your "glaringly obvious" assumptions about her are of little use in dealing with her as an individual, correct? Is she in the majority who have more trouble (than most men), when dealing with spacial relations (maps and such)? Maybe, but by putting a label on her merely because she has XX sex chromosomes, you are just guessing, right? Tell me how that is "glaringly obvious."

BTW, politics has to do with the distribution of power within a group. The issue of market anarchy is just as much a position on politics as atheism is a religious belief. Under the ZAP, there is no difference between men and women ("No one has a right to initiate force...") and the ZAP is what we were talking about in the anarchistic society of the Belt.

One final note. You think men are braver than women? Try threatening a woman's children and see what happens. Bravery is all about what one is willing to be brave about. Wars are generally a fool's errand, that many men seem to enjoy. In my experience, protection of one's family, irrespective of the risk, seems to be more common on the distaff side of the aisle. YMMV


The physical and mental differences between men and women are glaringly obvious, and anyone who denies them is merely being pious.

Obviously, I am speaking about political equality

But in an anarchic society you do not really have politics, or at least should not have politics, hence no politics to be equal before.  The differences between men and women are such that men will do most of the enforcement and provide most of the protection, while women will do most of the housework.  This will have consequences significantly different from a society where the state does the protection, most of the childminding and much of the economic support of women with children.

Now here is something I would really like to know. What mental differences between men and women do you believe are "glaringly obvious"? This should be amusing.

Famously, or infamously, women cannot read the map, and men cannot find the butter.

Men are markedly braver than women, so much so that "pussy" means cowardly, and "man up" means "be brave"  Almost all men are braver than almost all women.

Upper body strength:  Any man whose upper body strength is no more than that of a strong woman is seriously ill.  There is zero overlap between healthy men and healthy women in upper body strength.  Some female athletes look like they are counterexamples to this, but those athletes look they are taking male steroids.

Most women are worse at judging position and motion than most men, thus almost all women perceive almost all men's driving as scary, and almost all men perceive almost all women's driving as incompetent.

Because of differences in ability to judge time, motion, and position, a woman, after backseat driving her husband all day, will take a painfully long time parking the car.

While her husband drives, a woman will frequently tell her husband "watch out for that thing", when there is no possibility that that thing will intersect with the car the husband is driving if the car and the thing continue on their respective courses.  When the wife drives, the husband will never do this.

Women talk a lot more than men, and are better at it.  We automatically apply higher standards to women speaking than men speaking.  If a woman speaks no better than a man, we think she is mighty stupid.

Women are better at human relationships in a small number, close and intimate relationships.  Men are better at people in a large number of distant relationships.  Men are better than women in negotiating hierarchies, at acting within a hierarchy, within a team or large group.  Thus men are better at team sports, and enjoy them more than women.

Men are better at logic than women, which creates problems with efforts to affirmative action a sufficient number of women in science and such like.  A male computer science graduate can always parse a boolean expression, because he could not graduate if he could not.  A female computer science graduate usually cannot parse a boolean expression, indicating that if they required them to do that sort of stuff there would be very few female computer science graduates.

Similarly the fact that we are taught about so much about female scientists who are made famous for strikingly unimpressive accomplishments demonstrates that women just cannot do science very well.  If women could do science, those promoting women in science would have more impressive poster girls.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: mellyrn on April 25, 2011, 12:38:04 pm
Quote
But what difference does it make?

Not having to repeat rebuttals.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 25, 2011, 12:54:05 pm
If one really wants to break it down, men and women have different instincts, preferences, and mating rules. Still, there's not enough there to make different sets of laws.

There is enough there that it is absurd to have the same laws on family matters.  In all of history, no society other than our own has had laws for "spouses".  They have had one set of rules for husbands, and another set of rules for wives.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 25, 2011, 12:57:31 pm
Quote
But what difference does it make?

Not having to repeat rebuttals.

Nobody is forcing you to rebut the first time.

Try out the Hedonist's Rule?

"If it feels good, do it. Until it stops feeling good. Then quit."

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 25, 2011, 01:43:13 pm
Quote
Me:

It's the bell curve of intelligence. The XX chromosomes tend to average instead of one being dominant. Men, having only one X chromosome, take all their intelligence from that. It means that there are a lot of women in the midrange of intelligence and fewer at either end. The men are spread out more along the curve. There are a lot more stupid guys than stupid women, but a lot more geniuses, too.

J Thomas
Quote
That's a plausible story, and the evidence is weak.

In any one cell, the XX chromosomes mostly don't average out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation
One of them is mostly inactive. (But not completely inactive.)

But different cell lines can have different X chromosomes active. So there could be room for some sort of averaging. The genetics of intelligence is not worked out well at all, and there are stories about difficulties getting funding to study it. Maybe a lot of people just don't want to know.

As you say, there's not an absolute averaging, but regardless if the theory is completely correct -- or fails to hold water at all -- there is something there. The sexes use different parts of the brain to think. I've also watched a program where a female to male transexual's spacial awareness increased and her language ability decreased after being on hormones for several months. I don't know. I bought "The Bell Curve" some years ago. The graph where they overlaid male and female intelligence was striking. The conclusions of that book are a PC minefield, but the statistics seem to hold up rather well, even allowing for some quibblers. Regardless of the cause, the patterns of male and female intelligence seem to be quite real.

Quote
Me: That's why the top scientists are almost always men. There are also a couple of studies that show that average overall intelligence favors men, but the difference is slight: 5 IQ points in a study done in the UK and 3 points in a study in the US. I have no idea how rigorous these studies were, but I thought I'd mention them.

Quote
J Thomas: It's a plausible JustSo story. Intelligence is in general hard to study. One of the problems is that it's hard to get good results studying people who are more intellingent than the researchers, and somehow the most intelligent researchers appear to consider this a field worth staying away from. I could make up JustSo stories why they might feel that way.

Granted, intelligence is a variable that's hard to quantify, but I don't see what the intelligence of the researchers or the subjects have to do with it. In any reputable study, the researchers wouldn't be directly evaluating their subjects' intelligence, they'd be using standardized tests.

Quote
J Thomas: In general, if you make laws designed to discriminate on some criterion, there will be people who officially meet that criterion who do not in fact meet it who will manipulate the situation in their own favor. You'd have to look at individual laws to decide whether this is "ants at a picnic" or whether it's important enough to change the law.

I'm not in favor of elevating someone over another on the basis of an IQ test. Potential is one thing; harnessing that potential is another.

Quote
J Thomas: I like the idea of paying close attention to individual circumstances.

In what way?

Quote
J Thomas: But I also like the idea of one-law-fits-all, particularly when I don't get to choose who tries the case. What if the other guy is rich or popular? I don't want him to get everything his way because that's taken too much into consideration.

I like a society that creates basic equal opportunity, but not equal outcomes. Sure, the quality of public schools vary, but a large part of that, in my experience, is due to culture, and dumbing down to the lowest common denominator out of fear of failing too many students. It's sheer stupidity because it rewards people who don't try with a pointless free ride to a useless diploma and brutally penalizes those who want to learn with a dull, mind-numbing slog to mediocrity when they are capable of so much more. What about the responsibility of the parents, or a single mother, who has no time for the kids or relies entirely on the school to educate her offspring, tells her kids that society is stacked against them, then blames others for her kids' failures? Ignoring reality is mental illness.

Thomas Sowell pointed out that black Harlem schools in the 1940's used to produce kids with test scores similar to the best white private schools. So what happened? Could it have been the breakdown of the family and the adaptation of an achievement-killing culture of quotas and ready-made excuses for failure?

This is yet another reason why I think the Left is mentally ill. Psychiatrists, who are almost always lefties, almost universally rejected the importance of the breakdown of the family. They did so based on PC. Despite the clear evidence, their prevailing "wisdom" was that poor educational achievement and high crime rates were due to the cumulative effects of centuries of racial discrimination and resultant low self-esteem. When enough studies forced them to admit the obvious, they grumbled and whined, and they still don't like to admit that they were wrong all along, partly because they helped doom a couple of generations to failure, but mainly, I think, because they see the role of family -- having a father and a mother in particular -- and the importance of culture as "conservative" positions.

I imagine that the Cerereans are less likely to deny reality about most things. It does concern me, though, that while there is a lot about ZAP and rights for kids in EFT and on the forum, there is a good deal of ambiguity in the role of the family.

Quote
J Thomas: And yet, on the other hand, what's the point in being rich if it doesn't let you flout the laws? I might be rich someday, and then it would be good for me to be above the laws the peons have to follow.

These moral issues have a lot of complications.

Ah, did you forget the "/s" tag? :)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 25, 2011, 03:03:03 pm
Quote
Me:

The XX chromosomes tend to average instead of one being dominant. Men, having only one X chromosome, take all their intelligence from that. It means that there are a lot of women in the midrange of intelligence and fewer at either end. The men are spread out more along the curve. There are a lot more stupid guys than stupid women, but a lot more geniuses, too.

J Thomas
Quote
That's a plausible story, and the evidence is weak.

In any one cell, the XX chromosomes mostly don't average out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation
One of them is mostly inactive. (But not completely inactive.)

But different cell lines can have different X chromosomes active. So there could be room for some sort of averaging. The genetics of intelligence is not worked out well at all, and there are stories about difficulties getting funding to study it. Maybe a lot of people just don't want to know.

As you say, there's not an absolute averaging, but regardless if the theory is completely correct -- or fails to hold water at all -- there is something there. The sexes use different parts of the brain to think.

And people raised Japanese also use different parts of their brains to think. Is thinking in Japanese really so different?

Quote
Quote
Me: That's why the top scientists are almost always men. There are also a couple of studies that show that average overall intelligence favors men, but the difference is slight: 5 IQ points in a study done in the UK and 3 points in a study in the US. I have no idea how rigorous these studies were, but I thought I'd mention them.

Quote
J Thomas: It's a plausible JustSo story. Intelligence is in general hard to study. One of the problems is that it's hard to get good results studying people who are more intellingent than the researchers, and somehow the most intelligent researchers appear to consider this a field worth staying away from. I could make up JustSo stories why they might feel that way.

Granted, intelligence is a variable that's hard to quantify, but I don't see what the intelligence of the researchers or the subjects have to do with it. In any reputable study, the researchers wouldn't be directly evaluating their subjects' intelligence, they'd be using standardized tests.

Well, intelligence is a variable that's hard to quantify, so researchers try to quantify it using standardized tests that were created by rather stupid people. Is that enough of a hint?

Quote
I'm not in favor of elevating someone over another on the basis of an IQ test. Potential is one thing; harnessing that potential is another.

Agreed. By some criteria the very idea is ridiculous. "If you're so smart, how come you need special privileges to get by?" It reminds me of an old New Yorker cartoon. There are windows with smoke coming out of them, and a fireman on a ladder at one window where a woman is passing him a baby, and at the next window over a chubby guy with a goatee and a beret is saying "Quick! Over here! I'm a creative person!"

Quote
I like a society that creates basic equal opportunity, but not equal outcomes.

Agreed. I wouldn't have any particular problem with a society that had a 100% inheritance tax, You can get whatever outcomes you can create for yourself. But I feel OK without even that much basic equal opportunity too.

Quote
This is yet another reason why I think the Left is mentally ill.

Project much? Is it sane to mix up your orders of abstraction so far? "The Left" is not an entity that is even capable of holding a unified point of view, it can hardly be coherent enough to be insane.

Quote
Quote
J Thomas: And yet, on the other hand, what's the point in being rich if it doesn't let you flout the laws? I might be rich someday, and then it would be good for me to be above the laws the peons have to follow.

These moral issues have a lot of complications.

Ah, did you forget the "/s" tag? :)

Yes, and yet doesn't it make sense directly too? Lots of people have so very much sympathy for the rich, from the dream that they might become rich themselves. Or from some sort of peculiar identification.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 25, 2011, 04:29:30 pm
Quote
Me: As you say, there's not an absolute averaging, but regardless if the theory is completely correct -- or fails to hold water at all -- there is something there. The sexes use different parts of the brain to think.

Quote
J Thomas: And people raised Japanese also use different parts of their brains to think. Is thinking in Japanese really so different?

Yes. Male brain: left brain or / right brain. Female A mix.

Quote
Me: Granted, intelligence is a variable that's hard to quantify, but I don't see what the intelligence of the researchers or the subjects have to do with it. In any reputable study, the researchers wouldn't be directly evaluating their subjects' intelligence, they'd be using standardized tests.

Quote
J Thomas: Well, intelligence is a variable that's hard to quantify, so researchers try to quantify it using standardized tests that were created by rather stupid people. Is that enough of a hint?

A hint that you're jumping to all sorts of conclusions? Yes.

Quote
Me: I like a society that creates basic equal opportunity, but not equal outcomes.

Quote
J Thomas: Agreed. I wouldn't have any particular problem with a society that had a 100% inheritance tax, You can get whatever outcomes you can create for yourself. But I feel OK without even that much basic equal opportunity too.

I have a hard time knowing if you're being sarcastic or not. There are so many wild ideas running around, I really think we need them. Are you truly okay with the state taking a person's life work just so everyone can start "clean?" Have you considered the consequences? There would be little reason to hold onto anything. The end of one's life would be a rush to spend it all. The state would have a nice plot of land or bank account to pass on to their favorites. The poor man or woman would be denied the right to pass on his wealth to children, spouse, or charity of choice. Dreadful idea.

Quote
Me: This is yet another reason why I think the Left is mentally ill.

Quote
J Thomas: Project much?

Not at all. Consider my argument: Is it reasonable, does it hold water? I say that willfully ignoring reality is a sign that one is mentally ill. Socialism and PC have been proven to be non-rational policies. I forgive the uninformed, but those who know better and still support those policies are simply mentally ill.

Quote
J Thomas: Is it sane to mix up your orders of abstraction so far? "The Left" is not an entity that is even capable of holding a unified point of view,

To the contrary, I've found the vast majority of leftists to remarkably monolithic across a wide spectrum. It's like a secular religion with certain tenets of belief: for instance, that conservatives are the devil. Of course there are branches like Greens and Reds, but underneath the recycled T-shirts, peace signs, "save the whales," and Sarah Palin fake quotes banners are those that vote only one way.

Quote
J Thomas: It can hardly be coherent enough to be insane.

I'm not crazy enough to even try to parse that phrase. :)

Quote
J Thomas about becoming rich to flout the law:: Yes, and yet doesn't it make sense directly too? Lots of people have so very much sympathy for the rich, from the dream that they might become rich themselves. Or from some sort of peculiar identification.

Is that what people long for, to become rich to flout the law? I would love to be rich, not to flout the law, but to enjoy my largesse. Now, to flout the law to become rich.... :)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 25, 2011, 04:50:59 pm
So the differences between men and women, you consider to be "glaringly obvious," turn out to be nothing more than statistical trends, correct?

Yes indeed.

In fact, when a woman walks into a room, your "glaringly obvious" assumptions about her are of little use in dealing with her as an individual, correct?

Incorrect.  On most of the qualities listed, there is little overlap between men and women.   For example, to a very good approximation, there are approximately zero competent female software engineers, apart from database management.  If a female engineer walks into the room, you can safely assume she is an affirmative action hire who will need a male colleague to actually do her job.  If you meet a female “firefighter”, you know she is actually a fiire watcher.  How many female “firefighters” do you think got killed in 9/11?    There are zero female firefighters, just as there are zero female software engineers, in the one case for lack of brains, in the other case for lack of guts.

The differences are greatest on matters related to reproduction, where the number of men who can bear children is statistically a bit on the low side, and as a result we have a huge problem with fatherless children, but no significant problem with motherless children.  Because of this enormous disparity, treating husbands and wives equally as “spouses” leads to ludicrous results.

Another way to look at the problem is that marriage is a contract, and the terms of that contract should approximate supply and demand.  Unfortunately it is an intimate long term contract, so the terms reflect social and coercive enforcement, rather than being readily negotiable. 

Since the old contract where wives were supposed to “love honor and obey” did approximately balance supply and demand, we should be unsurprised if the new contract does not, possibly explaining the present very large levels of fatherlessness.

BTW, politics has to do with the distribution of power within a group. The issue of market anarchy is just as much a position on politics as atheism is a religious belief. Under the ZAP, there is no difference between men and women

And if A gets pregnant by B, and B throws her out, who is aggressing?

When it comes to family matters and family law, the Zero Aggression principle does not help.

("No one has a right to initiate force...") and the ZAP is what we were talking about in the anarchistic society of the Belt.

And is a shotgun marriage initiation of force?  Is divorce initiation of force?  Does the Zero Aggression Principle imply divorce at the whim of either party?  If so, does it imply the same thing for other contracts?  And if it does imply that, what about children and property?

One final note. You think men are braver than women?

How many female firefighters died in 9/11?

There simply is not much overlap between men and women.  If a random male, and a random female walk into a room, you can be pretty sure which one is better at chopping wood.    And you can be pretty sure which one is more willing to fight fires.   

And you can be perfectly sure that one of them is not going to get knocked up by some random thug, so laws and customs that relate to that problem are quite definitely going to apply to women and only women, and not to “spouses” or “partners”.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 25, 2011, 06:19:48 pm
I wouldn't have any particular problem with a society that had a 100% inheritance tax, You can get whatever outcomes you can create for yourself. But I feel OK without even that much basic equal opportunity too.

You wouldn't?  Think about it.  You die, and all of a sudden your dependents (wife/husband, kids, worthless brother-in-law) suddenly have everything you'd owned taken away from them, and everything to which you'd had any arguable partial ownership rights gets entailed and subject to liquidation so that the taxing authority can receive the monetary value of that "100% inheritance tax

The violently aggressive resentful vicious cement-headed egalitarianism of the those who lust for massive inheritance taxes as a way to secure "basic equal opportunity" in an orgy of punishment inflicted upon the heirs of people who have managed to accumulate any kind of wealth in the course of their lives betrays a level of respect for their fellow human beings so low that shooting these tax enthusiasts on sight - like rabid dogs - is nothing more than a salubrious public health measure.

Heck, as if this determination to reduce other people to pauperism weren't enough, think about the effects of putting any more spending power in the hands of government thugs.

In every polity where the concept of taxing the dead became prevalent, people with the resource (material and intellectual) to do so have evaded such taxation by divesting themselves before death of the valuta sought by the grasping sons of bitches who seek government office.  In modern America, they have for many decades bought themselves laws which permit them to turn their material wealth over to effectively immortal legal fictions such as "foundations," which enjoy immunity from death taxes and other exactions. All sorts of other trickeries are employed, and we can readily anticipate that anybody stupid enough to think that "a 100% inheritance tax" is going to do anything in the way of securing any kind of "basic equal opportunity" for the people who do not have family members thoughtful enough to leave 'em bucketsful of money is going to find in this aspect of his/her life as much disappointment as the miserable asshole more than sufficiently deserves.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: qoheleth on April 25, 2011, 06:37:28 pm
...  On most of the qualities listed, there is little overlap between men and women.   For example, to a very good approximation, there are approximately zero competent female software engineers, apart from database management.  If a female engineer walks into the room, you can safely assume she is an affirmative action hire who will need a male colleague to actually do her job.
That would be seriously and woefully incorrect based on my experience.  (Yes, I'm aware, being versed in statistics, that personal experience never translates into actual figures.)  Still, I've met many highly competent electrical, chemical, and software engineers in my time, enough to render your "approximately zero" factually challenged by sheer number of examples alone.

As I see it, the problem with male-female equality is the same as most other forms.  What is to be desired for fairness' sake is to have equality of opportunity, not a forced equality of results.  Where women are as capable as men (and vice-versa), they should be allowed to compete equally.  Where certain factors such as body size, mass, and strength come into play, one would expect that males will probably outnumber females.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 25, 2011, 06:46:59 pm
I like a society that creates basic equal opportunity, but not equal outcomes.

I find it remarkable that anyone with enough intelligence to string words in a row should succumb to the fallacy that "society" in this sense is in any way an entity with conscious purpose and volition instead of being merely the process by which individual human beings interact without aggression.  Thomas Paine opened his Common Sense with a perfectly satisfactory differentiation between "society" and "government" in 1776, and it's as if that straightforward appreciation soars way to hellangone over the heads of people today.

How is it that anyone should ever expect "society" to serve any function in creating "basic equal opportunity" of any kind for any person?  This isn't the way society functions to begin with, and society can never assume such a capability and remain "society" as it is correctly defined. To expect that such were possible - not to mention that it could be of any benefit whatsoever - is simply not sane.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 25, 2011, 07:04:13 pm
I wouldn't have any particular problem with a society that had a 100% inheritance tax, You can get whatever outcomes you can create for yourself. But I feel OK without even that much basic equal opportunity too.

You wouldn't?  Think about it.  You die, and all of a sudden your dependents (wife/husband, kids, worthless brother-in-law) suddenly have everything you'd owned taken away from them, and everything to which you'd had any arguable partial ownership rights gets entailed and subject to liquidation so that the taxing authority can receive the monetary value of that "100% inheritance tax

It would be a blow, yes, but if you try to cushion that too much then you wind up with a bunch of rich people controlling everything. If my other family members are doing adequately with their own businesses then they'll get by.

Quote
The violently aggressive resentful vicious cement-headed egalitarianism of the those who lust for massive inheritance taxes as a way to secure "basic equal opportunity" in an orgy of punishment inflicted upon the heirs of people who have managed to accumulate any kind of wealth in the course of their lives betrays a level of respect for their fellow human beings so low that shooting these tax enthusiasts on sight - like rabid dogs - is nothing more than a salubrious public health measure.

Ah, you have deep feelings about it. I don't, so I'll just back off. I can understand your position. After all, as one of the 1% of the public who owns 49% of the wealth, or one of the top 20% who owns 87%, mostly by inheritance, of course you want to keep what's yours. How could you live without it? There's no possible chance you could pick yourself up and earn it again if you lost it -- you aren't that kind of guy.

So of course you'd be ready to pay for somebody to shoot the people who might threaten your livelihood.

Yes, I'll just back off. It isn't any big deal to me. We have unsolved problems and no really effective solutions in mind. While super-rich people are definitely part of our problems, government is another part and trusting either of those to deal with the other is probably not going to have good results.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 25, 2011, 07:20:44 pm
Ah, you have deep feelings about it. I don't, so I'll just back off. I can understand your position. After all, as one of the 1% of the public who owns 49% of the wealth, or one of the top 20% who owns 87%, mostly by inheritance, of course you want to keep what's yours. How could you live without it? There's no possible chance you could pick yourself up and earn it again if you lost it -- you aren't that kind of guy.

Nope.  I'm broke - deeply in the hole - medically disabled, and so unarguably on the verge of death that I can't even get life insurance except on a one-for-one payment/payout ratio.

And you surely are an asshole, ain'tcha?

The sort of "100% inheritance tax" which you advocate, asshole, would leave my survivors without a roof over their heads when eventually I do die. 

But that's what you want, right? 

The people you call "super-rich" are always going to be able to arrange their affairs so as to evade confiscatory government exactions. It's people like me - or, at least, the members of my family - you're intent upon pillaging.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 25, 2011, 07:44:27 pm
As I see it, the problem with male-female equality is the same as most other forms.  What is to be desired for fairness' sake is to have equality of opportunity, not a forced equality of results.  Where women are as capable as men (and vice-versa), they should be allowed to compete equally.  Where certain factors such as body size, mass, and strength come into play, one would expect that males will probably outnumber females.

Anytime I read or hear somebody putting any sort of value on "fairness," I figure they're either gaudily stupid or they're intent upon the perpetration of fraud.  

I'm not sure which conclusion is the more charitable in the present case.  

There really can't be any kind of voluntary "fairness" in human affairs. The whole notion assumes the imposition of some kind of authoritarian ordination, the structuring of processes and/or outcomes on the basis of some persons' ideas of what "fair" should be.  

People don't look for "fairness" even when they're shopping for groceries.  They're always trying to get themselves some kind of advantage, and if they can do it without stealing that's precisely what they'll do.  One can live a perfectly moral life, without ever once violating the rights of other people, and not give a damn about "fairness."

So let's quit putting any value whatsoever on "fairness" - which is not susceptible to achievement even if it were in any way either desirable or moral - and look instead at the abatement of purposeful meddling in human affairs, interventions undertaken to favor or impair any parties in any way at all.  

Such interventions are most commonly (and most perniciously) undertaken by the officers of civil government.  Today we see a lot of this crap pushed forward under the color of "fairness" but we've also had it fly the flag of "market efficiency" and "national interest."  

Whether it's "affirmative action" or "natural monopoly" or "protective tariff," it's never more than an excuse to screw around with the voluntary interactions of human beings.

If we can't ever get "fairness" (and, indeed, it is both stupid and injurious to try), we can get rid of measures which interfere with voluntary human action under the guise of achieving supposedly "fair" processes or outcomes.

Why don't we stick with that?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: MacFall on April 25, 2011, 08:00:50 pm

So what accounts for your ignorance, Holt?


My guess: the same reason why most statists remain so after encountering arguments in favor of voluntary association as opposed to political association. Namely, abject terror at the idea that one's worldview, long held at the cost of much intellectual and emotional energy, is fundamentally and thoroughly corrupt. The admission of ideas, both factual and theoretical, which attack the central premise of statism (that legalized violence against the non-violent is just, or at least necessary) induces painful cognitive dissonance, and must therefore be fastidiously ignored lest one be forced to jettison his ill-considered, yet dearly held, convictions.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: MacFall on April 25, 2011, 08:11:26 pm
Ya know you keep on saying your brand of anarchy is better and I'll keep asking the same old question.
Why hasn't it ever worked then?

Because the state violently opposes the formation of non-state societies. Pretty simple. That statists constantly ask that question reminds me of playground bullies who hit their victims with their own hands and yell "why do you keep hitting yourself? Hurr hurr hurr!"
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 25, 2011, 08:12:21 pm
Ya know you keep on saying your brand of anarchy is better and I'll keep asking the same old question.
Why hasn't it ever worked then?

Because the state violently opposes the formation of non-state societies. Pretty simple. That statists constantly ask that question reminds me of playground bullies who hit their victims with their own hands and yell "why do you keep hitting yourself? Hurr hurr hurr!"

And thus the anarchist points out the problem with his ideology without actually realising he has done so.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: MacFall on April 25, 2011, 08:17:26 pm
So how about a country which runs government as a private enterprise and seeks to remove upfront taxation by making you want to pay for its services?

That's a lot like what some "rightist" AnCaps believe in. The problem is that government as normally considered is, by definition, a territorial monopoly. No matter what it is supposed to do, or forbidden to do, the fact that it has a territorial monopoly means that the people who run a government will simply do whatever they can get away with. And because the privileges of that monopoly include the use of legalized violence, they can get away with a lot.

Take away the monopoly aspect of government, and you're 90% of the way to solving the problem of politics.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: MacFall on April 25, 2011, 08:19:33 pm
Ya know you keep on saying your brand of anarchy is better and I'll keep asking the same old question.
Why hasn't it ever worked then?

Because the state violently opposes the formation of non-state societies. Pretty simple. That statists constantly ask that question reminds me of playground bullies who hit their victims with their own hands and yell "why do you keep hitting yourself? Hurr hurr hurr!"

And thus the anarchist points out the problem with his ideology without actually realising he has done so.


Pray enlighten me, then.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 25, 2011, 08:23:11 pm
Pray enlighten me, then.

As you clearly point out. States always end up consuming any nearby attempts at an anarchist society. Whether they come willingly or not is irrelevant. They are always consumed.
If any form of anarchy was superior this would not have happened.
It's survival of the fittest and anarchy is the retarded guy with messed up legs.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 25, 2011, 08:28:34 pm
Quote
Me: I like a society that creates basic equal opportunity, but not equal outcomes.

Quote
Tucci78: I find it remarkable that anyone with enough intelligence to string words in a row should succumb to the fallacy that "society" in this sense is in any way an entity with conscious purpose and volition instead of being merely the process by which individual human beings interact without aggression.  Thomas Paine opened his Common Sense with a perfectly satisfactory differentiation between "society" and "government" in 1776, and it's as if that straightforward appreciation soars way to hellangone over the heads of people today.

How is it that anyone should ever expect "society" to serve any function in creating "basic equal opportunity" of any kind for any person?  This isn't the way society functions to begin with, and society can never assume such a capability and remain "society" as it is correctly defined. To expect that such were possible - not to mention that it could be of any benefit whatsoever - is simply not sane.

Not sure what I said that was so controversial. It's a pretty standard conservative position. I don't care how Thomas Paine defined the words "society" and "government" at the moment. How about this definition?

A society or a human society is (1) a group of people related to each other through persistent relations such as social status, roles and social networks. (2) A large social grouping that shares the same geographical territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.

All I was trying to get across was that a society should creates basic equal opportunity, meaning, in the context I meant it, access to a certain level of basic public education for its citizens. In this day and age, that usually means schooling through high school. On Ceres, it could mean access to free school programs through the tanglenet, which anyone could use or ignore as they desired.

After that, I say, it's up to the individual to advance on his own.

YMMV
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 25, 2011, 08:31:13 pm
Ya know you keep on saying your brand of anarchy is better and I'll keep asking the same old question.
Why hasn't it ever worked then?

Because the state violently opposes the formation of non-state societies. Pretty simple. That statists constantly ask that question reminds me of playground bullies who hit their victims with their own hands and yell "why do you keep hitting yourself? Hurr hurr hurr!"

And thus the anarchist points out the problem with his ideology without actually realising he has done so.

Pray enlighten me, then.

He's saying that to keep a government from oppressing you, you have to somehow get the power to make the government stop oppressing you.

And it's unlikely that groups of disorganised terrorists can beat the government police and armies.

So long as governments can move in and oppress you whenever you try to do without them, you won't be free of them, they can oppress you whether or not you agree they are legitimate.

I would say he has a valid point -- you need some method to keep governments down. However, he seems to assume that no method can work for that. I want to note that various places people have gotten rid of governments they didn't like, often without a military defeat. Like, Marcos fled the Philippines without a defeat, he just realized that people weren't going to put up with him any more. They then chose to start a new government, but nobody made them do that -- they just didn't have the concept of not doing so.

The Shah left Iran without being defeated. People stopped cooperating, and he couldn't send the army out to *make* them cooperate, and the army was loosing cooperation too. The Iranian people set up a new government but nobody made them do it -- they chose to.

There are a lot of examples of that sort of thing. Some Cubans claim that they did it that way with Batista. People were sick of him and they just stopped doing what he wanted, and he ran away. Then Castro with his gunmen came down out of the mountains and started a government, and nobody thought to stop him.

What if people got so sick of their government they threw it out -- and just didn't make a new one? Could that happen? So far every time they have made a new one because they thought they ought to. But if they had the idea not to, maybe they wouldn't. And then we'd see what happened next.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 25, 2011, 08:42:48 pm
Ah but Thomas you forget. If there is no government in a region then another will move in to stake its claim. Assuming the region has something it wants. As such it is better to have a government of your own making then someone elses. Why do you think groups like Al Qaeda can actually recruit? It's not just about the religion it is about removing the foreign backed governments and replacing them with ones made by the locals.

The only way you could ever achieve a true anarchist land is in a place with no natural resources or anything of value.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 25, 2011, 08:45:34 pm

Nope.  I'm broke - deeply in the hole - medically disabled, and so unarguably on the verge of death that I can't even get life insurance except on a one-for-one payment/payout ratio.

The sort of "100% inheritance tax" which you advocate, asshole, would leave my survivors without a roof over their heads when eventually I do die.

You claim that you are deeply in debt but that your family can't afford to lose your inheritance. Hmm.

Then you argue that the rich can shelter their assets, but you can't.  Hmm.

So, if we had a 100% inheritance tax and everybody had ways to shelter their assets from it, it wouldn't be a big deal for you, it would be a sham tax.

And if we had a 100% inheritance tax that managed to avoid such shelters, you would have things worked out with your family so they wouldn't be hurt so bad. You'd work out ways so they could take care of themselves, to the extent that the government redistribution stuff failed them as you would assume it would.

So it sounds like your complaint is that it would be bad for you if it suddenly happened, when you have made your choices on the assumption it won't happen.

Just like you would be hurt if there was suddenly a big tax on gold, when you had been putting assets into gold. Or if government policy allowed gasoline prices to go way up after you bought a Hummer and an SUV.

You would be hurt because the current system allows you to be deeply in debt and still pass on lots of assets to your family, and you depend on that, and if it suddenly changed you would be out of luck.

But I said I was backing off and here I am getting interested in what you say. I really need to back off.

For myself, I'm foregoing investment options that require me to lock in assets for a long time, because I don't trust much of that. I'm pretty flexible and ready to adapt my dwindling resources in a variety of ways, so I'm not too much worried about particular government policies except for the worst ones. Of course, by avoiding big losses I'm guaranteeing myself small losses that will add up. I wish I had something to be confident in.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 25, 2011, 08:50:18 pm
Ah but Thomas you forget. If there is no government in a region then another will move in to stake its claim. Assuming the region has something it wants. As such it is better to have a government of your own making then someone elses. Why do you think groups like Al Qaeda can actually recruit? It's not just about the religion it is about removing the foreign backed governments and replacing them with ones made by the locals.

The only way you could ever achieve a true anarchist land is in a place with no natural resources or anything of value.

A land full of anarchists might look like it would be more trouble than it was worth to conquer. You are assuming that can't happen.

If it was small and weak enough, and it had resources that were valuable enough, one or more foreign governments might send in their armies to genocide the anarchists and then use the resources after the people were gone. I can see that possibility. But I don't see that it's inevitable every time. If the area that must be conquered is too large, or the resources too scattered, or the foreign governments wimpy enough, or the anarchists too ferocious, it needn't turn out like that at all.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 25, 2011, 08:52:56 pm
Problem. Anarchists are by their very nature unorganised. You'd be outnumbered and outgunned. Plus you would have to deal with the fact that a lot of the anarchists would just say "fuck this I'm not getting myself killed over this" and not get involved in your attempt to repel any foreign intervention. After all you are a self centered lot.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 25, 2011, 08:56:47 pm
In response to:
Is such injury an inevitable or even a high-probability outcome?

...of sexual contact between a female in the first or second decade of life and a physically mature male, we see posted:

The default assumption in our culture is that sex is a very emotionally intense experience, and thus females are in constant grave danger from men who would exploit them for their own gratification.

Because it's the woman who gets pregnant, women tend, more than men, to reject the view of sex as being legitimate as a mere physical pleasure, and instead see it as belonging to a context of a committed romantic relationship.

Traditionally, of course, our views derive from a situation that no longer exists to the same extent in the developed world. A peasant farmer family keeps its sons home to work on the farm; the daughters can't work as hard, so they're married off. If one loses her virginity, that becomes impossible.

While we no longer quite have the strict morality of those times, that still very much forms the basis of our society's thinking in these matters.

In the context of the present discussion, and with emphasis upon a sociocultural setting in the AnCap society of Ceres and the Belt stipulated as being significantly different both from subsistence-level agricultural economies (the default state of humanity for most of recorded history) and our prevailing Western industrial economy, the "default assumption" mentioned above simply does not obtain.  Should it be accorded any weight at all?

Indeed, it is false to assume that in a subsistance agriculture setting "A peasant farmer family keeps its sons home to work on the farm," if only because natural population increase over the generations must result in too many people trying to get their living from the same plot of arable land.  Forget about how "the daughters can't work as hard."  A farmstead perfectly adequate to support one married couple and their children will not sustain the third and fourth generations of offspring and their families, even with "green revolution" advances in productivity.  Ceteris paribus, you ain't gonna keep 'em down on the old farm, whether they've seen Paree or not.  New land must be taken into cultivation, or other ways of getting a living have to be found. 

Anybody reading here ever given much thought to the present condition of the Pennsylvania Dutch and their response to the ever-increasing prices of farmland in Lancaster County and regions hitherabouts? 

Again, we have the fundamentally false consideration of "society" as if it were a concrete entity with conscious purpose and intention ("the basis of our society's thinking in these matters"), and that is incredibly stupid.  What we should more properly speak about are prevailing suppositions and prejudices, none of which have real force except as they are codified in statute law and similar ordinances which have effect in the affairs of human beings only as they are imposed upon people by way of violent government action. 

No aggressive government violence - as in the AnCap society of Ceres and the Belt - and there's no "basis of our society's thinking" on matters pertaining to consensual sexual activities undertaken by competent moral agents. 

Now can we speak about the criteria by which people in a society not burdened by government thuggery might decide moral agency? 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 25, 2011, 09:03:31 pm
And if A gets pregnant by B, and B throws her out, who is aggressing?

That would depend on the circumstances--their previous agreement (or lack there of), what you mean by "throwing her out" (whose house is it?), was there an initiation of force or fraud, etc. Forget ZAP, no current or previous society could answer your questions without a lot more details and definitions.

When it comes to family matters and family law, the Zero Aggression principle does not help.

Sez, you. Have you ever been married or is your speculation purely academic? I would very much appreciate hearing about your practical experience as a patriarch. Really.

And is a shotgun marriage initiation of force?  Is divorce initiation of force?  Does the Zero Aggression Principle imply divorce at the whim of either party?  If so, does it imply the same thing for other contracts?  And if it does imply that, what about children and property?

Are these supposed to be real questions (i.e., you lack the capacity to apply the ZAP so want me to educate you) or are they "argument substitutes" (because you can apply the ZAP, but don't like the outcome)? I am not going to take you by the hand and walking you through what the ZAP actually means in practice. Create one detailed scenario, ask a question about it, supply your own answer and then we can discuss how well or badly you have used your brain to apply theory to practice. Man, these questions are totally inane.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 25, 2011, 09:25:16 pm
You wrote the following to Tucci78:

Then you argue that the rich can shelter their assets, but you can't.  Hmm.

You don't get that? Don't be so naive. An upper-middle class income person might be able to come to Panama an set up all of the structures needed to protect his assets. However, for most people, it is simply beyond their means and skill set. (Having said that, anyone interested in using Panama for corporate entities, banking, estate planning, retirement, immigration, income opportunities, etc., contact me privately.) (Holt need not apply. I know he doesn't have a pot to pee in nor an "estate" window to throw it out of. I'm pretty sure, he's unemployed and on the dole.)  :D

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 25, 2011, 09:34:31 pm
Not sure what I said that was so controversial. It's a pretty standard conservative position. I don't care how Thomas Paine defined the words "society" and "government" at the moment. How about this definition?

A society or a human society is (1) a group of people related to each other through persistent relations such as social status, roles and social networks. (2) A large social grouping that shares the same geographical territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.

All I was trying to get across was that a society should creates basic equal opportunity, meaning, in the context I meant it, access to a certain level of basic public education for its citizens. In this day and age, that usually means schooling through high school. On Ceres, it could mean access to free school programs through the tanglenet, which anyone could use or ignore as they desired.

Sigh! And this...person...is on the Internet and could just look up Common Sense for himself, couldn't he?  How does one possibly infer that he isn't stupid?  Heck, let's just draw from the cited source:
Quote
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.  

Thus we see that Aardvark's offer of a definition of "society" is evasive at best, and almost certainly nothing but purest deceit in any honest valuation of his effort.  

Again and again and again, we keep seeing the treatment of "society" as if this inchoate abstraction - the process of melding purposeful human action into a largely beneficial but definitely uncoerced interrelationship - were in some way capable of defining or securing any sort of outcomes which normative tyrant-wannabee assholes wish to impose upon their neighbors.  

I have become convinced that even those who conceive their intentions to be good - indeed, especially those self-righteous sons of bitches who have deluded themselves into believing that they can get away with all sorts of shit simply because they think their intentions are good - are so deeply committed to the aggressive violation of human rights that they have summarily made themselves the enemies of society, and cannot be treated as trustworthy participants in any social exchanges of any kind.  

Is Aardvark the kind of person who can be relied upon to steal a hot stove?  

Looks that way, doesn't it?

Oh, yeah.  "On Ceres, it could mean access to free school programs through the tanglenet, which anyone could use or ignore as they desired."

I'd like the authors of this ongoing graphic novel to explain to Aardvark about how the offer of anything to anyone as "free" in any society (much less the sort of AnCap society prevailing in the Belt) is either a charitable gift or - much more likely - an inducement to engagement in commerce.  

I could readily see that persons interested in selling instruction in more complex training would be delighted to package and offer boilerplate basic instructional materials for "free" Tanglenet download on the premise that such preparatory stuff will facilitate the development of more customers for their premium (and premium-priced) offerings.  That's very much what's being done in online education right now.  

Aardvark, are you completely bereft of any understanding of the "Free Lunch" concept?  
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 25, 2011, 09:41:54 pm
And if A gets pregnant by B, and B throws her out, who is aggressing?

That would depend on the circumstances--their previous agreement (or lack there of), what you mean by "throwing her out" (whose house is it?), was there an initiation of force or fraud, etc. Forget ZAP, no current or previous society could answer your questions without a lot more details and definitions.

When people cohabit, their agreement is seldom written down explicitly in words capable of being notarized by a justice of the peace.  When people marry, who gets to say what marriage means?

And is a shotgun marriage initiation of force?  Is divorce initiation of force?  Does the Zero Aggression Principle imply divorce at the whim of either party?  If so, does it imply the same thing for other contracts?  And if it does imply that, what about children and property?

Are these supposed to be real questions (i.e., you lack the capacity to apply the ZAP so want me to educate you)

These are intended to be unanswerable questions.  I expect you to recognize that you, like me, cannot deduce sensible answers from the zero aggression principle, that the Zero Aggression Principle leads to no answers at all, or answers that are outrageous, or answers that are self contradictory.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 25, 2011, 09:56:57 pm
These are intended to be unanswerable questions.  

Well then you fucked up. What you came up with were incomplete questions, not "unanswerable" ones. That is why I asked for specific examples, 'cause the devil is in the details. If you are capable of asking a complete question, I am more than capable of giving you a complete answer based on the ZAP. So far, you have failed to ask realistic questions and have fallen back on making unsupported claims regarding the application of the ZAP to domestic situations. Think you can fix that?

I expect you to recognize that you, like me, cannot deduce sensible answers from the zero aggression principle, that the Zero Aggression Principle leads to no answers at all, or answers that are outrageous, or answers that are self contradictory.

Again, sez you. Bald assertions do not impress or persuade anyone (except maybe the usual ignoramuses, but they will buy into anything that supports their preconceived biases). Try actually saying something and lets really get into it.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 25, 2011, 10:31:42 pm
These are intended to be unanswerable questions.  

Well then you fracked up. What you came up with were incomplete questions, not "unanswerable" ones.

The hypothetical couple somehow neglected to sign an extremely detailed pre-nuptial covering who does the washing up, child care responsibilities for future children, and division of assets in the event of dissolution of the relationship.

So the additional information that would enable application of the Zero aggression principle does not exist.

All those things that you want to be defined in advance, before they got together, have to be defined now,  The information you say should exist, does not exist, and has to be created retroactively.

That is why I asked for specific examples, 'cause the devil is in the details.

The main detail is that she was living with him and is now pregnant.   The rest really does not matter much.

But if you want minor details, suppose that she was contributing to paying off the home, but it was in his name, that she gets pregnant under the belief that he was committed to a permanent relationship and a family, while he believes he was tolerating her hanging around for a short while until he finds a better option.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 25, 2011, 11:34:50 pm
Hi, Tocci78, what's going on?

Now, to business:

Quote
Tocci78: Sigh! And this...person...is on the Internet and could just look up Common Sense for himself, couldn't he?  How does one possibly infer that he isn't stupid?  Heck, let's just draw from the cited source:

Well, excuse this ... person .. for defining my own terms! I love Thomas Paine (in the long-dead platonic sense), but I wasn't thinking of him or his interpretations (not really definitions) of "society" and "government" when I wrote what I wrote. Unless he has become the acknowledged universal definer of those terms, what he thought is immaterial to this discussion.

Evasive? I stated the meaning and context of my very short sentence that you seem to be roiling in rage over. I supplied a suitable definition for those terms you disagreed with. You think I made it up? Here's the link where I cut and pasted it from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society)

Most of the rest of your reply was based on your faulty premise, so I'll ignore it.

See how civil I am?

And now we have an interesting tidbit:

Quote
Tocci78: I could readily see that persons interested in selling instruction in more complex training would be delighted to package and offer boilerplate basic instructional materials for "free" Tanglenet download on the premise that such preparatory stuff will facilitate the development of more customers for their premium (and premium-priced) offerings.  That's very much what's being done in online education right now.  

Actually, I agree with you. That could well be a suitable way of supplying additional education. I'd even go further: Ceres needs qualified manpower. It might make good economic sense to supply free training programs to develop the necessary expertise. In fact, that principle would apply anywhere, not just for Ceres and the Belt.

Quote
Tocci78: Aardvark, are you completely bereft of any understanding of the "Free Lunch" concept?

Not at all. I loved R.A. Heinlein, especially Glory Road and Starship Troopers, and yes, I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress some time ago. TANSTAAFL See what a nice, understanding ideologue I am?

Here's where I'm coming from:

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a non-religious conservative with a Libertarian bent. I couldn't care less if someone waves his anarchist bona fides in my face. I have my own mind and can think for myself, thanks. I do some writing and have  done some world creation, meaning I've thought about how societies might work. I'm interested in the story and especially in the world Sandy has made. I like Ceres society for the most part, but I have a few mostly minor issues with it.

So, why do I believe that there should be some sort of basic educational system set up for the masses in any modern society? it's a twofor. Firstly, history has shown that societies are bound with common standards, values, and customs. It would behoove any society that was planning on being around for a while to create a bond between its citizens and the society they live in. Secondly, uneducated people with little common bonds (and appreciation of ZAP) running around are liable to create problems. Like the merchants who created a fund to find the mugger, I think it actually makes economic sense to provide a common basic education to the young FREE OF CHARGE.

How do you like them apples? :)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 25, 2011, 11:47:38 pm
The hypothetical couple somehow neglected to sign an extremely detailed pre-nuptial covering who does the washing up, child care responsibilities for future children, and division of assets in the event of dissolution of the relationship.

So the additional information that would enable application of the Zero aggression principle does not exist.

Nonsense. That is not a question; that is a conclusion (and an invalid one, at that). Since you clearly do not understand the ZAP, you lack the standing to draw that conclusion. So ask a damned question already! I will draw the conclusion and explain it in terms I think you will understand.

For starters, the idea that a pre-nup is some sort of prerequisite for the ZAP to apply in domestic situations is silly on the face of it. There is nothing in the ZAP that requires a previous agreement. What part of "no one has the right to initiate force" don't you understand?

All those things that you want to be defined in advance, before they got together, have to be defined now,  The information you say should exist, does not exist, and has to be created retroactively.

No they do not. Please pay attention. What part of "no one has the right to initiate force" don't you understand?

The main detail is that she was living with him and is now pregnant.   The rest really does not matter much.

Oh really? How do you figure that? "The rest" absolutely does matter. Which I suspect you already know, because you added:

But if you want minor details, suppose that she was contributing to paying off the home, but it was in his name, that she gets pregnant under the belief that he was committed to a permanent relationship and a family, while he believes he was tolerating her hanging around for a short while until he finds a better option.

Now you are almost there. Are you saying they never discussed the ownership of the house and she just chipped in gratuitously? If that is what you are saying, I guess it could happen, but I have never ever encountered such a situation. It sounds like special pleading to me.

Now you also make statements about his and her beliefs without discussing how those beliefs arose. Did they discuss it or were they both flying blind? Again, possible, but so unlikely in the real world as to raise the specter of special pleading again. The answer to that question is absolutely critical to determine an outcome with regard to an market anarchist, ZAP resolution. Which is it?

Finally, you have overlooked (intentionally?) the matter of her being "thrown" out. How did that happen, specifically? Did he heave her out the door, threaten her with a baseball bat, or what? Specifics, man!

Fair warning. Much like under the common law, arbitration courts will take into account common expectations implicit in certain situations, actions and words. In other words, the "reasonable person" test will come into play.

What does that mean? As an example, let's say I go into McDonald's, go up to the counter person and say, "Give me the Big Mac Combo with a diet Coke and super-size it." When the cashier gives me my order may I just walk away without paying? My argument being I did not say anything about buying the Big Mac. I merely asked the clerk to "give" to me. Do you think that in arbitration I would get away without paying? Of course not. The reasonable interpretation of the use of the word "give" in this context means "sell me." (For reasons you may surmise, computer geeks, schizophrenics and those with Asperger's Syndrome, often fail to understand this concept.) So in arbitration, things that have non-literal, but common meanings are what the arbiter will find.

Okay, now give us the relevant details and pose your "is such-and-such the initiation of force" question. "You may fire when ready, Gridley."
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 26, 2011, 12:16:21 am
Hmm! Ed is asking the phony tourist if he's lost. That's pretty clever. Rhonda is going to have to give Ed a lot of slack because her mission depends on him, or someone like him, caving. Could there be a Ceres-wide search going on for the girl? That would be interesting.

Addressing a stranger as "friend" creeps me out a little, though. It reminds me of that original Star Trek episode with Landroo, the mass mind. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 26, 2011, 12:31:01 am

These are intended to be unanswerable questions.  I expect you to recognize that you, like me, cannot deduce sensible answers from the zero aggression principle, that the Zero Aggression Principle leads to no answers at all, or answers that are outrageous, or answers that are self contradictory.

There's some truth to that.

The ZAP cannot answer all questions by itself. Something outside the ZAP has to decide about what's aggression. Who has which rights? Sometimes that's pretty clear. I don't have the right to walk up to a perfect stranger I have had no dealings with before and punch him in the nose. Sometimes it's less clear. If the other guy has been aggressing against me there might be some circumstance where it's appropriate for me to punch him in the nose in response.

So to actually apply the ZAP, it helps to use a whole lot of common sense. If you use common sense and the other guy uses common sense then very likely you'll reach an agreement about what you both ought to do.

And if you can't agree then very likely you can together choose an arbitrator who will apply common sense in a way you can both understand. Even if you agree ahead of time to follow an arbitrator's rulings, and you keep your word, it's a whole lot better for you to understand why he's right.

I can imagine two sorts of people who assume that sometimes common sense won't win out. One is philosophical types. They want to point out that common sense is not perfectly reliable and people can be hypocritical liars who pretend they are following ZAP while not really doing so. I'm guilty of arguing that sometimes. When a society gets too much hypocrisy and deceit you can't solve it with things like ZAP because people will develop a consensus to lie about it. Probably the best you can do in that case is move somewhere else and start over.

A second sort of person who assumes common sense will not apply does it because he wants to make any claim he can to argue that the system can't work. A society where few people have common sense will probably fail, and he can point out that  the system does not work to keep fools from doing anything foolish, and therefore the system cannot work.

It's no fun having discussions with people like that. They are likely to be deceitful and hypocritical and also they have no common sense.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 26, 2011, 12:36:30 am
You wrote the following to Tucci78:

Then you argue that the rich can shelter their assets, but you can't.  Hmm.

You don't get that? Don't be so naive. An upper-middle class income person might be able to come to Panama an set up all of the structures needed to protect his assets. However, for most people, it is simply beyond their means and skill set.

He said he is deeply in debt. Maybe I'm naive about such things.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 26, 2011, 12:43:06 am
Well, excuse this ... person .. for defining my own terms! I love Thomas Paine (in the long-dead platonic sense), but I wasn't thinking of him or his interpretations (not really definitions) of "society" and "government" when I wrote what I wrote. Unless he has become the acknowledged universal definer of those terms, what he thought is immaterial to this discussion.

Evasive? I stated the meaning and context of my very short sentence that you seem to be roiling in rage over. I supplied a suitable definition for those terms you disagreed with. You think I made it up? Here's the link where I cut and pasted it from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society)

Most of the rest of your reply was based on your faulty premise, so I'll ignore it.

See how civil I am?

Nah.  You're no more "civil" than you are honest or trustworthy.  You're simply trying ineptly to pass yourself off as such.

When I made reference to Thomas Paine's Common Sense as providing a definitive differentiation between "society" and "government" and you, Aardvark, strove to sidestep that citation by cutting-and-pasting (from "Wiki-bloody-pedia," of all sources) a definition which specifically contravenes Paine's expressed purpose in writing what we find in the first two paragraphs of his monograph, your intention was to evade rather than to sustain principled address of the subject at hand, and that's what you're still trying to do. 

When I asked - contemptuously - if you, Aardvark, are completely bereft of any understanding of the "Free Lunch" concept, you responded:

Not at all. I loved R.A. Heinlein, especially Glory Road and Starship Troopers, and yes, I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress some time ago. TANSTAAFL See what a nice, understanding ideologue I am?

...thereby demonstrating that you really don't know diddly about where Heinlein derived the "TANSTAAFL" element in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, obviously not realizing that at the time Heinlein was writing that novel, the concept had become current and widespread by way of the popular writings of economist Milton Friedman, and even Friedman was only retailing a notion that had long since been accepted and acknowledged in his field. 

What Heinlein didn't mention in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (insofar as I recall) is that the "Free Lunch" elements commonly made available in saloons and other drinking estabishments back in the '40s and '50s were not only intrinsically low-cost but also salty and otherwise thirst-inducing, increasing the patrons' incentive to increase their purchases of beer and other profitably vended beverages. 

Even if the cost of the "Free Lunch" weren't included in the price of the drinks, there would therefore nonetheless be ample incentive for the proprietors of these establishments to serve it up.  Something very like that is seen in casinos, where buffet offerings and even alcoholic beverages are provided at low (or no) direct out-of-pocket expense in order to better ensure that gamblers have little incentive to leave the establishment. 

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a non-religious conservative with a Libertarian bent. I couldn't care less if someone waves his anarchist bona fides in my face. I have my own mind and can think for myself, thanks. I do some writing and have  done some world creation, meaning I've thought about how societies might work. I'm interested in the story and especially in the world Sandy has made. I like Ceres society for the most part, but I have a few mostly minor issues with it.

So, why do I believe that there should be some sort of basic educational system set up for the masses in any modern society? it's a twofor. Firstly, history has shown that societies are bound with common standards, values, and customs. It would behoove any society that was planning on being around for a while to create a bond between its citizens and the society they live in. Secondly, uneducated people with little common bonds (and appreciation of ZAP) running around are liable to create problems. Like the merchants who created a fund to find the mugger, I think it actually makes economic sense to provide a common basic education to the young FREE OF CHARGE.

How do you like them apples?

To be a political conservative, one must necessarily be a hypocrite.  Stupidity is a big part of the mental make-up, too, as well as self-deceit.  Not that this isn't also true of the self-declared "progressive" authoritarian, but what the heck. 

This continued insistence upon treating "society" as if it were some kind of entity is characteristic of both conservatives and "Liberals," and marks both factions as hostile to human rights. 

Aardvark, I do wish that you'd just quit using the term "society" when what you really mean is "government."  Society - the process of voluntary peaceable interaction among human beings who have no wish to rape, rob, or enslave anybody - really shouldn't be used by people like you to mask your meddling viciousness. 

You really think you're going to get away with this crap in a venue being run by people who understand the difference between factual reality and your peculiar fantasies?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 26, 2011, 12:53:28 am
Aardvark backs away from Tocci78 carefully, keeping his hand close to his holster, leaving Tocci78 to stew in his own bile....
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 26, 2011, 01:48:35 am

You really think you're going to get away with this crap in a venue being run by people who understand the difference between factual reality and your peculiar fantasies?

Let me tell you a story. If you take a gel like agar, or gelatin, or cornstarch, and you freeze-dry it, you may get a material which is very very light weight but has moderate strength in tension or torsion. It usually has low compression strength but it crushes at reliable rates which can be valuable.

I spent years in labs that had agar, and gelatin, and cornstarch, and lyophilizers, and I never discovered that. By rights I should have done it before the guy who did it. But I just never thought of it.

The world is changing. Every few years I find somebody has come up with something that I should have done and never thought of. Not just that I was too busy developing something else, things I never thought of that I should have thought of. My batting average on those things is less than 50%.

I've lived long enough that I've seen the world change. I saw smallpox get eliminated. Now it doesn't exist anywhere except in weapons labs in the USA and Russia and Israel, and maybe a few more secret places. There's a chance those labs might get destroyed without releasing smallpox and it will be gone forever -- except that the sequence is known and today it's a trivial exercise to build it.

When I was a kid there were no computers but mainframes. I read about them in the best books I could find in my town library and I learned about drum memory. But by 1984 I owned my very own computer with 2K of memory (I bought a 16K expansion pack) and I could test my own genetic algorithms without needing an account with anybody. Now my computer wastes more processing power every day than there was in the world when I was a kid.

When I was a kid I read popularized physics books from my town library. They explained that quantum mechanics (or the equivalent wave mechanics) was necessary because with classical mechanics an electron would rotate around a proton radiating until it dived right into the proton in an untraviolet catastrophe. Electrons never dive into nuclei. But later I found that sometimes some nuclei do spit out electrons, and some of them spit out positrons. And an electron and a positron will in fact spin around each other radiating gamma rays until there is nothing left.

Do you believe you know the true laws of physics? Do you believe anybody knows the true laws?

My experience has convinced me that most of the people who believe they know the difference between factual reality and fantasy, are fooling themselves. They think their fantasies are factual reality. That might not be true of everybody who thinks that. But if there's somebody who is really truly in touch with factual reality, he's got to be one man in ten billion. A rare bird indeed.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 26, 2011, 01:55:06 am
He said he is deeply in debt. Maybe I'm naive about such things.

No, you're just an asshole.

I'm perfectly content to leave my personal situation out of the discussion, but you, asshole, had to imply that my opposition to your venomous and idiotic desire for a "100% inheritance tax" came of no other motivation than my putative wealth and my selfish desire to leave my family members with some kind of "unfair" advantage after I'm dead.

I think it reliable to infer that you, asshole, have little experience of either responsibility for the support of dependents or eking out a living in a condition of effectively total debilitation.  

Even were that the case, however, the experiences of disputants in fora such as this one really aren't relevant, are they?  

Though I have less than nothing to leave to my heirs when I succumb to the pathology that is killing me, I recognize that were your screw-the-rich "100% inheritance tax" to have been in effect when I got hammered unexpectedly by the onset of the condition from which I'm dying - and it almost got me "Dead Right There" - my family would have been pauperized in spite of the reasonable plans I'd laid to protect them from such government death duty depredations.  

The truth of this peculiar socialistic scumbucketry is that the people who really suffer from high death taxes are never the "super-rich" nor even those in the upper strata of the middle class but rather those families whose material wealth is minimal, and who are just barely getting by in political situations where civil government in its various manifestations is consuming roughly seven-eighths of their productive effort in taxation of various kinds.  

Those who have the monetary resources to structure their affairs in exploitation of the many loopholes built into the governments' schemes of predation - by definition those "super-rich" you want to drag down, asshole - are the people whom you and your co-religionists are never going to be able to get at.

But in your blind, stupid, purely vicious envy-motivated hatefulness, you're pretty thoroughly determined to make life difficult or impossible for everybody else.

And to what purpose?  Your own sense of self-satisfaction?

Hm.  I wonder what makes the advocate of a "100% inheritance tax" that much different from a violent rapist or a murderer.  
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: MacFall on April 26, 2011, 05:53:05 am
Pray enlighten me, then.

As you clearly point out. States always end up consuming any nearby attempts at an anarchist society.

States have always done so*. That they always will is not certain - just as in the past, the fact that certain majority races had successfully violently expropriated minority races was not proof that races would never see equality under the law; and the fact that religions at one time were territorial monopolies failed to prove that religions could never (most of the time) peacefully coexist.

*It is also worth noting that it took England five hundred years to conquer pre-Cromwell Ireland (which had no state), and the Holy Roman Empire three hundred years to undermine and finally overthrow the Icelandic commonwealth - and what allowed them to do so was that what little central government the gođorđ system had limited the number of competitors in the market for protection and jurisprudence, which allowed them to be bribed and threatened into submission one by one without people having the ability to switch to new gođorđ to maintain their independence. And as for the people of the American frontier, they voluntarily ceded their self-governance to the state because their society had not integrated the idea suggesting they should do otherwise.

But since their inception in the late 1800s, the concepts of non-coercive governance and self-ownership have steadily grown in popularity, and the rate of their growth has increased substantially in the past few decades. It's too late for the state to quash them. And as more people have adopted those ideas, more strategies for defeating the state have emerged. Eventually, the market will defeat all political systems. The only question is how many people the state will kill in its death throes. Likely it will be a tiny fraction of the number it has killed in the pink of its health.

Quote
It's survival of the fittest and anarchy is the retarded guy with messed up legs.

Do you honestly believe that a group's ability ultimately to murder peaceful people who disagree with them (and get away with it) is proof of their ideology's superiority? If so, you are just plain psychotic, and I will have to refrain from any further discussion with you. As Alice said to the Cheshire Cat, I do not want to go among mad people.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 06:39:34 am

Quote
It's survival of the fittest and anarchy is the retarded guy with messed up legs.

Do you honestly believe that a group's ability ultimately to murder peaceful people who disagree with them (and get away with it) is proof of their ideology's superiority? If so, you are just plain psychotic, and I will have to refrain from any further discussion with you. As Alice said to the Cheshire Cat, I do not want to go among mad people.

Oh but we're all mad here. The only question is will you be the one eating or the one being eaten.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 26, 2011, 06:57:28 am
Pray enlighten me, then.

As you clearly point out. States always end up consuming any nearby attempts at an anarchist society.

States have always done so*. That they always will is not certain -

You are clearly right about that.

Quote
*It is also worth noting that it took England five hundred years to conquer pre-Cromwell Ireland (which had no state),

Ireland often had kingdoms and such, which were kind of like states.

Quote
and the Holy Roman Empire three hundred years to undermine and finally overthrow the Icelandic commonwealth - and what allowed them to do so was that what little central government the gođorđ system had limited the number of competitors in the market for protection and jurisprudence, which allowed them to be bribed and threatened into submission one by one without people having the ability to switch to new gođorđ to maintain their independence.

Yes. It probably helped that Iceland was way the hell away from anywhere anybody cared about, and had no particular riches. It took a long time partly because nobody much cared about them. But that implies that an anarchic community might survive if it presents an even worse risk/reward ratio and it does not enrage anybody too much.

Quote
And as for the people of the American frontier, they voluntarily ceded their self-governance to the state because their society had not integrated the idea suggesting they should do otherwise.

Yes, that's what usually happened in the past.

Quote
But since their inception in the late 1800s, the concepts of non-coercive governance and self-ownership have steadily grown in popularity, and the rate of their growth has increased substantially in the past few decades. It's too late for the state to quash them.

That's a vitally important change. Over the past 180 years or so, leading up to and beyond the 1848 uprising, the people who wanted change were dominated by socialists etc. Now that those are discredited more people are ready to give anarchy a turn.

Quote
And as more people have adopted those ideas, more strategies for defeating the state have emerged.

I hope it won't come to that. If you need a strategy that's followed by more than a small minority of your anarchists, then you're well on your way to government.

Quote
Eventually, the market will defeat all political systems.

That's kind of like saying that eventually the Internet will defeat US Golf Association. They're different kinds of systems that people have different goals for. But I can't say it will never happen.

Quote
Quote
It's survival of the fittest and anarchy is the retarded guy with messed up legs.

Do you honestly believe that a group's ability ultimately to murder peaceful people who disagree with them (and get away with it) is proof of their ideology's superiority?

What he said doesn't have to mean that, though maybe he does mean that. If it's true that vicious governments will inevitably trample any anarchy, then we will eventually give up on anarchy because we will find by long painful experience that we can't protect it from governments. That doesn't make governments "right". If it turns out that there are parts of the Amazon that nobody can live in because the mosquitoes will suck out all your blood, that doesn't make the mosquitoes "right". It just means you can't live there until you find a way to deal with the mosquitoes.


If it's true that vicious governments will try to destroy any anarchy just as they try to destroy each other, then it's a constraint. You have to find a way to handle the foreign governments or it won't work. We knew that already. Holt presents it as a gotcha and we can't say for sure how we'd handle it. Maybe it's really just a yes-but, and I can't imagine how to persuade Holt of that.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 26, 2011, 07:46:05 am
Sometimes it's less clear. If the other guy has been aggressing against me there might be some circumstance where it's appropriate for me to punch him in the nose in response.

Sloppy, sloppy use of language and sloppy critical thinking. Let me red letter it for you. There are several formulations, but for our purposes here, L. Neil Smith's should do. "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."

In your almost-a-scenario, you use the wiggle word, "aggression," without any clear definition. If your guy has verbally "aggressed" against you my saying that your mother wears army boots, there is no "force," so you would unequivocally be violating the ZAP if you punched him in the nose. If he had "initiated" (i.e., started it) "force" (i.e., physical aggression) against you, it would have been he who violated the ZAP.

Now, there are nuances. Fraud is usually included with the initiation of force, as is the threat of force, but for most situations, the key words are initiate and force. Got it?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: happycrow on April 26, 2011, 08:19:00 am
Hmm! Ed is asking the phony tourist if he's lost. That's pretty clever. Rhonda is going to have to give Ed a lot of slack because her mission depends on him, or someone like him, caving. Could there be a Ceres-wide search going on for the girl? That would be interesting.

Addressing a stranger as "friend" creeps me out a little, though. It reminds me of that original Star Trek episode with Landroo, the mass mind. 

I did it all the time, until John McCain slathered it all over his political campaign.  It's both a regional thing and a carefully-loaded word, given the situation.  I'd guess Ed was originally from the stretch between Hell Paso and south-central Arizona, given his use of the word and his easy use of Spanish (until the narcos started truly screwing it up, the guys who actually *live* on the border here get along with each other just fine).
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: mellyrn on April 26, 2011, 09:08:15 am
Quote
It would be a blow, yes, but if you try to cushion that too much then you wind up with a bunch of rich people controlling everything.

The 100% inheritance tax would only affect those who don't put everything into something like a trust long before "inheritance" is ever a factor.  It was a really rich guy who said, "Own nothing; control everything."

If laws are passed outlawing trustlike entities, the very laws specifying what may and may not be done help define the ways to get around the laws.  Then more laws are written, till the contracts are so involved and convoluted that no one can read them in a lifetime.  Then, as per Prigogine, the system breaks down under its own complexity and some new pattern arises.


Quote
Quote
*It is also worth noting that it took England five hundred years to conquer pre-Cromwell Ireland (which had no state),

Ireland often had kingdoms and such, which were kind of like states.

States, plural, thus multiple foci of power, each one needing to be dealt with, instead of A state where, if the head of state conceded, all his followers would, well, follow suit.  "A" state might have gone down in less than half a millennium, perhaps.

Quote
Quote
And as more people have adopted those ideas, more strategies for defeating the state have emerged.

.... If you need a strategy that's followed by more than a small minority of your anarchists, then you're well on your way to government.

If a few hundred million people independently agreeing to go on strike is well on its way to "government", then the word "government" is well on its way to uselessly vague.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 10:44:18 am
What he said doesn't have to mean that, though maybe he does mean that. If it's true that vicious governments will inevitably trample any anarchy, then we will eventually give up on anarchy because we will find by long painful experience that we can't protect it from governments. That doesn't make governments "right". If it turns out that there are parts of the Amazon that nobody can live in because the mosquitoes will suck out all your blood, that doesn't make the mosquitoes "right". It just means you can't live there until you find a way to deal with the mosquitoes.


If it's true that vicious governments will try to destroy any anarchy just as they try to destroy each other, then it's a constraint. You have to find a way to handle the foreign governments or it won't work. We knew that already. Holt presents it as a gotcha and we can't say for sure how we'd handle it. Maybe it's really just a yes-but, and I can't imagine how to persuade Holt of that.


Not even vicious governments are needed to defeat Anarchy. Look at Denmark. For quite a while they were very tolerant of their little anarchist microstate despite it flaunting the drugs laws openly and generally being a prat. They asked nicely for the guys to stop selling drugs in stalls on the street (not asking them to stop selling drugs mind you) and in return the anarchists commenced to be even more dickish.
Now the microstate is being reabsorbed into Denmark.

This is the fate that awaits any anarchy. Organised people will always trump unorganised people. Ten people pulling together will always accomplish more than ten people pulling in different directions.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: happycrow on April 26, 2011, 12:03:48 pm
This is the fate that awaits any anarchy. Organised people will always trump unorganised people. Ten people pulling together will always accomplish more than ten people pulling in different directions.

What does that have to do with government?  Ten people being told what to do 'or else' will accomplish less than ten people pulling together every time, too.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 12:23:26 pm
This is the fate that awaits any anarchy. Organised people will always trump unorganised people. Ten people pulling together will always accomplish more than ten people pulling in different directions.

What does that have to do with government?  Ten people being told what to do 'or else' will accomplish less than ten people pulling together every time, too.

See here is the problem. Civilised Government isn't some big bad monster who wants an excuse to kill you and fornicate with the corpse.
It's a group of people with their own interests at heart and their own interests do not permit them to go down the Stalinist route. Ok the USA is an exception to the rule which explains why its got so many anarchists and created this insane "libertarian" phenomena. But still look at the civilised world and its governments, more concerned with helping people than raping babies and eating puppies.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 26, 2011, 12:58:26 pm
Quote
Quote
And as more people have adopted those ideas, more strategies for defeating the state have emerged.

.... If you need a strategy that's followed by more than a small minority of your anarchists, then you're well on your way to government.

If a few hundred million people independently agreeing to go on strike is well on its way to "government", then the word "government" is well on its way to uselessly vague.

If it's some fraction of the people deciding go "go on strike" that doesn't sound too onerous. Not like an actual strategy, the way I had in mind.

The sort of thing where someone tries to negotiate with the enemy, and tells everybody to stage a boycott on enemy products, and then the negotiations look like they're going well so he says to go ahead and buy, but then there's another snag and it looks like no deal and he tells them to boycott again ... that one isn't government until you start punishing people who don't boycott. But the more you depend on everybody to respond the same at the same time, the more the temptation to try to make them do it....

It looks like another semantic thing, where I wasn't using the words right for you. I'm going to just accept that this happens sometimes and we can clear it up if it's worth the trouble.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 26, 2011, 01:03:30 pm
There are several formulations, but for our purposes here, L. Neil Smith's should do. "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."
Oh. So, since advocating the initiation of force is something no human being has the right to do, it does not constitute initiation of force to take the people who say, "Gee, maybe we should go back to having a government", and march them off to the salt mines?

Right.

However, I think I will give both you and L. Neil Smith the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that neither of you really meant it the way it sounded. That would really shatter my illusions to find that you anarchists are just like all the others...
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: mellyrn on April 26, 2011, 03:28:25 pm
Quote
it does not constitute initiation of force to take the people who say, "Gee, maybe we should go back to having a government", and march them off to the salt mines?

Took me a while, but I finally understood you.  Saying, "Gee, maybe we should go back to forcing people to do what a leader (or leading body) says" constitutes "advocating" the initiation of force, therefore marching them off to the salt mines is, under the ZAP, merely self-defense.  Yes?

Well, I do have some questions about "advocating" the initiation of force.  At the moment I'm thinking, "On my planet, advocate away!  That way we know who you are."  I don't think I'd do anything about you until you started actively arranging it. 

Quote
That would really shatter my illusions to find that you anarchists are just like all the others...

Please do note that one can adhere to the ZAP without being an anarchist, and one can be an anarchist without the ZAP.  So, finding problems with the one does not necessarily imply problems with the other.  If you don't like this expression of the ZAP, it does not follow that you don't like anarchy.  Just sayin'.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 26, 2011, 03:49:49 pm
Took me a while, but I finally understood you.
I'm sorry that my point wasn't clear - but, indeed, it was perhaps a very unexpected one. I was being sarcastic, because while what I quoted could be taken to imply what I imputed to it, suppressing dissent is so clearly against everything the ZAP stands for, and part of government rule at its worst, that my point wasn't that what I was referring to... was a real problem. Just a sign that if something like this could get by as a formulation of the ZAP, some people had really not thought this thing through.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 26, 2011, 04:23:56 pm
There are several formulations, but for our purposes here, L. Neil Smith's should do. "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."
Oh. So, since advocating the initiation of force is something no human being has the right to do, it does not constitute initiation of force to take the people who say, "Gee, maybe we should go back to having a government", and march them off to the salt mines?

Right.

However, I think I will give both you and L. Neil Smith the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that neither of you really meant it the way it sounded. That would really shatter my illusions to find that you anarchists are just like all the others...

Good pickup! Luckily, your instinct is correct. I don't like Neil's use of that word and concept there, because it is not clear. Nonetheless, since it is not itself the initiation of force, the threat of force or fraud, you may say it with impunity--at least physical impunity. Anyone could certainly refuse to do business with you. As a real world example, I boycott original posts by CG and the Dolt, clearly because of their advocacy of might-makes-right thinking. (I do read posts by other people who devastate their arguments; that is almost always good for a laugh.)

Anyway, I think Neil meant it somewhat differently than it sounds. Think instead of these to situations:

+ You vote in favor of a referendum that would empower the police to initiate force against someone who has not initiated force against anyone else, i.e., a victimless "crime" such as prostitution. That sort of advocacy is a violation of the ZAP.

+ You see our neighbor smoking in his back yard and you identify the substance as marijuana by its smell. If you call the cops, having good reason to believe they will initiate force, your advocacy has initiated force and violated the ZAP.
 
That sort of advocacy is what I think Neil had in mind. In any case, for the purposes of this discussion, that is what I mean (as does the YouTube animation).
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 04:34:30 pm
Oh come now. Surely not even you believe in a victimless crime?

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 26, 2011, 04:52:25 pm

.... Nonetheless, since it is not itself the initiation of force, the threat of force or fraud, you may say it with impunity--at least physical impunity. Anyone could certainly refuse to do business with you.

....

+ You vote in favor of a referendum that would empower the police to initiate force against someone who has not initiated force against anyone else, i.e., a victimless "crime" such as prostitution. That sort of advocacy is a violation of the ZAP.

Agreed. Siccing the police on people who do victimless crimes is not a good thing.

Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness. But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that.

You could take it to arbitration, and with the inevitable delays there will be a strong chance that she will have her $10,000 and get treatment before the arbitration begins.

You could insist, and with force partly moral and partly physical get her treated. This is aggression on your part, but you could justify it on the grounds that she is committing physical force on each of her clients.

But say you merely announce to everybody who might be interested in her, by linking to her Facebook page and everything else you can think of, that Ginger is a prostitute who has a dangerous untreated STD. Then you are not committing any physical force at all against her and there is no question whether you might be wronging her, you definitely are not.

It looks to me like there's something screwy about this reasoning. it's logically self-consistent but something feels wrong about it to me.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 26, 2011, 06:50:25 pm

.... Nonetheless, since it is not itself the initiation of force, the threat of force or fraud, you may say it with impunity--at least physical impunity. Anyone could certainly refuse to do business with you.

....

+ You vote in favor of a referendum that would empower the police to initiate force against someone who has not initiated force against anyone else, i.e., a victimless "crime" such as prostitution. That sort of advocacy is a violation of the ZAP.

Agreed. Siccing the police on people who do victimless crimes is not a good thing.

Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness. But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that.

You could take it to arbitration, and with the inevitable delays there will be a strong chance that she will have her $10,000 and get treatment before the arbitration begins.

You could insist, and with force partly moral and partly physical get her treated. This is aggression on your part, but you could justify it on the grounds that she is committing physical force on each of her clients.

But say you merely announce to everybody who might be interested in her, by linking to her Facebook page and everything else you can think of, that Ginger is a prostitute who has a dangerous untreated STD. Then you are not committing any physical force at all against her and there is no question whether you might be wronging her, you definitely are not.

It looks to me like there's something screwy about this reasoning. it's logically self-consistent but something feels wrong about it to me.


No reason for self-doubt; you walked yourself right through it. You came up with a solution consistent with the ZAP. It is probably not the only solution, but certainly a good one. BTW, I doubt you could even get into arbitration on such a flimsy suspicion. Your solution is very parsimonious, congrats.

(I already know what the ignoramuses are going to claim. I think I'll give them the opportunity to put their feet in their mouths first. It's more sporting.)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 07:15:50 pm
So spreading malicious rumours is in line with your ideal world?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 26, 2011, 08:21:15 pm
Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness. But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that.

You could take it to arbitration, and with the inevitable delays there will be a strong chance that she will have her $10,000 and get treatment before the arbitration begins.

On what grounds would one take her to arbitration? 

Quote
You could insist, and with force partly moral and partly physical get her treated. This is aggression on your part, but you could justify it on the grounds that she is committing physical force on each of her clients.

How is she committing non-consensual physical force?  This would assume that (a) Ginger in fact does have a dangerous and communicable STD (which hasn't been established), (b) Ginger engages in activities which may communicate said STD (which a third party would not generally have knowledge of), (c) Ginger is withholding or giving false information about whether or not she has said STD.

Quote
But say you merely announce to everybody who might be interested in her, by linking to her Facebook page and everything else you can think of, that Ginger is a prostitute who has a dangerous untreated STD. Then you are not committing any physical force at all against her and there is no question whether you might be wronging her, you definitely are not.

What if it is not true?  There is nothing to indicate that Ginger is a prostitute in the information given, nor is there any evidence that she has an STD beyond one person's "strong reason" to believe so.  There is also no evidence that if the first two items are true that prophylactic practices to minimize infection are not in place.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 26, 2011, 08:49:22 pm
How is she committing non-consensual physical force?  This would assume that (a) Ginger in fact does have a dangerous and communicable STD (which hasn't been established), (b) Ginger engages in activities which may communicate said STD (which a third party would not generally have knowledge of), (c) Ginger is withholding or giving false information about whether or not she has said STD.
If there are not grounds to suspect that all three of these factors are true with high probability, then the scenario proposed does not exist.

However, in the case of (c), it should be noted that people would not necessarily ask about such a thing, for obvious reasons, and it is thus a failure to give warning, not active misinformation or even non-response to inquiries from interested parties (from which the obvious conclusion could be inferred in any case) that is culpable.

The scenario, as I understand it, is that there is strong reason to believe (a), the truth of (b) is also implied, and (c) follows from (b).
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 26, 2011, 09:36:30 pm
However, in the case of (c), it should be noted that people would not necessarily ask about such a thing, for obvious reasons, and it is thus a failure to give warning, not active misinformation or even non-response to inquiries from interested parties (from which the obvious conclusion could be inferred in any case) that is culpable.

It is incredibly stupid to not ask someone whom one believes to be sexually active about any known or presumed STDs as a matter of course - if not offered automatically. There is no obvious reason, other than being a sexual prude, that one would not ask.   In any case, I did include the word "withhold" as well. 

Quote
The scenario, as I understand it, is that there is strong reason to believe (a), the truth of (b) is also implied, and (c) follows from (b).

There is no[ good reason given to believe (a), no reason at all given to believe (b), and (c) is already covered.

Further, J Thomas has suggested that it is appropriate to make statements one knows may not be true  -- he does not suggest passing on a strong reason for the suspicion  (which would then naturally call for the supporting evidence for that suspicion), but rather stating it as an absolute truth.

He also suggested arbitration for a matter in which there is apparently neither contract nor tort.

There's no evidence that anyone has done anything wrong (assuming that no one took his advice, of course), which he doesn't like. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 26, 2011, 10:03:32 pm
It's no more malum in se (in any way) to issue truthful public notice in warning that a person is harboring a dangerous communicable disease than it is to post on the Tanglenet a notification that a particular individual has perpetrated theft or assault and has evaded compensation determined remediative in arbitration.

Which latter is, I remind all reading here, the way the AnCap society on Ceres and in the Belt customarily addresses malefactors who refuse to render whole the people whose rights they have violated. 

To make such statements erroneously or falsely is itself an action undoubtedly imposing damages upon the wronged party, and arbitration would certainly ensue to determine the material compensation required of the foolish or malevolent perpetrator.  No "sovereign immunity" in an AnCap society to insulate a government thug against the consequences of impugning the reputations of people even on the basis of arguable best intentions. 

If a medical practitioner on Ceres determines that the canons of his profession require the promulgation of a public health notice of any kind, he'd damn' well better be prepared to back up his diagnosis and risk assessment, hadn't he?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: spudit on April 26, 2011, 10:41:59 pm
Confused here. Do they report dangerous disease carriers due to medical ethics or laws or both?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 26, 2011, 10:56:55 pm
Confused here. Do they report dangerous disease carriers due to medical ethics or laws or both?

Given that statute laws in an AnCap society have effectively no force even if they can be presumed to exist, the canons of the profession - "medical ethics" - would be the driving impetus behind a clinician's promulgation of a communicable disease warning on the Tanglenet.

Standards of care tend relatively reliably to obtain (with real puissance) without resort to the force of law or any other kind of coercion.  Much more a matter of real collegial "peer pressure" than anything else. 

Damned few of us want to look like an irresponsible bloody ignoramus in the opinion of those people best qualified to judge our competence. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 27, 2011, 02:41:10 am
Well this thread has drifted into .. something  ;D

On the subject at hand, I for once think that a An-Cap society would be more conservative, especially since the cost of recklessness won't be shifted to somebody else through benefits et al.

The cost has to carried either by the Parents or they are unwilling the youngster would had bear it by becoming an adult working et al.

I find the somewhat pro-NAMBLA tone disturbing, especially since it is mixed with Stephane Molineux/Bork nonsense concerning children. The truth is that Children become adults around 18 years old and before that they don't have the mental capacity to consent or make certain choices ...

Since there was never a society where it was socially acceptable to let your kids with a sexual freak, I bet NAMBLOID caught would get in a hell of problem, has the children guardians can castrate him. I find it a great flaw of AnCap to say that ''children are free'' will at the same time blidning themselves to the fact that same children don't have the mental, emotional and personal capacity to make most choices

Congrats to Sandy, Rhonda pissed bitch face is priceless ... Am I a masochist if it turn me on
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 27, 2011, 07:26:19 am
Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness. But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that.

You could take it to arbitration, and with the inevitable delays there will be a strong chance that she will have her $10,000 and get treatment before the arbitration begins.

On what grounds would one take her to arbitration?

I suppose in the most legalistic sense you could contact some of her customers and wait until one of them tests positive and develops symptoms.

Is this one of those things where common sense is involved?

Quote
Quote
You could insist, and with force partly moral and partly physical get her treated. This is aggression on your part, but you could justify it on the grounds that she is committing physical force on each of her clients.

How is she committing non-consensual physical force?  This would assume that (a) Ginger in fact does have a dangerous and communicable STD (which hasn't been established),

For the sake of discussion, let's say that you do know the truth about this. In reality there might be some room for doubt, leaving you with a moral concern. If you are only 90% sure, then you must balance the damage she may do to lots of people versus the damage you do her which she could sue you over, if you are wrong. At some particular level of doubt you will be completely undecided. With considerably more doubt you will comfortably do nothing, and with considerably less doubt you will confidently act.

Of course, if she's a reasonable person she might agree to get tested and settle the issue to the degree that the testing works. Each test will have some fraction of false positives and some fraction of false negatives, but if it's a false positive then no real harm done unless the treatment is expensive or dangerous. A false negative is worse, but we can only do the best we can.

But in this story she has chosen not to voluntarily cooperate to the extent that a reasonable person would.

Quote
(b) Ginger engages in activities which may communicate said STD (which a third party would not generally have knowledge of),

For the sake of discussion, let's say that you do know about this. And after all, she told you why she didn't want to get treated yet. You are making yes-buts.

Quote
(c) Ginger is withholding or giving false information about whether or not she has said STD.

She wants to make $10,000 quick. She refuses testing. Is she going to make a quick $10,000 telling people "I think I have a serious STD" or "Somebody thinks I have a serious STD but I refuse to find out"?

Quote
Quote
But say you merely announce to everybody who might be interested in her, by linking to her Facebook page and everything else you can think of, that Ginger is a prostitute who has a dangerous untreated STD. Then you are not committing any physical force at all against her and there is no question whether you might be wronging her, you definitely are not.

What if it is not true?  There is nothing to indicate that Ginger is a prostitute in the information given,

?? There isn't?

Quote
nor is there any evidence that she has an STD beyond one person's "strong reason" to believe so.  There is also no evidence that if the first two items are true that prophylactic practices to minimize infection are not in place.

These are yes-buts. You don't like the dilemma so you assume it away.

For most things we can depend on voluntary cooperation. if it's only 95% effective, so what? Government coercion is seldom more than 90% effective, and we get by adequately, so if people only cooperated a little bit better we'd get by just fine. I doubt that approach will work for epidemic disease. 95% cooperation can give you an epidemic.

With the current system, the public health people provide free testing. Or you can get private testing. In either case, if you test positive for a known epidemic STD, your MD is legally obligated to report it. You will be asked to list all your recent sexual partners, and you are legally required to answer. (Though I've never heard of somebody getting prosecuted for leaving some out.) They will contact your partners and test them. If you pay for your own testing, your MD may break the law for you. He can give you treatment and not report it and not ask about your sexual partners, and who will know?

The uS system is not generally thought to be corrupt, though there have been cases in latin american countries where the wives of opposition leaders were arrested and forced to take STD tests and then were publicly announced to test positive, when testing by supporters of the opposition showed they tested negative.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5754a1.htm
As a result of our system, reported cases of gonorrhea in the USA in 2008 were only 0.11% of the US population. (About 1% in US blacks for a variety of reasons.) Syphilis rates were very low but rising -- particularly rising among gay men.

It is not ideal but we can get by this way. I'm reasonably sure an AnCap society can find methods that will work well enough to get by.

Taking the stand that people have the right to spread epidemic disease and other people do not even have the right to call for arbitration about it, is probably not workable.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: GlennWatson on April 27, 2011, 08:17:29 am
I would assume men frequenting prostitutes know the potential dangers, or if they don't they should.  Informing them again while possibly hurting an innocent women is unnecessary.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 27, 2011, 08:38:23 am
I would assume men frequenting prostitutes know the potential dangers, or if they don't they should.  Informing them again while possibly hurting an innocent women is unnecessary.
That's one position one can take.

Another is that while the dangers exist in the abstract, as a very, very low risk in any individual encounter, if a woman knowingly works as a prostitute while she is infected with an STD, that increases the risk enough in specific cases that her activity is, rightly, to be viewed as an initiation of force on her part.

And this initiation of force should be responded to just like any other initiation of force.

It all depends on whether you view "men frequenting prostitutes" as a 100% legitimate business transaction, like "men buying a quart of milk at the store", so that if the milk isn't pasteurized, it will be labelled as such, and precautions will be taken so as to minimize the chance of it spreading disease... or if, instead, it's like "men buying crack cocaine", in which case anyone foolish enough to do this does so at his own risk.

While an AnCap society doesn't have piles of bureaucratic regulation, it is expected that the ZAP is to, as it were, take the place of the bureaucratic regulations of the FDA - and since in an AnCap society, prostitution and cocaine are not illegal... if AnCap is so wonderful, clearly milk and meat and vitamins will not be less safe, if anything, they'll be more safe, than they are in our present society - and prostitution and cocaine will be equally safe, since they're now equally legal. (Except, of course, for whatever cocaine in itself does to people that is bad.)

Now that you see the perhaps false assumptions I'm working from, you can point out the flaw in my reasoning.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: GlennWatson on April 27, 2011, 09:13:15 am
I say men are allowed to engage in dangerous activities.  Sky diving, bungee jumping flying small planes, getting married, all of these activities are life threatening but adults are allowed to do them despite the danger.  I am no going to destroy a crane designed for bungee jumping just because I am afraid people using it might be hurt even if I am really afraid. 

The weakness in my argument is if I find out there is some flaw in the crane. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 27, 2011, 09:54:19 am
I would assume men frequenting prostitutes know the potential dangers, or if they don't they should.  Informing them again while possibly hurting an innocent women is unnecessary.

More, in an AnCap social milieu - where government prohibitions of "victimless crime" do not impair voluntary human action - any person (man, woman, or child) seeking to earn valuta as a "sex worker" would strive to ensure that his/her services were not only pleasurable but safe as a matter of customer satisfaction. 

In places where prostitution has "legitimate business" status and competition is unimpaired, the providers have strong interest in the maintenance of quality standards for the sake of repeat custom and good reputation.  Concern with hygiene (all aspects) invariably tends to be strong.  It's a selling point, right?

Especially in the presence of the Tanglenet (functioning as explained by the authors of this graphic novel), anyone providing less than honest goods is going to lose market value.

The incentives of enlightened self-interest have always operated, but in a setting with high-access information flow making one's good name a real premium, they should function with particular reliability. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 27, 2011, 10:30:31 am
Well, just as in an AnCap society, one would have a choice to consort with a prostitute on a street corner, or go to a bordello run to high standards... one would have a choice to buy milk in a big supermarket, or to go to a farm run by hippies.

The AnCap idea is for the market to take the place of regulation. That is something I didn't touch on in my post.

But the issue of being allowed to engage in dangerous activities is one issue. The person who started the discussion on this subject was talking about a different issue - of being allowed to make those activities a lot more dangerous than they appear to be.

Just because an AnCap society doesn't have government bureaucrats, does that mean that the ZAP has loopholes big enough to drive a truck through?

That's still a question even if you believe adults should be free to drink raw milk.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 27, 2011, 11:20:55 am
Well there is question of standards. For instance the meat industry in the USA permits the heavy use of antibiotics and steroids in meat animals. As such this means the US meat supply is tainted with these steroids as well as antibiotics. The steroids can have varying effects although the meat industry in the USA puts a lot of effort into muddying the water as they'd loose money if they were unable to use steroids to bring their animals up to slaughter weight faster. The antibiotics result in antibiotic resistant bacteria developing faster which can cause knock on effects in healthcare.

Meanwhile in European countries things like this are either outright banned or much more heavily regulated due to the severe health concerns involved. Meat from the USA is barred from import in many countries too.

In an AnCap society this wouldn't happen and we'd all get to enjoy meat laced with steroids....wait no that's not something I'd enjoy.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 27, 2011, 01:35:33 pm
Quote
Holt: In an AnCap society this wouldn't happen and we'd all get to enjoy meat laced with steroids....wait no that's not something I'd enjoy.

Out of curiosity, how would you know if you haven't been ingesting harmful steroid-laced beef? About 10-15% of EU beef, at least in the article I read, uses steroids. Unlike the US, which has a half-dozen FDA approved steroids that don't leave harmful byproducts in the meat, those illegal cattle producers in the EU use whatever steroids are handy, including those of the harmful variety. A strong case can be made that EU beef is more harmful than US beef. I'd rather have a steak in Texas than one in London, thank you.

Really, you never seem to spare an opportunity to attack the US with whatever nonsense and half-truths you can manufacture. As bad as the US has become under this administration, you still wouldn't want to get into a pissing contest about which organization is worse, the US or the EU. So enjoy the 15% freedom that Brussels permits you to have. Of course, it was your choice, after all: England conducted a referendum before joining the EU and your countrymen passed it overwhelmingly -- oh, wait, that's not right, your politicians promised a referendum, but you never had one and now they don't want to talk about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 27, 2011, 02:39:26 pm
Quote
Holt: In an AnCap society this wouldn't happen and we'd all get to enjoy meat laced with steroids....wait no that's not something I'd enjoy.

Out of curiosity, how would you know if you haven't been ingesting harmful steroid-laced beef? About 10-15% of EU beef, at least in the article I read, uses steroids. Unlike the US, which has a half-dozen FDA approved steroids that don't leave harmful byproducts in the meat, those illegal cattle producers in the EU use whatever steroids are handy, including those of the harmful variety. A strong case can be made that EU beef is more harmful than US beef. I'd rather have a steak in Texas than one in London, thank you.

Everything you say could be true. It's the sort of situation where people have a lot of money depending on convincing the public of something, so we can expect a lot of lies, but there's a chance you have the truth of it here.

But I don't quite understand what you think is going on. Is it that 10% to 15% of EU farmers are criminals who illegally do whatever they think will make money faster? But 100% of US farmers do what they think is best for the final consumers?

Well, of course it's predictable that either farmer will do whatever gets him the best profit. If a bad steroid works better than a good steroid, he'll use it if he can get away with it. If he's supposed to stop using the steroids for a period before sale but continued use results in more money, he'll keep using it.

Unless there are adequate inspections. Like they say in the Navy, "If it isn't inspected, it's neglected.".

In any system, if you can't tell whether you're being cheated, you probably are. Unless you can trust your sellers to do the right thing whether anybody finds out or not.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 27, 2011, 02:51:15 pm
On the subject at hand, I for once think that a An-Cap society would be more conservative, especially since the cost of recklessness won't be shifted to somebody else through benefits et al.

The cost has to carried either by the Parents or they are unwilling the youngster would had bear it by becoming an adult working et al.

sams' fixation on "cost" here is particularly senseless, making it plain that he has no more real understanding of economics than he has of any other aspect of purposeful human action.  

One aspect of the authors' posited setting in this graphic novel which seems to have escaped sams' understanding completely is that in an AnCap society, there is no government operating to thieve away the value of productive human effort.  

Let's assume that sams doesn't know (or is neurotically thought-blocking on the appreciation) that civil government in most present-day polities - and particularly in these United States - deprives the private citizen of seven-eighths (at a "conservative" estimate) of the transfer value he/she generates in all remunerative transactions.

And this says nothing about the direct and indirect costs of government "winner-picking" economic regulations, the greatest number of which have not even the most tenuous fictional pretense of "consumer protection."  

"Government services" rendered - it is laughably contended that these come "in return" for the taxes and regulations imposed involuntarily upon the victims - never equal the value of what is taken, nor do they compensate the mulcted private person for the opportunity costs of which he/she is deprived as his/her resources are thieved away.  Even were the machinery of civil government not glaringly inefficient in itself, "Taxation is not levied for the benefit of the taxed."

I think it safe to conclude that sams is using the term "conservative" in the sense that characterizes the modern Anglophone political social/traditional "conservative," a statist authoritarian desirous of using government thugs aggressively to suppress those of his/her neighbors' speech and actions which disquiet said "conservative" person's neurotic sense of propriety.

Y'know.  The kind of cement-head who insists upon figleafing the genitalia on statuary because the sight of a putto's pudenda might cause naughty thoughts.  

With it being understood that these people are insane, and that sams is emphatically not talking about the economic aspects of political conservatism when he uses the term "conservative," let us ask whether or not the people in an AnCap society would necessarily demonstrate this kind of insanity.  

Indeed, granted better economic conditions than obtain in our present highly-taxed (a seven-eighths rip-off, remember) and viciously "regulated" polities, would there be any economic incentives which could or would cause the people of Ceres and the Belt - whatever "arrangement for living" they might devise in terms of the getting and nurturing of offspring - to be as sexually tight-assed as sams keeps on senselessly insisting they'd be?

Under economic conditions of scarcity, where the material welfare of the private person is constantly degraded by government depredations and government suppression of productive enterprise, the margins of survival are such that people will tend to constrain their reproductive activities so as to reduce exposure to potential adversity.  Denied access to contraceptive means, they'll try to keep down the costs associated with raising offspring by reducing fecundative sexual activity.

This isn't sociocultural.  It's economic.  It simply gains sociocultural (including religious) coloration as a matter of custom.  Remove the economic constraints - as we'd see in the materially wealthy AnCap society of the Asteroid Belt in the context of Escape From Terra - and the "conservative" bullshit that sams keeps peddling will most assuredly disappear.

Now, let's look at what's really crawled up sams' urethra to inflame his bladder.

I find the somewhat pro-NAMBLA tone disturbing, especially since it is mixed with Stephane Molineux/Bork nonsense concerning children. The truth is that Children become adults around 18 years old and before that they don't have the mental capacity to consent or make certain choices ...

Since there was never a society where it was socially acceptable to let your kids with a sexual freak, I bet NAMBLOID caught would get in a hell of problem, has the children guardians can castrate him. I find it a great flaw of AnCap to say that ''children are free'' will at the same time blidning themselves to the fact that same children don't have the mental, emotional and personal capacity to make most choices.

For the purpose of clarity, NAMBLA is an acronym for "North American Man-Boy Love Association," a group which first aggregated sometime in the 1970s to make the case for the decriminalization of consenting sexual relationships between males regardless of age.  

Bear in mind that in most Anglophone jurisdictions today, voluntary sexual contact between minor children - male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, involving no adults whatsoever - is treated as intrinsically and inescapably injurious and even criminal.  

(I would deeply appreciate somebody explaining how this, too, isn't insane, but what the heck....)

I would charitably leave aside for the moment the understanding that sams' insistence "that Children become adults around 18 years old" is also quite insane, but his insanity is of a piece with that of the sociocultural traditionalist "conservative" pathology which people would be striving to escape when relocating to Ceres and the Belt in the Escape From Terra plenum.  

From the standpoints of the biologist and the obstetrician, the condition of physical maturity is said to have been achieved when the organism in question has become capable of fecundative reproductive activity.  In males, that doesn't necessarily mean spermarche (the time at which spermatozoa can be detected in the ejaculate) because without in vitro artifice there is little real chance of viable impregnation, but it's not long thereafter that a male become capable of getting himself offspring.

Under present conditions of nutrition and hygiene, spermarche most commonly occurs between the ages of 11 and 15 years.  

Anybody else reading here know men who have wound up paying child support as the result of sexual activities they enjoyed while they were in junior high school?  I certainly do.  

On the female side, the ability to reproduce - and the liability that they will get pregnant - also develops well before physical growth to full adult stature has been attained.  In pre-industrial cultures throughout human history, where the prospects of infant survival have always tended to be poor, the commencement of baby-making has always come very early in a woman's life, and there are definitely reasons why even in statute law today, the official sanction of marriage (explicitly for the purpose of reproduction) is not uncommonly accorded women at ages as low as ten or eleven.  

On both sides, therefore, sams is blowing it out his ass when he insists "that Children become adults around 18 years old."  Like any other insane person, sams is indulging his neuroses - or like any other idiot, he's displaying his uncritical buy-in of currently prevailing bigotries - as if either these neuroses or bigotries have anything to do with objective reality.

In this forum, there's been much discussion of how an AnCap society not only does not impose upon effective voluntary human action (of which even children in the first decade of life are capable) in the name of "ending child labor" those impediments which criminalize the greatest part of young people's efforts to work for payment, but also how the economy of Ceres and the rest of the Belt is quite capable of enabling children and adolescents to earn monetary compensation for the production of goods and the performance of services of real material value.  

Bear in mind that we're seeing industrial and other economic activities being undertaken in microgravity, where adult male stature and muscularity are not necessary for most work, and any such requirement can be "engineered out" when it's expedient to do so.  This is what enables women to compete with men here on Terra today, right? How could the same not prevail in the high-technology civilization and intrinsically labor-poor economy of the Belt as depicted?  

Okay.  In the AnCap society of Ceres and the Belt, we've got technological sophistication and an economy that is extremely wealthy in material terms (which latter fact is the reason why the U.W. is intent upon the plunder and enslavement of this population).  

No government thieving away seven-eighths of whatever value is earned by the sweat of the private citizen's brow, remember.  So if sams and the other statists are contending that a child in normal health at age nine or ten can't grind out better than the equivalent of about one-eighth of the productive effort exerted by the average adult person in the course of gainful employment in these United States today, they're yet again blowing it out their asses.  

A kid - even one of tenderer years than those of Babette the Younger as she first presented in Escape From Terra - would be eminently capable of setting up wholly independent housekeeping on Ceres should he/she desire to do so.  

And just who would keep such a child from cohabiting with whoever he/she might desire, adult or not, with or without sexual "privileges" involved?  

The suppositions of sams regarding parents exerting their property rights in the physical bodies of their offspring by murdering or mutilating adults with whom those children had chosen voluntarily to engage in sexual activity (much less going Dutch with 'em on bed and board) are the indulgences of an idiot, particularly in an AnCap social setting.  

It is economically unnecessary for anyone - child or adult - to be treated as property under such circumstances, and where necessity does not drive, customs have no purpose and therefore no force.  sams' brain is working on way outdated software.  

But with regard to the sexual appetites and practices of NAMBLA members - of all ages - there is, strictly speaking, no possibility whatsoever of unwanted pregnancies.  We're talking about homosexual liaisons among males, some of whom are below the locally prevailing "age of consent," however such an age is arbitrarily set.  

It being understood that "age of consent" is an idiot legal fiction (as I've mentioned, there are boatloads of American men who have spent decades of their lives paying child support for pregnancies they'd unintentionally fathered when they themselves were "legal infants" and incapable of even entering upon the marriage contract), is there something about sexual contact - heterosexual or homosexual - which is intrinsically so damaging or dangerous that there is any justification for prohibition?  Or, indeed, for any kind of disapproval on the part of anybody, including the participants' relatives?

I'd like to see sams and his social/traditionalist "conservative" co-religionists make a logically supported case to the effect that the criminalization of man-boy sexual activities (or the less formal violent aggressions perpetrated against what he likes to call the "NAMBLOID" folk) is justified by actual objectively demonstrated harm done to anyone involved in such activities.

I don't think they'd even dare to try.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 27, 2011, 04:22:16 pm
Quote
J Thomas: But I don't quite understand what you think is going on. Is it that 10% to 15% of EU farmers are criminals who illegally do whatever they think will make money faster? But 100% of US farmers do what they think is best for the final consumers?

Here's the issue: The FDA has determined that certain steroids are safe and only produce harmless non-steroid compounds in beef that are easily digested. From what I can tell, the EU doesn't have any evidence that US approved steroids cause any problems in beef, but ban US beef anyway. It's probably an excuse for protectionism. Europe doesn't have the wide open spaces and efficient grain farms the US has to feed the cattle with. Like European wheat and other grain, they likely can't compete with US beef without heavy subsidies. They certainly don't want cheap US beef entering their markets and ruining their beef industry.

The EU is concerned about steroids excreted by steroid-fed animals filtering down to the water supply. Steroids have a fairly short half-life, but they believe that they could be a potential health problem for wildlife that live in and drink from streams, and possibly to human beings. Still, if that is a risk, the production of steroid-fed beef would be a risk to US residents, not to anyone in the EU, so that issue doesn't have anything to do with how healthy US beef is.

Quote
J Thomas: Well, of course it's predictable that either farmer will do whatever gets him the best profit. If a bad steroid works better than a good steroid, he'll use it if he can get away with it. If he's supposed to stop using the steroids for a period before sale but continued use results in more money, he'll keep using it.

There aren't that many US approved steroids, but they are cheap, so there's little reason to cheat and use illegal ones. IIRC, about $3 of steroids produces $40 of extra beef. The EU, however, bans all steroids in their cattle, so the farmers use whatever is handy, which include some steroids that leave harmful byproducts in beef. Testing for a wide range of steroids is time consuming and quite expensive, so I'm sure it's difficult for the EU to inspect for steroids.

Quote
J Thomas: Unless there are adequate inspections. Like they say in the Navy, "If it isn't inspected, it's neglected.".

In any system, if you can't tell whether you're being cheated, you probably are. Unless you can trust your sellers to do the right thing whether anybody finds out or not.

Your level of pessimism continues to amaze me, but here you probably have a point. If so much EU beef uses steroids, then I have to wonder if the EU is more concerned with its subjects' health or its market share. Still, inspection processes vary. You likely have no idea what the US beef industry has to go through to sell beef to Japan.

Here's the article I was referring to:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_1_161/ai_82512511/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_1_161/ai_82512511/)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 27, 2011, 04:23:59 pm
is there something about sexual contact - heterosexual or homosexual - which is intrinsically so damaging or dangerous that there is any justification for prohibition?
In the world we currently live in, contraception isn't perfect, and there is no cure for AIDS.

Sexual desire is a strong motivating force for humans.

Another thing we don't have is rejuvenative medicine. So people grow old, and sometimes they need to have someone look after their affairs for them. Because money is a strong motivating factor for people, it isn't considered odd that there is oversight when someone signs over a power of attorney in a case like that.

Does sex hurt people?

That's not really the right question.

Because sexual relationships are emotionally intense, sexual exploitation can indeed hurt people very much. The psychological problems experienced by many victims of sexual exploitation have been well-documented.

That this may be in part due to certain cultural baggage, some of which comes from historical religious sources, with which sexual activity has been freighted... is simply irrelevant. Using that to discount the harm is blaming the victim.

Protecting young adolescents from being the victims of predatory older males is a legitimate goal, and if it may seem inconsistent on a principled basis to do so while not criminalizing natural youthful sexual experimentation, I'm not sure that should be a major concern.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 27, 2011, 04:32:14 pm
You are either being a moron, so willing to have ''Online debate smack down'' orgasm that you are fucking confounding me with some else.

No fucking address my points or go get some fucking blow job and stop fantasying has Champion of liberty in a forum ... especially when you are behaving like a moron.

On the subject at hand, I for once think that a An-Cap society would be more conservative, especially since the cost of recklessness won't be shifted to somebody else through benefits et al.

The cost has to carried either by the Parents or they are unwilling the youngster would had bear it by becoming an adult working et al.

sams' fixation on "cost" here is particularly senseless, making it plain that he has no more real understanding of economics than he has of any other aspect of purposeful human action.  

One aspect of the authors' posited setting in this graphic novel which seems to have escaped sams' understanding completely is that in an AnCap society, there is no government operating to thieve away the value of productive human effort.  

Let's assume that sams doesn't know (or is neurotically thought-blocking on the appreciation) that civil government in most present-day polities - and particularly in these United States - deprives the private citizen of seven-eighths (at a "conservative" estimate) of the transfer value he/she generates in all remunerative transactions.

And this says nothing about the direct and indirect costs of government "winner-picking" economic regulations, the greatest number of which have not even the most tenuous fictional pretense of "consumer protection."  

"Government services" rendered - it is laughably contended that these come "in return" for the taxes and regulations imposed involuntarily upon the victims - never equal the value of what is taken, nor do they compensate the mulcted private person for the opportunity costs of which he/she is deprived as his/her resources are thieved away.  Even were the machinery of civil government not glaringly inefficient in itself, "Taxation is not levied for the benefit of the taxed."

I think it safe to conclude that sams is using the term "conservative" in the sense that characterizes the modern Anglophone political social/traditional "conservative," a statist authoritarian desirous of using government thugs aggressively to suppress those of his/her neighbors' speech and actions which disquiet said "conservative" person's neurotic sense of propriety.

Y'know.  The kind of cement-head who insists upon figleafing the genitalia on statuary because the sight of a putto's pudenda might cause naughty thoughts.  

With it being understood that these people are insane, and that sams is emphatically not talking about the economic aspects of political conservatism when he uses the term "conservative," let us ask whether or not the people in an AnCap society would necessarily demonstrate this kind of insanity.  

Indeed, granted better economic conditions than obtain in our present highly-taxed (a seven-eighths rip-off, remember) and viciously "regulated" polities, would there be any economic incentives which could or would cause the people of Ceres and the Belt - whatever "arrangement for living" they might devise in terms of the getting and nurturing of offspring - to be as sexually tight-assed as sams keeps on senselessly insisting they'd be?

Under economic conditions of scarcity, where the material welfare of the private person is constantly degraded by government depredations and government suppression of productive enterprise, the margins of survival are such that people will tend to constrain their reproductive activities so as to reduce exposure to potential adversity.  Denied access to contraceptive means, they'll try to keep down the costs associated with raising offspring by reducing fecundative sexual activity.

This isn't sociocultural.  It's economic.  It simply gains sociocultural (including religious) coloration as a matter of custom.  Remove the economic constraints - as we'd see in the materially wealthy AnCap society of the Asteroid Belt in the context of Escape From Terra - and the "conservative" bullshit that sams keeps peddling will most assuredly disappear.

Now, let's look at what's really crawled up sams' urethra to inflame his bladder.

I find the somewhat pro-NAMBLA tone disturbing, especially since it is mixed with Stephane Molineux/Bork nonsense concerning children. The truth is that Children become adults around 18 years old and before that they don't have the mental capacity to consent or make certain choices ...

Since there was never a society where it was socially acceptable to let your kids with a sexual freak, I bet NAMBLOID caught would get in a hell of problem, has the children guardians can castrate him. I find it a great flaw of AnCap to say that ''children are free'' will at the same time blidning themselves to the fact that same children don't have the mental, emotional and personal capacity to make most choices.

For the purpose of clarity, NAMBLA is an acronym for "North American Man-Boy Love Association," a group which first aggregated sometime in the 1970s to make the case for the decriminalization of consenting sexual relationships between males regardless of age.  

Bear in mind that in most Anglophone jurisdictions today, voluntary sexual contact between minor children - male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, involving no adults whatsoever - is treated as intrinsically and inescapably injurious and even criminal.  

(I would deeply appreciate somebody explaining how this, too, isn't insane, but what the heck....)

I would charitably leave aside for the moment the understanding that sams' insistence "that Children become adults around 18 years old" is also quite insane, but his insanity is of a piece with that of the sociocultural traditionalist "conservative" pathology which people would be striving to escape when relocating to Ceres and the Belt in the Escape From Terra plenum.  

From the standpoints of the biologist and the obstetrician, the condition of physical maturity is said to have been achieved when the organism in question has become capable of fecundative reproductive activity.  In males, that doesn't necessarily mean spermarche (the time at which spermatozoa can be detected in the ejaculate) because without in vitro artifice there is little real chance of viable impregnation, but it's not long thereafter that a male become capable of getting himself offspring.

Under present conditions of nutrition and hygiene, spermarche most commonly occurs between the ages of 11 and 15 years.  

Anybody else reading here know men who have wound up paying child support as the result of sexual activities they enjoyed while they were in junior high school?  I certainly do.  

On the female side, the ability to reproduce - and the liability that they will get pregnant - also develops well before physical growth to full adult stature has been attained.  In pre-industrial cultures throughout human history, where the prospects of infant survival have always tended to be poor, the commencement of baby-making has always come very early in a woman's life, and there are definitely reasons why even in statute law today, the official sanction of marriage (explicitly for the purpose of reproduction) is not uncommonly accorded women at ages as low as ten or eleven.  

On both sides, therefore, sams is blowing it out his ass when he insists "that Children become adults around 18 years old."  Like any other insane person, sams is indulging his neuroses - or like any other idiot, he's displaying his uncritical buy-in of currently prevailing bigotries - as if either these neuroses or bigotries have anything to do with objective reality.

In this forum, there's been much discussion of how an AnCap society not only does not impose upon effective voluntary human action (of which even children in the first decade of life are capable) in the name of "ending child labor" those impediments which criminalize the greatest part of young people's efforts to work for payment, but also how the economy of Ceres and the rest of the Belt is quite capable of enabling children and adolescents to earn monetary compensation for the production of goods and the performance of services of real material value.  

Bear in mind that we're seeing industrial and other economic activities being undertaken in microgravity, where adult male stature and muscularity are not necessary for most work, and any such requirement can be "engineered out" when it's expedient to do so.  This is what enables women to compete with men here on Terra today, right? How could the same not prevail in the high-technology civilization and intrinsically labor-poor economy of the Belt as depicted?  

Okay.  In the AnCap society of Ceres and the Belt, we've got technological sophistication and an economy that is extremely wealthy in material terms (which latter fact is the reason why the U.W. is intent upon the plunder and enslavement of this population).  

No government thieving away seven-eighths of whatever value is earned by the sweat of the private citizen's brow, remember.  So if sams and the other statists are contending that a child in normal health at age nine or ten can't grind out better than the equivalent of about one-eighth of the productive effort exerted by the average adult person in the course of gainful employment in these United States today, they're yet again blowing it out their asses.  

A kid - even one of tenderer years than those of Babette the Younger as she first presented in Escape From Terra - would be eminently capable of setting up wholly independent housekeeping on Ceres should he/she desire to do so.  

And just who would keep such a child from cohabiting with whoever he/she might desire, adult or not, with or without sexual "privileges" involved?  

The suppositions of sams regarding parents exerting their property rights in the physical bodies of their offspring by murdering or mutilating adults with whom those children had chosen voluntarily to engage in sexual activity (much less going Dutch with 'em on bed and board) are the indulgences of an idiot, particularly in an AnCap social setting.  

It is economically unnecessary for anyone - child or adult - to be treated as property under such circumstances, and where necessity does not drive, customs have no purpose and therefore no force.  sams' brain is working on way outdated software.  

But with regard to the sexual appetites and practices of NAMBLA members - of all ages - there is, strictly speaking, no possibility whatsoever of unwanted pregnancies.  We're talking about homosexual liaisons among males, some of whom are below the locally prevailing "age of consent," however such an age is arbitrarily set.  

It being understood that "age of consent" is an idiot legal fiction (as I've mentioned, there are boatloads of American men who have spent decades of their lives paying child support for pregnancies they'd unintentionally fathered when they themselves were "legal infants" and incapable of even entering upon the marriage contract), is there something about sexual contact - heterosexual or homosexual - which is intrinsically so damaging or dangerous that there is any justification for prohibition?  Or, indeed, for any kind of disapproval on the part of anybody, including the participants' relatives?

I'd like to see sams and his social/traditionalist "conservative" co-religionists make a logically supported case to the effect that the criminalization of man-boy sexual activities (or the less formal violent aggressions perpetrated against what he likes to call the "NAMBLOID" folk) is justified by actual objectively demonstrated harm done to anyone involved in such activities.

I don't think they'd even dare to try.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 27, 2011, 04:36:24 pm

The EU is concerned about the steroids excreted by steroid-fed animals filtering down to the water supply. Steroids have a fairly short half-life, but they believe that it could be a potential health problem for wildlife that live in and drink from streams, and possibly to human beings. Still, if that is a risk, it would be a risk to US residents, not to anyone in the EU.


Plus any unforeseen effects they may have on humans.
It might be what causes Americans to be so....depry
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 27, 2011, 05:04:55 pm

Let's assume that sams doesn't know (or is neurotically thought-blocking on the appreciation) that civil government in most present-day polities - and particularly in these United States - deprives the private citizen of seven-eighths (at a "conservative" estimate) of the transfer value he/she generates in all remunerative transactions.

I didn't know that. When I think about it, it feels like about the right number. But it looks like something that would be extremely hard to measure accurately.

First there's the problem of opportunity costs. Say the government hires 50% of the workforce, and pays them to do things which have no economic return. If they could work for private industry and produce just as much as the other 50%, then the government is reducing production by 50% right there. But there's no particular reason to think that production would double without that. Some of the people who go into nonproductive government service would be doing that because they are generally incompetent and can't do productive work. And the work that is getting done already ought to be the most productive work, by the law of diminishing returns the work that doesn't get done because there aren't enough workers, should be the least productive work. So it's hard to figure how much is lost this way.

Second, there's the problem of attribution of production. Say my job is to come up with advertising jingles that are supposed to increase sales. Success means that people who otherwise would buy something else buy my company's product instead, a zero-sum game. How do we measure my "production"? By my salary? When people get into giant corporations a lot of what they do is wasted -- higher management gets into spats among themselves and try to cause waste which they plan will be blamed on their enemies, etc. We can get by that somewhat by measuring output and ignoring who produced it. But it's so easy to get that wrong. If my company's product gets a 10% premium price because my advertising jingle is better, did that jingle actually increase production by 10%? Etc. And it's hard to measure all the outputs. If my vodka production results in a 5% increase in expensive automobile accidents, did I produce those? If I didn't do it somebody else would, but that applies to everything else I produce too....

Then there's the multiplier effect. This is subtle, and some people claim there's no such thing. Imagine that all the consumer goods and stuff that people actually want, is in one big pile. Everybody gets to take stuff from that pile according to how much anybody-who-pays-them thinks their contribution is worth. Now here's a government employee who hasn't actually contributed anything, but the government paid him and he gets to take from the pile. That accounts for 40% or so that the government is taking, right there. Now here comes an employee of a private business. His employer does nothing but make bombs for the government, which the government one way or another will waste. He didn't contribute to the pile of consumer goods. He only contributed to government, like the government employee. Then another private business employee comes to take from the pile, and by a magical sleight of hand it turns out that he made consumer goods, but the consumer goods his business made were only bought by government employees and government contractors and their employees. How much does he really deserve to take from the pile, when everything he added to it has already been claimed by government wastrels? If you keep adding it up this way, it's easy to get government taking 87% or more. But it's hard to actually measure it.

I think your factoid is probably about right. In the bad old days governments didn't take more than about maybe 10%, with the church taking another 10%, because if they took more the peasants would starve and there would be less to take next year. But now that we are so extremely productive, government can take more and more without actually starving out the people who produce the wealth. I think you're about right but I'd have a hell of a time proving it. And it wouldn't be the kind of evidence that would convince anybody who wanted not to believe it.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: mellyrn on April 27, 2011, 05:19:31 pm
Quote
The psychological problems experienced by many victims of sexual exploitation have been well-documented.

That this may be in part due to certain cultural baggage, some of which comes from historical religious sources, with which sexual activity has been freighted... is simply irrelevant. Using that to discount the harm is blaming the victim.

"Documented" mostly by people with a cultural axe to grind.  It's hard to buck the cultural norms, which is why real science is really damned hard.  Still, it does happen.

I read a study -- German, I believe -- involving some 3000+ "children" (some quite young), who had experienced sexual events ranging from merely being "flashed" to being violently raped.  Where the sexual event was consensual, and yet trauma ensued, the source of the trauma was found in the reaction of the adults around the event:  parents, police, therapists.  Apparently what happened in the child's mind was, "I liked that.  But Mom and Dad are freaking out, and there were police, and I'm having to see this very serious and solemn shrink, so it must have been a bad thing.  But I liked it.  I liked a bad thing.  I must be bad."

We're sexual beings.  Evolution long ago weeded out any of us that couldn't deal with it, and there is an evolutionarily-necessary reason why it is pleasurable. There is nothing INTRINSIC to sex that is harmful or dangerous -- or we'd have died out.  What, specifically, happens overnight on one's eighteenth birthday that turns sex from a trauma into a treat?  Do you really think that if we're taught for 18 years that it's so dangerous that children, who may watch all the murders they like, must not even see a whisper of it, nonetheless on our 18th birthdays we'll suddenly healthily accept it as one of life's more joyful responsibilities?

The cultural aspects will mean more to new arrivals on Ceres than to the native born.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 27, 2011, 05:55:14 pm
And now the anarchists endorse child molestation and/or rape.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 27, 2011, 06:01:36 pm
Quote
J Thomas: But I don't quite understand what you think is going on. Is it that 10% to 15% of EU farmers are criminals who illegally do whatever they think will make money faster? But 100% of US farmers do what they think is best for the final consumers?

Here's the issue: The FDA has determined that certain steroids are safe and only produce harmless non-steroid compounds in beef that are easily digested.

I see. You trust the FDA about this. "The FDA has determined that certain steroids are safe".

Quote
From what I can tell, the EU doesn't have any evidence that US approved steroids cause any problems in beef, but ban US beef anyway.

It sounds like they don't completely trust the FDA determination.

Quote
It's probably an excuse for protectionism.

Sure, EU government science tends to go along with EU government policy. US government science, now....

I have known some FDA scientists and I tended to trust them. They got upset when their results were delayed for unknown reasons.

Quote
The EU is concerned about steroids excreted by steroid-fed animals filtering down to the water supply. Steroids have a fairly short half-life, but they believe that they could be a potential health problem for wildlife that live in and drink from streams, and possibly to human beings. Still, if that is a risk, the production of steroid-fed beef would be a risk to US residents, not to anyone in the EU, so that issue doesn't have anything to do with how healthy US beef is.

It would have a whole lot to do with whether EU should legalize synthetic steroids for beef.

Quote
Quote
J Thomas: Well, of course it's predictable that either farmer will do whatever gets him the best profit. If a bad steroid works better than a good steroid, he'll use it if he can get away with it. If he's supposed to stop using the steroids for a period before sale but continued use results in more money, he'll keep using it.

There aren't that many US approved steroids, but they are cheap, so there's little reason to cheat and use illegal ones.

Unless the illegal ones work better, in the sense of being more profitable.

Quote
IIRC, about $3 of steroids produces $40 of extra beef. The EU, however, bans all steroids in their cattle, so the farmers use whatever is handy, which include some steroids that leave harmful byproducts in beef. Testing for a wide range of steroids is time consuming and quite expensive, so I'm sure it's difficult for the EU to inspect for steroids.

Thank you for the Business Network link, which had extensive references to Science News.

Quote
A "defensible overall estimate for the use of these compounds in the European Union, based on results from annual regulatory residue-testing programs, could be in the range of 5 to 15 percent" of beef cattle

Quote
Moreover, he notes, because all such drug treatment in Europe is illegal, illicit users tend to employ whatever is available and affordable. Residues of at least 35 such drugs have been found in meat samples. This complicates screening, Stephany observes, since an investigator never knows quite what to look for and each assay can cost as much as a cow's entire carcass is worth. This situation contrasts sharply with that in the United States, where drug residues in meat invariably consist of one or more of only six FDA-approved growth promoters, he says.

I haven't looked at this issue at all until now, so I'm winging it. When EU investigators never know quite what to look for and random testing is very expensive, how does he know that US cows never have any unusual steroids? This is the sort of thing that people will tend to assume and therefore not test.

Quote
Quote
J Thomas: Unless there are adequate inspections. Like they say in the Navy, "If it isn't inspected, it's neglected.".

In any system, if you can't tell whether you're being cheated, you probably are. Unless you can trust your sellers to do the right thing whether anybody finds out or not.

Your level of pessimism continues to amaze me, but here you probably have a point. If so much EU beef uses steroids, then I have to wonder if the EU is more concerned with its subjects' health or its market share. Still, inspection processes vary. You likely have no idea what the US beef industry has to go through to sell beef to Japan.

I've heard some about that. They definitely don't want our beef.

Quote
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_1_161/ai_82512511/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_1_161/ai_82512511/)

That article is very understandable and clear, and I haven't checked how much it misrepresents. They find detectable results from steroids in runoff, but they have not at all tested whether those detectable results actually matter much. That would be much harder to do. Also, if it makes an important difference to river fish, that doesn't mean it is important to human beings. We are much larger and we grow much slower. There is no real proof that it is dangerous to human beings. If it would cause too much economic dislocation to do something about this potential problem just-in-case, perhaps we should decide that more study is required and start multi-generational studies to decide whether it's really important. Then in a couple of hundred years we might know for sure whether it's really a problem that requires some sort of solution. And if in that time the US population hasn't suffered extremely serious effects, we can assume that there was not a problem and everything's fine.

In short, if it costs agribusiness too much money to actually do anything about it, we can give it the climate-change treatment.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on April 27, 2011, 06:26:54 pm
*/+-*-+I think the "major issue" with AnCap is labeling, and that issue hasn't been solved n any major country to my knowledge. I'm willing to let the market decide if dolphins are killed with tuna IF there is accurate labeling on which tuna kills dolphin and which is dolphin-safe. Unfortunately, accurate labeling is against the World Trade Organization because the labels create an unfair trade advantage. It is the stance of the WTO that labels are a protectionist methodology, and in a "fair" market all people should be unrestricted on what labels they can use.

My granola doesn't list soy as an ingredient, but I pull out whole soybeans. The label is simply wrong. AnCap needs enforcement of a few minor things: labels, ingredients, etc. Now I'm not proposing a govt regulation that tests all products (too easily biased anyway) but rather independent testing with automatic consequences. The rule of force would apply only when violations are committed. Force would only be applied if a farmer or business lies in excess of their ability to pay the fines.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on April 27, 2011, 06:32:20 pm
And now the anarchists endorse child molestation and/or rape.
Well to be fair, there was a dirty tactic implemented. Any topic can be skewed these days with a improper derailment to be about child rape. It is arguing for the sake of arguing, and has no bearing usually on the topic at hand.

I do note there is a weird sort of pattern here though. In the US you are irresponsible by not using a condom. In Mexico you have committed a Cardinal Sin and you soul is damned to hell for using a condom. In the US any attraction to anyone under the age of 18 or 16  means you have deep psychological issues depending on what state you live in. Cross a state line, and attraction to the same person is now illegal and you become a menace to society. On the other hand, a girl younger than that is an eligible bride in Mexico.

I'd rather debate the condom issue, and they are equivalent arguments in our society.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 27, 2011, 06:40:24 pm
Quote
J Thomas: I see. You trust the FDA about this. "The FDA has determined that certain steroids are safe".

I don't trust any agency completely, especially any agency run by this administration, but I do trust that steroids opponents would be doing their best to prove that FDA steroids from beef were bad for human beings. A lack of evidence over so many years is a good sign.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 27, 2011, 06:57:12 pm
Congrats to Sandy, Rhonda pissed bitch face is priceless ... Am I a masochist if it turn me on

Congratulations are due to Lee Oaks in this case. He has caught Ronda's evilness in all its glory.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 27, 2011, 07:19:45 pm
Congrats to Sandy, Rhonda pissed bitch face is priceless ... Am I a masochist if it turn me on

Congratulations are due to Lee Oaks in this case. He has caught Ronda's evilness in all its glory.

Congratulation to Lee Oaks, credits shall be given to you :D

If I might give a little Idea, maybe you should include a ''charming'' full body feature picture of Rhonda, I'm pretty sure she will be the comic prefered female charater  ;)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 27, 2011, 07:37:51 pm
Quote
Sam: If I might give a little Idea, maybe you should include a ''charming'' full body feature picture of Rhonda, I'm pretty sure she will be the comic prefered female charater...

Rhonda, inmate of the year. Hmm. I don't think I could go for someone with evil lines in her face. :)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on April 27, 2011, 07:39:32 pm
Quote
J Thomas: I see. You trust the FDA about this. "The FDA has determined that certain steroids are safe".

I don't trust any agency completely, especially any agency run by this administration, but I do trust that steroids opponents would be doing their best to prove that FDA steroids from beef were bad for human beings. A lack of evidence over so many years is a good sign.
According to the FDA, sugar calms children.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 27, 2011, 08:48:37 pm
Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness.  But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that./

The fundamental problem with this scenario is that it is unusably sloppy.  Aside from being written in the second person (which generally results in statements that may be interpreted as accusatory),  it provides very few initial assumptions:

1) There is a person named Ginger, presumed to be female (since referred to as "she").
2) There is a second, unnamed person, who has a "strong reason" to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD whose nature can cause serious illness. 
3) This second person suggests that Ginger get tested and treated.
4) Ginger responds to this suggestion by claiming (a) that "making" $10,000 is a short term higher priority than this, and (b) she will seek treatment following that.

We are not given:

A) An explanation of the "strong reason"  this unnamed person this unnamed person has for his or her belief.  It could be anything from a mystical vision to the results of a recent test of Ginger's blood that indicates infection with the STD in  question.

B) The nature of the relationship between Ginger and this second person.  Perhaps this second person is perceived by Ginger -- and perhaps even a number of other persons -- as a stalker.  Were this given, it might also explain why the second person is concerned with the matter.

C) Why this unnamed person insists on such urgency.  It might take Ginger a couple of hours to "make" $10,000, leaving her plenty of time to deal with the STD the unnamed person alleges she has.

D) Whether or not Ginger's response should be taken at face value.  One thing that seems quite clear is that Ginger and the person considering the evidence are two different persons; thus Ginger's response may or may not be her actual intents, values, or plans.

E) Why the second person would claim that Ginger is a prostitute -- at least one of the options given has this person making a public claim to this effect.  It  was not made an explicit assumption for the example, and could easily be intended as a malicious claim (assuming the the culture that this takes place in views prostitution as less than reputable -- we can be reasonably sure it isn't Ceres, given that a value is expressed in dollars and a communication mechanism called "Facebook" exists -- but beyond that it is unclear if this is, for example, the current US or perhaps an AnCap society in North America that evolves in the next 30 years), a delusion, or a simple mistake.

F) If, somehow, the unnamed person is correct about Ginger being a prostitute, that her means of "making" $10,000 involves her engaging in services that might spread the STD to others.  She may well have other ways of getting the $10,000, such as selling some land, brokering a deal of some sort, performing a solo sex show, etc.

G) If, somehow further, the unnamed person is correct about Ginger being a prostitute and that she plans to "make" the $10,000 in question by engaging in prostitution and (to shorten this list of assumptions by several items) that she is either withholding or lying about her realistic understanding of the likelihood of some given STD infection, that she is not taking sufficient precautions to minimize the likelihood of the transmission of said STD.

H) If every implicit assumption given is accepted, why one might reasonably expect that Ginger would risk her reputation in what would presumably be a relatively lucrative career on the need to deal with a $10,000 debt in such a short term that treatment and work could not be done in parallel.

These are enough holes to drive a fleet of trucks through!  The answers to each of these could dramatically change the ethical interpretation of such an attempt to spread information regarding Ginger.

If J Thomas, or someone else would like to present a clear and unambiguous scenario, that could be addressed reasonably.  As given, however, I would most likely conclude that were the unnamed second person to post such claims, that he or she has diminished credibility, and that the claims were quite possibly made with some unstated ulterior motive.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 27, 2011, 08:59:49 pm
Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness.  But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that./

These are enough holes to drive a fleet of trucks through!  The answers to each of these could dramatically change the ethical interpretation of such an attempt to spread information regarding Ginger.

You know perfectly well what the story was intended to convey -- you intentionally came up with various ways to misinterpret it to claim that it was unclear.

If you like, you can come up with a way to state it that will make the problem clear.

For example, the second person might suspect that Ginger has an STD because she's the only one he has had sex with in months or years and soon after paying for her services he came down with symptoms and got himself tested.

I don't see why you insist on knowing all the details when it's the consequences that are interesting.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: spudit on April 27, 2011, 09:32:52 pm
Sorry no hookers in this one.

Here's a public health issue in my real world right now.

This past Saturday night I ate some hotdogs bought frozen solid from a mom and pop store I like and kept in a fridge here for 3 days, then got very sick within the hour. So did the dog who hurled his share as it hit me almost as hard. Two nasty and miserable days later I look at the package date to see if what I ate in late April had been getting too close, hence the mark down.

It was dated for mid Feburary sale. Pissed, thoroughly and appropriatly so.

But at whom, the store or the wholesaler? And the big one, call the health department?

The answer, no way. I am not going to sic The Man on that little shop, nor am I going to sue them or even torch the place a bit. Those actions would destroy a small business and hurt people I like too much. They were sold a lousy pack of weiniers and passed them on. Just me, I checked, and my storage method was correct.

So the libertarian, ZAP and decent solution is to bring the wrapper in next trip and have a wee chat. Their product hurt me, make it right(er).

Being the decent folks they are I expect an apology and maybe a little store credit. It's enough. If they blow me off I don't go back and I say unkind but true things.

Hookers are more fun, I hear.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 27, 2011, 09:56:52 pm
I'd concluded my post above with the expression of my desire to see sams and his social/traditionalist "conservative" co-religionists make a logically supported case to the effect that the criminalization of man-boy sexual activities (or the less formal violent aggressions perpetrated against what he likes to call the "NAMBLOID" folk) is justified by actual objectively demonstrated harm done to anyone involved in such activities.

In response sams wrote (and I'm quoting him in his post's entirety):

You are either being a moron, so willing to have ''Online debate smack down'' orgasm that you are fracking confounding me with some else.

No fracking address my points or go get some fracking blow job and stop fantasying has Champion of liberty in a forum ... especially when you are behaving like a moron.

...thereby proving that sams' brain is, indeed, working on outdated software.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 27, 2011, 10:05:10 pm
You know perfectly well what the story was intended to convey -- you intentionally came up with various ways to misinterpret it to claim that it was unclear.

Bullshit.  You are incredibly sloppy, and this is far from the first time.  Further, you're now trying to make prostitutes look as disreputable as you have scientists.

There is a standard form for setting up a scenario, and that is to explicitly give the assumptions up front, followed by the nature of the scenario.  If a question comes up in the scenario that isn't answered by the assumptions, it is an unbound variable, and one may freely choose the worst possible case for the variable.

You started making implicit assumptions in the middle of the scenario, which if ignored would have allowed someone to change after another had given an answer.  I didn't want to permit you to cheat like that.


Quote
If you like, you can come up with a way to state it that will make the problem clear.

Not my problem.

Quote
For example, the second person might suspect that Ginger has an STD because she's the only one he has had sex with in months or years and soon after paying for her services he came down with symptoms and got himself tested.

Is Ginger, in fact, a prostitute?  Does she advertise this fact (there are some ladies who are quite discreet about it, or UTR - "Under The Radar")?  Are there legal or cultural restrictions to prostitution where this occurred?  These ALL have an impact on the ethics of how to handle it.

How did the conversation go?  If the second person was rude to her, she might readily give a flip answer.  It would be extremely unlikely that a prostitute would delay treatment and knowingly pass on an STD (unless they were seeking to be infected -- see "bug chaser"); that would hurt business quickly and dramatically,   If there was some reason to think that the answer was serious, then this second person might suggest passing the information on to potential sexual clients-- the whole set of information, not a blanket statement that "Ginger has diseasus sexulis" since he or she wouldn't know that (among other things, Ginger might have already gotten treatment).  Especially important would be to provide the reasons for the suspicion and the dates, so that any information wouldn't linger perpetually.

Quote
I don't see why you insist on knowing all the details when it's the consequences that are interesting.

As I said, the consequences would probably be for the person posting the information to lose credibility.  I have seen such claims posted, and they are typically by persons who oppose prostitution  ex lovers or customers, stalkers, or competitors.  .Just look at the people (whoever they are) who created PornWikileaks.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 27, 2011, 10:05:49 pm
Everything you say could be true. It's the sort of situation where people have a lot of money depending on convincing the public of something, so we can expect a lot of lies, but there's a chance you have the truth of it here.

But I don't quite understand what you think is going on. Is it that 10% to 15% of EU farmers are criminals who illegally do whatever they think will make money faster? But 100% of US farmers do what they think is best for the final consumers?

The EU attempts to enforce unreasonable laws, so does not get much compliance.  The FDA enforces laws that are, for farmers, less unreasonable, so gets more compliance.

More laws, less compliance.  Indeed, that is the intention.  The purpose of laws is not to be obeyed, but to ensure that government officials can punish anyone at will.  Obeying the law does not make one less likely to be punished, nor does disobeying it make one more likely to be punished.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 27, 2011, 10:12:57 pm
This past Saturday night I ate some hotdogs bought frozen solid from a mom and pop store I like and kept in a fridge here for 3 days, then got very sick within the hour. So did the dog who hurled his share as it hit me almost as hard. Two nasty and miserable days later I look at the package date to see if what I ate in late April had been getting too close, hence the mark down.

It was dated for mid Feburary sale. Pissed, thoroughly and appropriatly so.

But at whom, the store or the wholesaler? And the big one, call the health department?

Might have been staphylococcal food poisoning.  Sounds a bit like it.  Whatever the cause, however, the "sell-by" date is of less concern than are:

(a) what happened to the hotdogs' contents before they were sealed in their package, and

(b) how the package had been handled before it was received - "frozen solid" - at the point of purchase.

Much of this was beyond the control of the proprietors of the store.  Packaged foodstuffs are commonly purchased or consumed well after their "expiration" dates (how long might stuff sit in one's freezer at home before getting thawed out and cooked?) without adverse consequences such as have been described.  The standards set for such dating are conservative in the extreme, largely as matters of bureaucratic and lawyerly ass-covering. 

I think it more likely that the taint hit the hotdogs further back in the production-and-conveyance chain, meaning that it's possible that quite a few other people suffered gastrointestinal upset as the result of deliveries of this same batch of wieners to other stores.  Worth looking into?  Maybe so.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: spudit on April 27, 2011, 10:25:06 pm
There does seem to be a connection to volume of law/regulation versus respect for it.

Does it seem like we each have some daily capacity, say 10,000 units of lawfulness, with the usual human ranges? If so do we start to ration it and does the 100 units required to maintain though shalt not steal start coming up short when we throw in OSHA regs, speed limits and water your lawn on even numbered days only foolishness.

Does a complete criminal maniac like Ted Bundy lack good rationing skills then? For him does thou shalt not kill sit one to one dead even with Line 273 of the National Code on Wetlands Drainage at say 2 units each?  Hmm, just gotta short one today and not a swamp in sight. Hmm.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 27, 2011, 10:37:58 pm
The purpose of laws is not to be obeyed, but to ensure that government officials can punish anyone at will.  Obeying the law does not make one less likely to be punished, nor does disobeying it make one more likely to be punished.

Consider also that the purpose of a great many laws - arguably the majority - passed to "regulate" commercial activites (supposedly for "the public good" or "consumer protection" or "market efficiency") are in fact nothing more than government thuggery perpetrated to preserve politically connected actors already established in their markets from competition by raising the entry costs to levels which newcomers cannot profitably sustain. 

Are you familiar with the "Breakages, Ltd." concept Heinlein mentioned in his short story "Let There Be Light" (1940)?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 27, 2011, 10:48:51 pm
Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14498#msg14498
Now you are almost there. Are you saying they never discussed the ownership of the house and she just chipped in gratuitously?

That is, in practice, what people usually do.  Notoriously, one partner rationalizes that the relationship is more permanent it is, and it is not always the woman that does the rationalization.  Generally the women incorrectly believes in commitment to raise children, and the man incorrectly believes in commitment to share assets.

In practice, people do not have explicit contracts before having sex, which makes the zero aggression principle fairly useless in family matters.

Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14498#msg14498
I have never ever encountered such a situation. It sounds like special pleading to me.

I have never encountered any other situation.  Humans were reproducing before we invented trade and language, and contract has to be retrofitted onto an existing institution that fails to fit.

Women are apt to contribute assets unrewarded, and apt to steal assets.  While neither sex acts like homo economicus in family matters, women act even less like homo economicus than men do.

Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14498#msg14498
Now you also make statements about his and her beliefs without discussing how those beliefs arose. Did they discuss it or were they both flying blind?

Even people with a pre-nupt are flying blind on a lot of important matters, and most people fly a lot blinder than that.  Our sexual behavior is for the most part pre-linguistic and pre-rational.  By and large, homo economicus fails to reproduce, rarely gets laid, and if laid, gets laid in a whorehouse.

You have surely noticed that women never consent in words to sex, and frequently protest all the way to the bedroom.  The program of social conservatism is to coercively and ceremonially force sexual behavior and child raising into contract law, with witnesses and formal consent, despite the fact it does not naturally fit.

Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14498#msg14498
What does that mean? As an example, let's say I go into McDonald's, go up to the counter person and say, "Give me the Big Mac Combo with a diet Coke and super-size it." When the cashier gives me my order may I just walk away without paying?

Your analogy is inapplicable to sexual relationships and family formation.   Indeed, the very fact that you find yourself reaching for such an inappropriate analogy, demonstrates the irrelevance of the Zero Aggression Principle to sexual relationships and family formation.  Except for prostitutes and fertility clinics, we don't do sex and reproduction that way.  We do it an ancient way, and people who do it some other way usually die childless.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 27, 2011, 10:58:01 pm
Quote
spudit: Does it seem like we each have some daily capacity, say 10,000 units of lawfulness, with the usual human ranges? If so do we start to ration it and does the 100 units required to maintain though shalt not steal start coming up short when we throw in OSHA regs, speed limits and water your lawn on even numbered days only foolishness.

Some laws are put in place purely to generate "revenue" as the government calls it. In some places around NYC, one has to move one's car from one side of the street to the other on certain days of the week so a streetsweeper can go up and down one side of the street or the other. Now these are in areas where parking spaces are sometimes very hard (often impossible at night) to find. It's a great deal for the city. If you don't move your car, you get a ticket. If you do move the car, it's an incredible hassle. One either has to find a convenient parking place on the other side of the street, or drive around until the streetsweeper has passed. It's a great incentive to get rid of your car, or park it one of the local garages at about $12 a day, which provides a steady stream of taxes for the city. There is no way in the world a residential street needs a streetsweeper four times a week, but it, also, has a purpose: it makes the local union happy. The only loser is the poor schmuck who needs a car in the city.

When I spent a couple of weeks there, I couldn't believe that more people weren't pissed off about it. But the well-trained peasants were used to their oppression. They probably voted the same representatives into office every year.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: spudit on April 27, 2011, 10:59:18 pm
Thanks. They were from a big regional chain. But 2 months ago, old news. Still have the batch info, I'll look. People freak about storage time way too fast; it's silly.

I'm fine, one damned robust lifeform, just lost a couple pounds and a couple rainy days after painting my ass off, though the onset within minutes with no bad smell, look, color or taste really threw me. I am a former cook and boy was I ever taught food safety, over and over, wasn't me. Now when I got giardia in 94, spent yet another week hiking the Continetal Divide Trail alone in total denial, 3 days resting and 2 more walking out to a Colorado ski town with train service, that was scary.

Mostly it was an example of the sort of situation so often described here. A bad thing and how do we handle it question. To me they are the nice couple at the store and I'm the guy on the boat with the storage unit across the way. We ultra rare nice folks, or so some here say, will settle it just fine between us. I'm curious about how it turns out. Maybe Holt is right about people?

But some, hopefully none here, would have dragged themselves to the ER for medication and documentation then crawled to a lawyer's office to get rich by screwing the other little guy too. Some would.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: spudit on April 27, 2011, 11:06:03 pm
I believe it Aardvark, I've mentioned here my brothers who still think Chicago is America.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: wdg3rd on April 27, 2011, 11:06:41 pm
Quote
J Thomas: I see. You trust the FDA about this. "The FDA has determined that certain steroids are safe".

I don't trust any agency completely, especially any agency run by this administration, but I do trust that steroids opponents would be doing their best to prove that FDA steroids from beef were bad for human beings. A lack of evidence over so many years is a good sign.
According to the FDA, sugar calms children.

It does.  You ever try to put up with a kid that wanted candy and wasn't getting it?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 27, 2011, 11:10:35 pm
You know perfectly well what the story was intended to convey -- you intentionally came up with various ways to misinterpret it to claim that it was unclear.

Bullshit.  You are incredibly sloppy, and this is far from the first time.  Further, you're now trying to make prostitutes look as disreputable as you have scientists.

I'm unclear that I have made scientists look disreputable.

Quote
There is a standard form for setting up a scenario, and that is to explicitly give the assumptions up front, followed by the nature of the scenario.  If a question comes up in the scenario that isn't answered by the assumptions, it is an unbound variable, and one may freely choose the worst possible case for the variable.

OK.

Person A knows that Person B has many sexual partners. Person A knows that Person B is carrying a serious STD. Person B when asked, refuses to get treatment or even testing to establish that the STD is real.

I say that in AnCap society Person A has no obligation to do anything. It is prudent under the circumstances for Person A to avoid having sex with Person B.

However, if Person A does not want to live among an epidemic which might reduce the economic productivity (and perhaps military readiness etc) of the area, it might be a good idea to do something.

What can be done according to ZAP about this?

I suggest several possibilities.

A. Call for arbitration. It could be argued that people do not have the right to intentionally be reservoirs of epidemic disease. An arbitrator might demand that Person B get tested, and if the tests are positive, to get treatment. On the other hand an arbitrator might say that it is nobody's business but Person B's, that sovereign individuals do have the right to be vectors of epidemic disease if they want to be.

B. Rather than wait for the delays of arbitration, use physical force to require testing, and when the tests are positive, treatment. This handles the public health problem about as rapidly as possible, which is a good thing. But Person A might then be open to lawsuit for initiating physical force. What would an arbitrator say? How much would the positive test results count in Person A's favor? I suspect that the arbitrator's answers might be very favorable if he was one of Person B's occasional sex partners who was exposed to the STD. But in other circumstances being one of Person B's sex partners might lead him to bias in favor of Person B.

C. Rather than do anything directly about Person B's refusal to get treatment, publish the truth. This has the advantage that many of Person B's sex partners who recognise the name or photo (as opposed to not exchanging names and wearing bags over their heads) will get tested themselves. Then they can announce their own status so that their own sex partners will know to get testing. Person B might still sue, and if I was arbitrating I would want a test done. If it's true, then Person A has every right to publish it. After successful treatment Person B can publish the new tests.

Quote
Is Ginger, in fact, a prostitute?

I don't care.

Quote
Does she advertise this fact (there are some ladies who are quite discreet about it, or UTR - "Under The Radar")?

I don't care.

Quote
Are there legal or cultural restrictions to prostitution where this occurred?

I don't care. But do these issues actually affect the proper ZAP approach? Maybe I ought to care. Do prevailing legal and cultural restrictions determine whether something is aggression or not? Are there actions which are not aggression in one culture but are aggression in another? That would complicate the ZAP a bit, wouldn't it?

Quote
It would be extremely unlikely that a prostitute would delay treatment and knowingly pass on an STD (unless they were seeking to be infected -- see "bug chaser"); that would hurt business quickly and dramatically.

If we assume that the people in our stories are reasonable, rational, cooperative, and acting consistently in their long-term best interests, then usually there isn't much of a story there. People cooperate and work out their problems without any need for third parties to get involved at all, and it's all peachy-creamy. Stories where there is some AnCap ZAP issue to resolve require that somebody be stupidly unreasonable and that others must find a way to deal with that. Otherwise there is no issue.

"What if a nation-state tries to invade an AnCap society and force them to do stuff?"

"Well, if the foreign army consists of reasonable people they will see that AnCap is so much better that they'll leave the army and join AnCap. And reasonable leaders in the foreign nation will see that they would be better off as private citizens in an AnCap area than leaders of a government, so they'll disband their government and be AnCap too." (This is not actually unreasonable. Just as in some ways modern welfare recipients live better than medieval kings.... If it's true that government takes 80%=90% of everything and wastes it, imagine a society with 5 to 10 times as much capital, and 5 to 10 times as much R&D etc. It might not take long for average citizens to be wealthier than previous national leaders.) But we sure can't expect people to believe arguments that depend on soldiers and politicians being reasonable!

Quote
Quote
I don't see why you insist on knowing all the details when it's the consequences that are interesting.

As I said, the consequences would probably be for the person posting the information to lose credibility.

A good reason to MYOB. ZAP says not to do aggression to stop epidemics. Arbitrators might reasonably ask why it's any of your business when you aren't getting infected. If you spread true information you can expect to make enemies and lose credibility. Maybe it's better to Mind Your Own Business. It Is Somebody Else's Problem. Epidemics are not the problem of anybody in particular. Let the free market handle them.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on April 27, 2011, 11:16:22 pm
The purpose of laws is not to be obeyed, but to ensure that government officials can punish anyone at will.  Obeying the law does not make one less likely to be punished, nor does disobeying it make one more likely to be punished.

Consider also that the purpose of a great many laws - arguably the majority - passed to "regulate" commercial activites (supposedly for "the public good" or "consumer protection" or "market efficiency") are in fact nothing more than government thuggery perpetrated to preserve politically connected actors already established in their markets from competition by raising the entry costs to levels which newcomers cannot profitably sustain. 

Are you familiar with the "Breakages, Ltd." concept Heinlein mentioned in his short story "Let There Be Light" (1940)?
Agreed to both posts. When the population finally realized this, they got upset. The overabundance of punitive damages applied to anyone is one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on April 27, 2011, 11:25:52 pm
According to the FDA, sugar calms children.
It does.  You ever try to put up with a kid that wanted candy and wasn't getting it?
I have, and after the withdrawals went away the child was cured of ADHD. The child in question had actually been expelled from preschool due to behavioral issues. The sugar withdrawals appeared as cranky behavior though, not hyperactive behavior. In other words, sugar only appeased that kid, never calmed. After several days of absolutely no sugar, the child was calm and sweet all the time, the withdrawals only lasted a day or two. The most interesting thing about the FDA report is that they refused to acknowledge ANY hyperactive tendencies while under the influence of sugar.

Regarding the example of the woman who has an STD, here is my stance.
If she is a whore, she should be required to be labeled as infected when providing a commercial service. HOW is up to the culture.
If we have a truly free market economy, the treatment is unlikely to cost more than $50 and $10k is preposterous. In the US, a General MD needs to carry about $50k of malpractice insurance and needs to hire 2-4 people to interface with the insurance companies. This creates an additional $100-200k of overhead while doing nothing more than pill pushing and writing referrals. Add in the fact the insurance will on reimburse 40-60% of the time, taxes, the cost of the office, etc and your $5 pill is a $100 visit and a $50 pill minimum. The only reason for a $5k medical procedure is to pay off large companies or large equipment with the additional overhead of insurance, etc.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: wdg3rd on April 27, 2011, 11:38:34 pm

Some laws are put in place purely to generate "revenue" as the government calls it. In some places around NYC, one has to move one's car from one side of the street to the other on certain days of the week so a streetsweeper can go up and down one side of the street or the other. Now these are in areas where parking spaces are sometimes very hard (often impossible at night) to find. It's a great deal for the city. If you don't move your car, you get a ticket. If you do move the car, it's an incredible hassle. One either has to find a convenient parking place on the other side of the street, or drive around until the streetsweeper has passed. It's a great incentive to get rid of your car, or park it one of the local garages at about $12 a day, which provides a steady stream of taxes for the city. There is no way in the world a residential street needs a streetsweeper four times a week, but it, also, has a purpose: it makes the local union happy. The only loser is the poor schmuck who needs a car in the city.


Bad news.  Just waiting for the sweeper to pass will not save you from a ticket if you are on that side of the street during any of the hours involved.  Whether the street is swept that month or not.  Parking is forbidden in front of my house (not by me) between the hours of 8am and noon on Wednesdays.  Typically, the street sweeper (and his faithful police escort) pass by by 0830.  However, if someone parks there before noon, there is every chance that some other example of police presence will stumble by and engage in a bit of municipal revenue enhancement rather than prevent or solve a real crime.  This is less than a dozen miles across the Hudson from Manhattan.

And if you think you can park anywhere in the Five Boroughs for $12 per day, I assume you mean the monthly rate in a neighborhood where I wouldn't risk getting out of the car and walking to a subway station to get where I actually needed to be.  (Too likely to be victimized or labeled a criminal for defending myself in a city where self-defense is illegal, especially self-defense with appropriate hardware, and possession of appropriate hardware illegal anyway).  Daily rates are easily a magnitude greater, especially if near anywhere you'd want to live, work or shop.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: wdg3rd on April 27, 2011, 11:47:33 pm
I'm fine, one damned robust lifeform, just lost a couple pounds and a couple rainy days after painting my ass off, though the onset within minutes with no bad smell, look, color or taste really threw me. I am a former cook and boy was I ever taught food safety, over and over, wasn't me. Now when I got giardia in 94, spent yet another week hiking the Continetal Divide Trail alone in total denial, 3 days resting and 2 more walking out to a Colorado ski town with train service, that was scary.

If you get in the situation again, a drug I take every day has been shown to be somewhat effective against giardia and similar parasites.  In fact, that's what the lab that discovered it was trying to do.  Due to side effects that are the very reason I take the drug, it has never been approved by the FDA for that purpose.  Google disulfiram or the trade name, Antabuse.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 27, 2011, 11:53:09 pm
You know perfectly well what the story was intended to convey -- you intentionally came up with various ways to misinterpret it to claim that it was unclear.

Bullshit.  You are incredibly sloppy, and this is far from the first time.  Further, you're now trying to make prostitutes look as disreputable as you have scientists.

There is a standard form for setting up a scenario, and that is to explicitly give the assumptions up front, followed by the nature of the scenario.  If a question comes up in the scenario that isn't answered by the assumptions, it is an unbound variable, and one may freely choose the worst possible case for the variable.

Sorry, J Thomas, but NeitherRuleNorBeRuled is right. Your scenario and many others posited on this Forum are incredibly imprecise. They just wander all over the place, change terms, leave out relevant details. Writing is an art and a science. You cannot think logically and rationally, if you cannot write logically and rationally. So my advice is drop the "stream of consciousness" approach and fully communicate in a structured manner.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 28, 2011, 12:27:00 am
In practice, people do not have explicit contracts before having sex, which makes the zero aggression principle fairly useless in family matters.

Yeah, you said that before. What you have failed to do is give any logical reason why a failure to have a contract somehow obviates the ZAP. When a robber takes your money at gun-point, there is no contract either, but the relevance of the ZAP is patently obvious. What makes domestic situations different? That is the $64 question, you have failed to address. I am eliding most of your subsequent statements, because the are based on the rather silly notion that the ZAP requires contracts to be relevant. Please re-listen to the YouTube animation. Tell me where it claims that contract is a fundamental aspect of the ZAP. When you find it, please let us know at what minute and second we can find it on the video.

Now this is a telling admission:

You have surely noticed that women never consent in words to sex, and frequently protest all the way to the bedroom.

I have notices no such thing. As a libertarian fuddy-duddy, I require that the women with whom I am intimate, explicitly agree to it. This has never proven difficult. Usually, it is verbally explicit (your sad history of failure with woman to the contrary, not withstanding). Sometimes it is non-verbal, but clearly constitutes consent (or have I misinterpreted it when they have yanked my crank?). If they "protest all the way to the bedroom" (rare), well, it doesn't happen. "No" means "no." Man, your sex life must suck.

Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14498#msg14498
What does that mean? As an example, let's say I go into McDonald's, go up to the counter person and say, "Give me the Big Mac Combo with a diet Coke and super-size it." When the cashier gives me my order may I just walk away without paying?

Your analogy is inapplicable to sexual relationships and family formation.   Indeed, the very fact that you find yourself reaching for such an inappropriate analogy, demonstrates the irrelevance of the Zero Aggression Principle to sexual relationships and family formation. 

Huh? Again you state a conclusion, but I don't provide support for it.

I notice you failed to address my question about your personal experience as a patriarch. My working assumption is that you are young, single, gynophobic, sexually frustrated and clearly--based on your own words--more than willing to commit date rape. How am I doing so far?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: spudit on April 28, 2011, 12:29:54 am
Thanks, Antabuse for giardia, whoda thunk.  I couldn't drink on the Cipro either so why not.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 12:53:35 am
In practice, people do not have explicit contracts before having sex, which makes the zero aggression principle fairly useless in family matters.
I either get full consent, or tease her until she initiates sexual relations. ZAP is the only way to handle sex IMHO. Anything else is called "rape" in my book. Now one thing I would like is a good disclosure set, and the ability for a person to selectively offer up their medical history relating to sexual matters, with a PGP key signing the documents from a doctor. In other words, verifiable medical history kept private until revealed. The technology is within our grasp, it is just about a month of programming work and a ton of law changes.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 28, 2011, 03:28:38 am
Are you mad bro ? Do you even fracking know me  ::)

I don't respond to pompous morons, make a point of shut the frack up.

Because I used the word conservative you go about giving me lectures about how totalitarian I am and give me the standard Atheist BS grand standing sermon, get a grip of fuck off.


I'd concluded my post above with the expression of my desire to see sams and his social/traditionalist "conservative" co-religionists make a logically supported case to the effect that the criminalization of man-boy sexual activities (or the less formal violent aggressions perpetrated against what he likes to call the "NAMBLOID" folk) is justified by actual objectively demonstrated harm done to anyone involved in such activities.

In response sams wrote (and I'm quoting him in his post's entirety):

You are either being a moron, so willing to have ''Online debate smack down'' orgasm that you are fracking confounding me with some else.

No fracking address my points or go get some fracking blow job and stop fantasying has Champion of liberty in a forum ... especially when you are behaving like a moron.

...thereby proving that sams' brain is, indeed, working on outdated software.


Great plot twist there EFT team, a strip tease show to distracts all the troops  ;D
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 03:59:35 am
Don't forget that they are required to kick the guy while he's down. They chose a dominatrix style outfit, which will allow them to fulfill their part of the bargain to the letter without giving the UW the negative propaganda involving an "aggressive Ceres citizen" beating up the poor UW tourist. If the UW did air the video, it would only increase tourism to Ceres.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 28, 2011, 04:02:59 am
In practice, people do not have explicit contracts before having sex, which makes the zero aggression principle fairly useless in family matters.

Yeah, you said that before. What you have failed to do is give any logical reason why a failure to have a contract somehow obviates the ZAP.

You say that in the examples I give, I did not supply sufficient information, but in real life, that is all the relevant information you are likely to get.  The information you say should exist, is only going to exist if they have a pre-nupt, and not always even then.

Absent a formal or informal contract, or rules imposed by state or family, it is not clear what the property rights and obligations of cohabiting couple are in the event that they quarrel or split.

As demonstrated by the fact that you keep asking me to supply this entirely nonexistent agreement.

No woman that I have taken to bed has ever consented to sex in words, let alone discussed the finances of living arrangements and relationship termination.

What makes domestic situations different?

That they shared property and tasks until they did not.

You have surely noticed that women never consent in words to sex, and frequently protest all the way to the bedroom.

I have notices no such thing.

Don't get much pussy outside of brothels, do you?

Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14498#msg14498
What does that mean? As an example, let's say I go into McDonald's, go up to the counter person and say, "Give me the Big Mac Combo with a diet Coke and super-size it." When the cashier gives me my order may I just walk away without paying?

Your analogy is inapplicable to sexual relationships and family formation.   Indeed, the very fact that you find yourself reaching for such an inappropriate analogy, demonstrates the irrelevance of the Zero Aggression Principle to sexual relationships and family formation. 

Huh? Again you state a conclusion, but I don't provide support for it.

The difference between the case of purchasing a coke and the case of arranging for sex and possibly family may be more apparent to those of us that have sex outside brothels.

Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14643#msg14643
I notice you failed to address my question about your personal experience as a patriarch. My working assumption is that you are young, single, gynophobic, sexually frustrated and clearly--based on your own words--more than willing to commit date rape. How am I doing so far?

Wrong on five out of five.

Sex is negotiated pre rationally and pre verbally, and a woman's words are seldom in sync with her actions.   The mating dance is still much as it was from before we were human.  If date rape is defined with reference to a woman's words, the definition is absurd.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 28, 2011, 05:22:56 am
Quote
wdg3rd: Bad news.  Just waiting for the sweeper to pass will not save you from a ticket if you are on that side of the street during any of the hours involved.  Whether the street is swept that month or not.  Parking is forbidden in front of my house (not by me) between the hours of 8am and noon on Wednesdays.  Typically, the street sweeper (and his faithful police escort) pass by by 0830.  However, if someone parks there before noon, there is every chance that some other example of police presence will stumble by and engage in a bit of municipal revenue enhancement rather than prevent or solve a real crime.  This is less than a dozen miles across the Hudson from Manhattan.

And if you think you can park anywhere in the Five Boroughs for $12 per day, I assume you mean the monthly rate in a neighborhood where I wouldn't risk getting out of the car and walking to a subway station to get where I actually needed to be.  (Too likely to be victimized or labeled a criminal for defending myself in a city where self-defense is illegal, especially self-defense with appropriate hardware, and possession of appropriate hardware illegal anyway).  Daily rates are easily a magnitude greater, especially if near anywhere you'd want to live, work or shop.

You could be right about the time span. I never tried riding around the block until the streetsweeper passed. I just assumed that it was something that I could do. I always managed to find a space on the other side first, although sometimes I had to park far away. This was in Rego Park around 11 years ago, btw. I had to use the garage a few blocks away once when I couldn't find a place to park at all and it was either drive all night until someone left early in the morning or park in a place where I'd be certain to get a ticket.

The garage was full for the night, but I persuaded the guy to park my car anyway on the condition that I return for it in several hours after a bit of sleep. I don't recall the exact amount I paid for that, but it wasn't an incredible amount, something under $20, although it pissed me off. I assumed that was the daily rate, but I didn't live there. NYC must make an incredible amount of money on parking tickets, because they are certainly very efficient in that area. My impression of NYC is a city that rips-off its inhabitants and especially visitors at every opportunity. Nothing is convenient. Public bathrooms in malls are rare, and unlike other places, one must pay to park to visit them.

I was there to stay with my girlfriend who was very sick in the hospital, so there wasn't much I could do about it. And then there are the hospital parking fees. They used parking meters with quarters, and used plenty of them. Once again, the parking patrols were out in full force, brilliantly enforcing that part of the law. Every couple of hours I had to make a trip to feed the beast. Getting quarters is difficult, too. The banks in the area wouldn't let me through the door unless I had a bank card. If you're low on gas in Manhattan, you're SOL because as far as I know there are no gas stations there at all. If you don't have an EZ Pass you have to go through the lanes furthest from the tunnels' entrances and fight your way in (a great joy when 3 or the 4 entrances of the Hudson tunnel are closed for repairs!). At almost every turn, there was some inconvenient, unpleasant surprise.  When I go there, I feel like I'm in a tin-pot dictatorship when I go there. Unfortunately, it's hard to travel up and down the East Coast and avoid NYC, but out of principal, I'll gladly drive an extra 200 miles or so through PA to avoid the place.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 28, 2011, 07:19:46 am

No woman that I have taken to bed has ever consented to sex in words, let alone discussed the finances of living arrangements and relationship termination.

....

You have surely noticed that women never consent in words to sex, and frequently protest all the way to the bedroom.

....

Sex is negotiated pre rationally and pre verbally, and a woman's words are seldom in sync with her actions.   The mating dance is still much as it was from before we were human.  If date rape is defined with reference to a woman's words, the definition is absurd.

Robert Feynman the physicist wrote about this. His approach was, if he invited a woman to dinner hoping to have sex with her, before they ordered he ask, "Before I buy you dinner, tell me, are you going to have sex with me tonight?" And she would usually say yes. He would approach a woman in a bar who had done friendly eye contact with him, and say "Before I buy you a drink, tell me will you have sex with me tonight?" He talked like the women always said yes. In my experience it's usually.

He talked at length about disrespecting women, that he had to act like he thought they were trashy whores. I think this was because in his generation women were raised to believe that anybody who said yes was a trashy whore, so he had to put that label on them or they would both be very embarrassed that he asked. I think that is no longer necessary.

I want to suggest that you try this approach. Look at the WikiLeaks guy, who perhaps had sex with women who "protested all the way to the bedroom". They accused him of rape. It's his word against theirs and he's locked up now. Of course it might have been CIA agents who would have said that no matter what he did if he spent 20 minutes alone with them. But your chance of rape accusations from garden-variety crazy women goes way down if you take the simple precaution of asking first. Of course, for a variety of reasons you're better off not to sleep with crazy women anyway....
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 28, 2011, 07:54:53 am
Are you mad bro ? Do you even fracking know me 

I don't respond to pompous morons, make a point of shut the frack up.

Because I used the word conservative you go about giving me lectures about how totalitarian I am and give me the standard Atheist BS grand standing sermon, get a grip of frack off.

Dunno if you're "totalitarian," but are you insane?

You betcha.

The positions you've taken anent the "NAMBLOID" folk, sams, hold as morally acceptable the perpetration of aggressive violence against human beings who have themselves not been demonstrated to have breached any other persons' rights. 

Unless, I suppose, you're defending the notion that a "legal infant" is the property of his/her parents, and it's somehow in their legitimate interest to keep the kid from such experiences as are associated with sexual stimulation of any kind. 

But that's insane, too, isn't it?

One might make with equal validity the argument that violent attack - and extending not only to imprisonment but also castration, possibly death - is appropriate under what serves you, sams, as a substitute for a code of moral conduct to punish a person outside a youngster's "ownership" who provides that child or adolescent with a novel of ideas - say, Atlas Shrugged, or John Ross' Unintended Consequences, or L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach, or J. Neil Schulman's Alongside Night, or even The Turner Diaries by white supremacist whackjob William Luther Pierce - divergent from what that youngster's "owners" want him/her to know or think about the world.

And did I say dot-one about theism or atheism in anything I'd written to address your insanity?  Nope.

I suppose you're one of those social/traditionalist conservatives who goes juramentado whenever somebody discusses moral conduct without reference to your Great Sky Pixie. 

Like I said.  Insane.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 28, 2011, 09:22:17 am
Did the EFT team hired some Chinese trolls to balance the debate ? ::)

Shove your Randian BS up your ass, Children before 18 are under discretion of their parents, who are the ones who feed and take care of them until they can make their own decisions.

Treating Paedophiles like criminals isn't infringing on the right of anyone ... unless criminals ought to be free too you know.

Any children below 15 can't consent to anything because for one their aren't mature and for two they don't know what the fuck is sex ... so you are a fucking pervert is you are a NAMBLOID.

Even for Children above 15 to 18, their consent is still subject to their parents judgement as their guardians.

Atlas Shrugged is a load of BS, Neil Smith's The Probability Broach is great but Molineux/Block arguments are still BS anyway, children are under the discretion of their parents under they reach majority.

Now suck some balls ...

Are you mad bro ? Do you even fracking know me 

I don't respond to pompous morons, make a point of shut the frack up.

Because I used the word conservative you go about giving me lectures about how totalitarian I am and give me the standard Atheist BS grand standing sermon, get a grip of frack off.

Dunno if you're "totalitarian," but are you insane?

You betcha.

The positions you've taken anent the "NAMBLOID" folk, sams, hold as morally acceptable the perpetration of aggressive violence against human beings who have themselves not been demonstrated to have breached any other persons' rights. 

Unless, I suppose, you're defending the notion that a "legal infant" is the property of his/her parents, and it's somehow in their legitimate interest to keep the kid from such experiences as are associated with sexual stimulation of any kind. 

But that's insane, too, isn't it?

One might make with equal validity the argument that violent attack - and extending not only to imprisonment but also castration, possibly death - is appropriate under what serves you, sams, as a substitute for a code of moral conduct to punish a person outside a youngster's "ownership" who provides that child or adolescent with a novel of ideas - say, Atlas Shrugged, or John Ross' Unintended Consequences, or L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach, or J. Neil Schulman's Alongside Night, or even The Turner Diaries by white supremacist whackjob William Luther Pierce - divergent from what that youngster's "owners" want him/her to know or think about the world.

And did I say dot-one about theism or atheism in anything I'd written to address your insanity?  Nope.

I suppose you're one of those social/traditionalist conservatives who goes juramentado whenever somebody discusses moral conduct without reference to your Great Sky Pixie. 

Like I said.  Insane.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 28, 2011, 12:35:56 pm
Sams, you clearly do not understand what I have written. I don't think you are doing it on purpose. Perhaps it is a cultural or linguistic thing. In any case, we are arguing past each other. So I am going to drop out of this discussion. I will touch on one point though. Your assumption that brothels must be my sexual outlet is simply false. I once hired a prostitute in the Philippines as an experiment. It was interesting, even fun, but ultimately nothing like consensual sex based on mutual sexual attraction.

Maybe the '70s in San Francisco jaded me, but sexual partners were ubiquitous, proactive and enthusiastic. Costa Rica and Panama have been less so, but still always clearly based on mutual sexual attraction and never commerce. My time in Singapore was different, because I had my girlfriend with me. She too, was a "volunteer." Man, was she a volunteer.

In short, though, they all said yes, before the sex started. NEWS FLASH: Women like sex and will say so directly to a man whom they want and trust. I feel sorry for you if you have never had anyone joyously telling you they wanted you. Maybe they don't trust you. I can certainly see why.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: MacFall on April 28, 2011, 01:22:50 pm
On the subject at hand, I for once think that a An-Cap society would be more conservative, especially since the cost of recklessness won't be shifted to somebody else through benefits et al.

Do you define "conservative" as having a tendency toward practicing moderation? Because I'm not sure I would. It seems to me that conservatism has to do with preserving older social standards, regardless of their nature. E.g., "conservatives" opposed the progressive prohibition agenda, but then they opposed its its repeal a couple of decades later.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 28, 2011, 02:41:26 pm
Perhaps it is a cultural or linguistic thing. In any case, we are arguing past each other.
My take on it is simply that, at least in the older generation, explicit verbal permission for sex, in the sense currently advocated by the liberated, simply was so forced and unnatural - and women of the older generation were too intensely trained not to openly acknowledge their sexuality on that level - that while consent was given, it was given in subtle ways.

How valid this was I will at this point make no categorical statements there concerning, but one can look at the use of the phrase "rape training" in the book Why Men Are The Way They Are to get more details of the phenomenon under discussion.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 28, 2011, 02:44:24 pm
On the subject at hand, I for once think that a An-Cap society would be more conservative, especially since the cost of recklessness won't be shifted to somebody else through benefits et al.

Do you define "conservative" as having a tendency toward practicing moderation? Because I'm not sure I would. It seems to me that conservatism has to do with preserving older social standards, regardless of their nature. E.g., "conservatives" opposed the progressive prohibition agenda, but then they opposed its its repeal a couple of decades later.

Conservative has in moderation and family centric social structures.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 28, 2011, 05:32:47 pm
Intent upon proving repeatedy that he most definitely is gibberingly insane, we've got from sams:

Did the EFT team hired some Chinese trolls to balance the debate ?

Shove your Randian BS up your ass, Children before 18 are under discretion of their parents, who are the ones who feed and take care of them until they can make their own decisions.

Ah, good.  So when persons of any age demonstrate the ability to "feed and take care of" themselves, "they can make their own decisions" regarding sexual liaisons regardless of calendar age, right?

Jeez, no wonder the social/traditionalist "conservative" types hate the capitalist free market just as much as do their fellow authoritarians on the socialist/progressive/"Liberal" side. By freeing the individual human being from economically crippling restrictions imposed to prevent her/him from earning valuta (or plunder him/her into perpetual poverty), an AnCap economy poses a terrible threat to the crushing-out of the individual autonomy that comes naturally with individual material prosperity. 

What next, sams?  Are you going to fume, Bumble-fashion, about parish workhouse orphans getting uppity on an excess of protein when the undertaker's family allow them scraps of leftover meat instead of keeping 'em on a proper pauper's diet of gruel? 

Treating Paedophiles like criminals isn't infringing on the right of anyone ... unless criminals ought to be free too you know.

Any children below 15 can't consent to anything because for one their aren't mature and for two they don't know what the frack is sex ... so you are a fracking pervert is you are a NAMBLOID.

Even for Children above 15 to 18, their consent is still subject to their parents judgement as their guardians.

Interesting unnecessary capitalization of "Pedophiles," there, but that's only further evidence of sams' insanity, which is an already established fact.  Let's see; sams insists that it is moral to physically attack, imprison, and otherwise punish people who have a sexual interest in children or adolescents not yet grown to meet some arbitrary "age of consent" because they're criminals, and they're criminals because sams and his co-religionists have insisted that "children below 15 can't consent to anything."

Oh? So how come we keep getting all this social/traditionalist "conservative" noise about how people committing violent assault (including mayhem and murder) well below the age of 15 have got to be "prosecuted as adults!" in order to preserve society (however these collectivist clowns want to define "society" this week) from catastrophic disintegration? 

I had remarked some days ago that the matter of moral agency doesn't seem to be coming into this discussion at all.  When is it that a human being becomes capable of criminal mens rea

Speaking of religious whackjobs, are readers here aware that the Roman Catholic Church considers a member of their flock to have become capable of committing a mortal sin - and thereby condemning his/her unshriven soul to hell for all eternity - at the age of 7 years?   

Talk about consequences..... 

Have social/traditionalist "conservative" specimens like sams made any case as yet that sexual activity is necessarily and invariable harmful to human beings at any age?  Nope.  The best we've seen in this forum thus far - and it's not from sams - runs along the lines of the unsupported contention that because sexual relationships are very "intense" (oh, yeah?), they're too brain-boggling for a Homo sapiens below some arbitrary calendar age to engage in without drastic adverse consequences. 

Gotta scar 'em for life.  Or something.  Like I said, insane.

Er, does the meaning of the expression "a roll in the hay" escape the appreciation of these social/traditionalist "conservative" types completely?  Even among adults involved in heterosexual relationships, copulation pour l'amour o pour le sport goes on quite commonly without any intention that these contacts will lead to cohabitation, much less the ties of matrimony. 

And baby-making is not the objective of all this swiving.  Heck, it's an adverse consequence much to be avoided. 

Except for people like sams, who's insane, people in our civilization today widely and unabashedly acknowledge that even the fetus in utero (regardless of gender) has the capacity to seek and find pleasure in genital - what we'll call "sexual" - stimulation, and that capacity continues to manifest throughout infancy, childhood, and (hoo, boy, definitely!) adolescence, in spite of the way crazy people like sams insanely insist that for some reason (er, what reason?) these "legal infants" are not supposed to engage that libidinal drive in any way at all.

Yeah, sure.  And the participants in a Boy Scout campfire circle-jerk are engaged in a criminal conspiracy, each the "victim" of the kid sitting to his left.  And all of them should spend the rest of their lives as registered "violent sex offenders," 'cause by sams lights, they're all "NAMBLOID" types.   

The capacity for sexual stimulation and for deriving pleasure from sexual stimulation is a characteristic so commonplace among human beings from before birth through the very last years of old age that the absence of such is considered evidence of organic or psychiatric pathology.  This kind of anhedonia is, for example, one of the symptoms sought by doctors in assessing patients suspected of suffering depressed mood.  We don't search out such symptoms in children and young teenagers when we're exploring such diagnostic possibilities because kids pick up a good appreciation of the gibbering insanity of people like sams and clam up about the sex play in which they indulge, both with age-peers and with adults.  They stress out with embarrassment when any adult asks them about it.

Not that adults with mood disorders don't respond with similar reluctance.  Remember Heinlein's dictum: "Everybody lies about sex." 

Capacities such as what we might as well call "the sex drive" (not the drive to reproduce, or to find a life partner in marriage, but just to get one's proverbial rocks off) do not manifest so reliably, so strongly, and so widely if the exercise of such capacities is intrinsically, invariably, inescapably dangerous or damaging.  One might as well condemn a baby for gumming Zwieback as for happily humping a plush toy in his playpen, right? 

Or a ten-year-old (boy or girl) spending rather more time in the bathroom than the chores of grooming and elimination necessitate. 

They also tend to discover at early ages the compounded pleasure of sexual activities with other people.  Mutual manual stimulation is so commonplace as to be unremarkable, and indeed proves to be unmemorable, the kind of "everybody does it when you're a kid" activities that very, very few grown people care even to consciously acknowledge. 

Remember, we modern Americans are living in a culture where a President of these United States who got blowjobs regularly from government employees subject to his direct orders could say: "I did not have sex with that woman."

When irrumation in the Oval Office isn't considered "sex," how might most adult men think about how they used to get really nice blowjobs from kindly old Mr. Johnson (or his fellow "NAMBLOID") on their way home from Little League practice?

Okay, we've established that in the AnCap society of Ceres and the rest of the Belt as depicted in Escape From Terra there is emphatically no economic reason why people who have not yet reached the arbitrary calendar age set by frothingly insane social/traditionalist "conservative" authoritarians like sams can't emancipate themselves by providing independently for themselves their own means of securing food, clothing, housing, and the other material requirements of life support in this environment. 

We have also established that well before the idiotically arbitrary and senseless "ages of consent" noised about by sams, normal, healthy human beings have a perfectly functional appetite for pleasurable genital - sexual - stimulation. 

Heck, they even come into the capability to generate offspring of their own.  Remember those young American males who wind up paying child support for decades as the result of screwing-around they'd done when they themselves were jailbait a decade or so away from the daily necessity of shaving?

So what kinds of conditions in the AnCap society of Ceres and the rest of the Asteroid Belt could possibly exist to support sams' howlingly insane contention that there would be condoned under the Zero Aggression Principle any sort of fantastical "conservative" familial practice of violently assaulting those "NAMBLOID" persons who engage in consenting sexual relationships with persons (male or female) in the first or second decades of life?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 28, 2011, 05:39:43 pm
Just frack off little clown ... I have no time to debate internet gurus on the idiotic side of the libertarian spectrum.

Intent upon proving repeatedy that he most definitely is gibberingly insane, we've got from sams:

Did the EFT team hired some Chinese trolls to balance the debate ?

Shove your Randian BS up your ass, Children before 18 are under discretion of their parents, who are the ones who feed and take care of them until they can make their own decisions.

Ah, good.  So when persons of any age demonstrate the ability to "feed and take care of" themselves, "they can make their own decisions" regarding sexual liaisons regardless of calendar age, right?

Jeez, no wonder the social/traditionalist "conservative" types hate the capitalist free market just as much as do their fellow authoritarians on the socialist/progressive/"Liberal" side. By freeing the individual human being from economically crippling restrictions imposed to prevent her/him from earning valuta (or plunder him/her into perpetual poverty), an AnCap economy poses a terrible threat to the crushing-out of the individual autonomy that comes naturally with individual material prosperity.  

What next, sams?  Are you going to fume, Bumble-fashion, about parish workhouse orphans getting uppity on an excess of protein when the undertaker's family allow them scraps of leftover meat instead of keeping 'em on a proper pauper's diet of gruel?  

Treating Paedophiles like criminals isn't infringing on the right of anyone ... unless criminals ought to be free too you know.

Any children below 15 can't consent to anything because for one their aren't mature and for two they don't know what the frack is sex ... so you are a fracking pervert is you are a NAMBLOID.

Even for Children above 15 to 18, their consent is still subject to their parents judgement as their guardians.

Interesting unnecessary capitalization of "Pedophiles," there, but that's only further evidence of sams' insanity, which is an already established fact.  Let's see; sams insists that it is moral to physically attack, imprison, and otherwise punish people who have a sexual interest in children or adolescents not yet grown to meet some arbitrary "age of consent" because they're criminals, and they're criminals because sams and his co-religionists have insisted that "children below 15 can't consent to anything."

Oh? So how come we keep getting all this social/traditionalist "conservative" noise about how people committing violent assault (including mayhem and murder) well below the age of 15 have got to be "prosecuted as adults!" in order to preserve society (however these collectivist clowns want to define "society" this week) from catastrophic disintegration?  

I had remarked some days ago that the matter of moral agency doesn't seem to be coming into this discussion at all.  When is it that a human being becomes capable of criminal mens rea?  

Speaking of religious whackjobs, are readers here aware that the Roman Catholic Church considers a member of their flock to have become capable of committing a mortal sin - and thereby condemning his/her unshriven soul to hell for all eternity - at the age of 7 years?  

Talk about consequences.....  

Have social/traditionalist "conservative" specimens like sams made any case as yet that sexual activity is necessarily and invariable harmful to human beings at any age?  Nope.  The best we've seen in this forum thus far - and it's not from sams - runs along the lines of the unsupported contention that because sexual relationships are very "intense" (oh, yeah?), they're too brain-boggling for a Homo sapiens below some arbitrary calendar age to engage in without drastic adverse consequences.  

Gotta scar 'em for life.  Or something.  Like I said, insane.

Er, does the meaning of the expression "a roll in the hay" escape the appreciation of these social/traditionalist "conservative" types completely?  Even among adults involved in heterosexual relationships, copulation pour l'amour o pour le sport goes on quite commonly without any intention that these contacts will lead to cohabitation, much less the ties of matrimony.  

And baby-making is not the objective of all this swiving.  Heck, it's an adverse consequence much to be avoided.  

Except for people like sams, who's insane, people in our civilization today widely and unabashedly acknowledge that even the fetus in utero (regardless of gender) has the capacity to seek and find pleasure in genital - what we'll call "sexual" - stimulation, and that capacity continues to manifest throughout infancy, childhood, and (hoo, boy, definitely!) adolescence, in spite of the way crazy people like sams insanely insist that for some reason (er, what reason?) these "legal infants" are not supposed to engage that libidinal drive in any way at all.

Yeah, sure.  And the participants in a Boy Scout campfire circle-jerk are engaged in a criminal conspiracy, each the "victim" of the kid sitting to his left.  And all of them should spend the rest of their lives as registered "violent sex offenders," 'cause by sams lights, they're all "NAMBLOID" types.    

The capacity for sexual stimulation and for deriving pleasure from sexual stimulation is a characteristic so commonplace among human beings from before birth through the very last years of old age that the absence of such is considered evidence of organic or psychiatric pathology.  This kind of anhedonia is, for example, one of the symptoms sought by doctors in assessing patients suspected of suffering depressed mood.  We don't search out such symptoms in children and young teenagers when we're exploring such diagnostic possibilities because kids pick up a good appreciation of the gibbering insanity of people like sams and clam up about the sex play in which they indulge, both with age-peers and with adults.  They stress out with embarrassment when any adult asks them about it.

Not that adults with mood disorders don't respond with similar reluctance.  Remember Heinlein's dictum: "Everybody lies about sex."  

Capacities such as what we might as well call "the sex drive" (not the drive to reproduce, or to find a life partner in marriage, but just to get one's proverbial rocks off) do not manifest so reliably, so strongly, and so widely if the exercise of such capacities is intrinsically, invariably, inescapably dangerous or damaging.  One might as well condemn a baby for gumming Zwieback as for happily humping a plush toy in his playpen, right?  

Or a ten-year-old (boy or girl) spending rather more time in the bathroom than the chores of grooming and elimination necessitate.  

They also tend to discover at early ages the compounded pleasure of sexual activities with other people.  Mutual manual stimulation is so commonplace as to be unremarkable, and indeed proves to be unmemorable, the kind of "everybody does it when you're a kid" activities that very, very few grown people care even to consciously acknowledge.  

Remember, we modern Americans are living in a culture where a President of these United States who got blowjobs regularly from government employees subject to his direct orders could say: "I did not have sex with that woman."

When irrumation in the Oval Office isn't considered "sex," how might most adult men think about how they used to get really nice blowjobs from kindly old Mr. Johnson (or his fellow "NAMBLOID") on their way home from Little League practice?

Okay, we've established that in the AnCap society of Ceres and the rest of the Belt as depicted in Escape From Terra there is emphatically no economic reason why people who have not yet reached the arbitrary calendar age set by frothingly insane social/traditionalist "conservative" authoritarians like sams can't emancipate themselves by providing independently for themselves their own means of securing food, clothing, housing, and the other material requirements of life support in this environment.  

We have also established that well before the idiotically arbitrary and senseless "ages of consent" noised about by sams, normal, healthy human beings have a perfectly functional appetite for pleasurable genital - sexual - stimulation.  

Heck, they even come into the capability to generate offspring of their own.  Remember those young American males who wind up paying child support for decades as the result of screwing-around they'd done when they themselves were jailbait a decade or so away from the daily necessity of shaving?

So what kinds of conditions in the AnCap society of Ceres and the rest of the Asteroid Belt could possibly exist to support sams' howlingly insane contention that there would be condoned under the Zero Aggression Principle any sort of fantastical "conservative" familial practice of violently assaulting those "NAMBLOID" persons who engage in consenting sexual relationships with persons (male or female) in the first or second decades of life?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 28, 2011, 06:00:49 pm
Just frack off little clown ... I have no time to debate internet gurus on the idiotic side of the libertarian spectrum.

Well, ah, not to put too fine a point on it ... given how you feel about the people here ....

What exactly are you doing here at all?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 28, 2011, 06:11:36 pm
Just frack off little clown ... I have no time to debate internet gurus on the idiotic side of the libertarian spectrum.

Well, ah, not to put too fine a point on it ... given how you feel about the people here ....

What exactly are you doing here at all?


I love to come comment the great EFT comics, but when a patronizing, condescending clown playing the internet gurus insult your intelligence ... I send him fracking off.

I enjoy some off-topic chat, but mighty-walls-of-text written in the condescending self-righteous tone don't interest me ... responding is only feeding the psychotic behaviour.

I'm sure you don't appreciate either the Libertarian/moron standard ''OMG You are a statist COnservative'' monster smear failed as intellectualism ... best answer is to send him fracking off.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 28, 2011, 06:24:12 pm
In response to sams' rabidly insane non-reply to my earlier post:

Just frack off little clown ... I have no time to debate internet gurus on the idiotic side of the libertarian spectrum.

...we read:

Well, ah, not to put too fine a point on it ... given how you feel about the people here ....

What exactly are you doing here at all?

Well, he is insane, after all....

I've found sams interesting in the context of this "Pedo Bear" (whatever in hell that means) discussion because he seems reliably to personify the senseless presumptions at the base of all efforts to criminalize consensual human action in the name of maintaining some sort of fabulous traditionalist aggressively violent ordinative scheme.  

sams' is the voice of Prohibition, of Comstockery, of the War on (Some) Drugs, of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and of "every kind of tyranny over the mind of man."  
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 28, 2011, 07:21:39 pm
@J Thomas:

What I'm supposed to respond this ? ::)



Well, he is insane, after all....

I've found sams interesting in the context of this "Pedo Bear" (whatever in hell that means) discussion because he seems reliably to personify the senseless presumptions at the base of all efforts to criminalize consensual human action in the name of maintaining some sort of fabulous traditionalist aggressively violent ordinative scheme.  

sams' is the voice of Prohibition, of Comstockery, of the War on (Some) Drugs, of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and of "every kind of tyranny over the mind of man."  


Do I really have to respond to this massive straw-man and paternalist condescension ?


Once again : frack off.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: terry_freeman on April 28, 2011, 07:31:19 pm
There are accounts of a missionary teaching aboriginals who had no previous experience with reading, writing, and arithmetic the essentials of all three in one hundred hours.

Professional pedagogues like to pretend that much more time is required.

I have observed four year old children reading fluently. It only took them a few tens of hours of instruction, not hundreds.


To be fair child labour laws were put in place to make it possible for children to get an education rather than spending their childhoods working in the factories.

Nonsense. It is politically economically impossible for laws criminalizing the productive employment of children to have any beneficial effect whatsoever, or even any practical puissance providing that the value of a child's work product is in any way significant.

For subsistance farmers all over the world, the ability of children in the first decade of life to perform agricultural chores provides a value that so commonly exceeds the cost of that child's upkeep that (except in times of profound famine) it has been customary for farmers to actively foster and adopt such children, male and female.  Recall the "orphan trains" of late 19th Century America. 

Moreover, a child can be extremely productive as a worker without any real impairment of his/her education.  Children employed as actors in the theater, in the film industy, and in television are gainfully engaged in intensively laborious remunerative activities while sustaining no objectively demonstrable adverse consequences with regard to their educations.  Horror stories about "child stars" focus on the gaudy exceptions, not the experiences of most youngsters so engaged. 

The professional educationalists - particularly those employed in government school systems - have increasingly stressed the value of total immersion in the pedagogical process, and in recent years have demanded that children given into their control live lives utterly committed to didactic instruction of one kind or another.  When children are not directly under the command of teachers, they're hammered with homework set to reinforce the ideological conditioning ordained by their captors.   

But the experience of child actors offers proof that very little formal classroom time is really needed to provide youngsters in the first two decades of life with the structured educational experience required to perform intellectually at levels of function equal or superior to those attained by age-peers compelled to suffer through six or eight hours of daily schooling for five days a week, nine months a year. 

The truth about child labor in manufacturing is the same as holds for adult unskilled manual labor in the same venues.  Repetitious "donkey work" functions in factories are far more cost-efficiently fulfilled by way of systems engineering solutions, which also have the advantages of quality enhancement and consistency. 

One of the truths most inconvenient for the professional educationalists (and the vast pork-barrel machinery of government schooling) is that children and adolescents would almost certainly be better off - not only more content but also better educated - were their school days cut in half, their classroom time confined to the inculcation of those skills which best facilitated the individual's acquisition of such knowledge as he or she would tend to find of greatest utility and enjoyment. 

The rest of their time the children can and should put to such purposes as they find most beneficial.  In a free society, ceteris paribus, that would tend to see many of them seeking and engaging in profitable enterprise of one kind or another.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 11:13:59 pm
Well, ah, not to put too fine a point on it ... given how you feel about the people here ....
What exactly are you doing here at all?
Sams is obviously here for one of two things. #1 Poke anthill with a stick and watch them scurry around frantically or #2 There is some sort of label he wants to apply to himself and needs to be validated in order to do it. Since that desire for validation seems to come from us, a decent bet would be that he's looking to apply a label he applies to us, to himself and we're calling him insane for it. *shrug* In either case he's violating Sartre's "acting in good faith" and should simply be ignored.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 29, 2011, 12:14:24 am
I guess Rhonda found out that the girl had been found and rescued. Never put a psychopath in charge of a mission. I wonder if Ed is wearing armor.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 29, 2011, 03:19:06 am
I guess Rhonda found out that the girl had been found and rescued. Never put a psychopath in charge of a mission. I wonder if Ed is wearing armor.

Rhonda might just shoot Ed in hope to start a shoot out ... then the UW press will hammer their version of the events ad nauseum.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: dough560 on April 29, 2011, 03:24:36 am
J. Thomas, What I build, create or otherwise do to improve my life and my family's is mine and mine to do with as I will.....  I have real problems with grave robbers.  "Legal" or not.

Our current "Legal" grave robbers are slowly being put out of business.  It can't happen soon enough.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 29, 2011, 04:02:03 am
I guess Rhonda found out that the girl had been found and rescued. Never put a psychopath in charge of a mission. I wonder if Ed is wearing armor.
I'm pleasantly surprised she seems to have only shot him in the shoulder. Apparently, her augmentation only extends to speed, not aim.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 29, 2011, 04:55:58 am
I guess Rhonda found out that the girl had been found and rescued. Never put a psychopath in charge of a mission. I wonder if Ed is wearing armor.
I'm pleasantly surprised she seems to have only shot him in the shoulder. Apparently, her augmentation only extends to speed, not aim.

How you coordinate the uber quick extension of the arm with pin point eye aiming  :-\
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: dough560 on April 29, 2011, 05:37:01 am
Sams, In IPSC and IDPA shooting sports, If I remember correctly, Par time to draw and shoot, hitting a target in an area that would generally be lethal on a human being is 1.5 seconds.  Professional shooters will draw, engage five separate targets at distances of 10 to 35 meters generally within 2.2 and 3.0 seconds.  This is done with pistols, not too different from Rhonda's "Mamba".

The answer is to practice, practice and practice some more.  Dry-fire 10 times for every round fired.  Repeat 3,000 times and continue to sustain the skill.

I'll dry-fire in front of a mirror once or twice a month.  Helps me keep my technique correct.  Organized live fire at least once a month.  More if the budge allows.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 29, 2011, 06:04:30 am
I don't any label confirmation nonsense or nor I feel the need to respond to a clown behind his computer calling me ''a Authoritarian Conservative normative'' monster or whatever ... I come to comment about the comic, all else is BS especially if it is on sanctimonious tone.


Well, ah, not to put too fine a point on it ... given how you feel about the people here ....
What exactly are you doing here at all?
Sams is obviously here for one of two things. #1 Poke anthill with a stick and watch them scurry around frantically or #2 There is some sort of label he wants to apply to himself and needs to be validated in order to do it. Since that desire for validation seems to come from us, a decent bet would be that he's looking to apply a label he applies to us, to himself and we're calling him insane for it. *shrug* In either case he's violating Sartre's "acting in good faith" and should simply be ignored.

@dough560:

I see  :)

Although I think soldiers are trained to kill, so the probability to have a dissabiliting hit would be to shoot the chest. ... the chance of dissabling it higher.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 29, 2011, 06:15:33 am
@J Thomas:

What I'm supposed to respond this ? ::)



Well, he is insane, after all....

I've found sams interesting in the context of this "Pedo Bear" (whatever in hell that means) discussion because he seems reliably to personify the senseless presumptions at the base of all efforts to criminalize consensual human action in the name of maintaining some sort of fabulous traditionalist aggressively violent ordinative scheme.  

sams' is the voice of Prohibition, of Comstockery, of the War on (Some) Drugs, of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and of "every kind of tyranny over the mind of man."  

Do I really have to respond to this massive straw-man and paternalist condescension ?

Absolutely not. You have the right to not respond to anything you prefer to ignore. You have no obligation to respond to anybody.

So for example, somebody here recently said that the Lancet study of Iraqi casualties was done with bad methods and should be ignored. There was a lot of propaganda claiming that, because it gave results that were politically inconvenient. The methods they claimed to use were in fact exactly the approved methods for that sort of problem. If they used the wrong methods they must have lied about what they did. Some time after they got their inconvenient results, there was funding for another study on similar topics which got very different results with the same methods. So maybe the first study was faked for political reasons, or maybe the second study (which was commissioned and funded to disprove the first one) was faked for political reasons, or maybe both, or maybe they were both honest but got different results from one of those statistical flukes which happen every now and then. Did I argue with the guy who heard the propaganda? No! I'm tired of that argument. In general, people who believe propaganda instead of statistics are never going to learn the statistics well enough to argue about them. OK, I can let somebody be wrong on the Internet. I don't have to argue every time somebody disagrees with me.

People who think they should respond or must respond are troll-bait.

If a troll comes along and enrages you, and you respond to him and he enrages you more, and you keep coming back trying to prove to his satisfaction that you are better than him, in a way it is his fault for picking on you. But it is also your responsibility for being somebody who is easily trolled.

If somebody doesn't like you on the Internet, you have no obligation to make friends with him or defeat him.
http://xkcd.com/386/

In general, when somebody on the internet says you are insane, he is only being rude. "Insane" on the internet basicly means "says things that don't make sense to me". In person, insane also includes "does things that don't make sense to me". The assumption is that if I don't understand it, it must be crazy.

His other claims about you do make a kind of sense. You have consistently taken the stand that the ways  our (sort of anglo-saxon US) customs have developed are workable and good, and that alternatives are probably not workable and bad. Most of the people here assume that coercion is bad in principle, and that all of our customs that involve coercing people are bad because of that, and that they can successfully be replaced by new customs that do not involve coercion except in response to prior coercion. (With a few exceptions or gray areas when you perceive threats of coercion.)

Can we create a noncoercive society? I'm reasonably sure it's possible, and I'm not certain people will get it right the first try. There are surely lots of things that don't work, some of them for reasons we will not understand ahead of time. Some for reasons we may never understand. Some things just don't work. So it may take time to develop whole societies that don't do coercion at all. We have a start with Quakers and Amish etc who already try to live noncoercively inside a deeply coercive society which possibly might be doing their dirty work for them, or might be just causing them problems.

Our old customs give us the results we have now. They have survived to this point, and it's an open question whether they can survive our new conditions. They do have a track record. Not great in my opinion, but there are survivors, which is better than some alternatives. Would it be worth it to look for something better? I say yes, and also it's important to keep the old ways going for a good long time in case there's something wrong with the particular choices we make when we create alternatives.

When you say the old ways are as good as it gets, of course people here will tend to get upset. I hope they will argue with you while it's fun for them, and quit before it stops being fun.

If it turns into a long argument where you don't have fun, and the other guy doesn't have fun, which one is the troll?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 29, 2011, 06:32:50 am
Quote
quadibloc: I'm pleasantly surprised she seems to have only shot him in the shoulder. Apparently, her augmentation only extends to speed, not aim.

It does look like it could be a shoulder hit, but from the angle, it's hard to tell. The text says "square in the chest," so it could be high on the chest, or maybe the artist decided differently. I guess we'll find out Monday.

If Rhonda can't hit Ed wherever she wants from what I'm guessing is around ten feet away, then she is having some severe personal issues. :) As far as moving "inhumanly fast," as the text says, I have to wonder how fast a person can accelerate horizontally over the ground in Ceres' gravity. Maybe she pushed off from something. I was thinking that Rhonda's extra speed wouldn't be that much of an advantage in Ceres' gravity. I figured that if someone could just hold her in the air, then she'd be fairly helpless.

What will the Cerereans do? She's in the middle of the square with a lot of people around. Unless someone has a clear shot, I don't think they'd take the chance on hitting someone else, on the other hand, Rhonda's bullets are high velocity and can endanger others, not to mention poor Ed. I'd predict a swift death for Rhonda if she wasn't such a juicy character to keep around for awhile longer. If both Ed and Rhonda survive, then I can think of a suitable punishment for her, except that she'd make a lousy prostitute. :)

Will a Cererean put her down, or will it be someone else like Chang? If Chang has the best angle then that would be logical. If the coup de gras came from him, it could prevent a bloodbath.

And what of the troops who kidnapped the kid? Are they dead, or will there be a trial of sorts? I'd guess that the kid would decide their fates if they aren't ready for the worms already. Sending them back to Earth would be too easy on them, but execution might be too much. The girl is owed compensation; is there a middle ground that the Cerereans have for UW subjects who would surely reject arbitration? Can they force them to work with collars on until they pay their debt?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 29, 2011, 06:51:04 am
His other claims about you do make a kind of sense. You have consistently taken the stand that the ways  our (sort of anglo-saxon US) customs have developed are workable and good,

My last post on this entire forum was 2 (TWO) DAYS AGO, what kind of consistently anglo-saxon non-sense Have I been promoting  :-\

I'm not even a freaking American, I'm African and I find it kind of mad that from one post I get this whole psychoanalyst nonsense ... are you sure you aren't confusing me with some one else  :-\
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Azure Priest on April 29, 2011, 07:31:07 am
His other claims about you do make a kind of sense. You have consistently taken the stand that the ways  our (sort of anglo-saxon US) customs have developed are workable and good,

My last post on this entire forum was 2 (TWO) DAYS AGO, what kind of consistently anglo-saxon non-sense Have I been promoting  :-\

I'm not even a freaking American, I'm African and I find it kind of mad that from one post I get this whole psychoanalyst nonsense ... are you sure you aren't confusing me with some one else  :-\

He does tend to get confused on people a great deal, like confusing the top UW government official with George W. Bush, who BTW hasn't been in office for over 2 years.  As for "insane," by dictionary definition is NOT a measurement of mental health (or lack thereof).  It's a LEGAL term reserved for those adults unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions or decisions and CAN NOT be trusted with any authority over anything, including their own affairs.  It is possible to be mentally ill, yet still sane.  It is also possible to be insane while NOT being mentally ill.  Rhonda here is showing a prime example of the latter.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 29, 2011, 07:43:05 am
I'd guess that the kid would decide their fates if they aren't ready for the worms already. Sending them back to Earth would be too easy on them, but execution might be too much.
I am quite puzzled. Even if she is rescued unharmed, why would execution be too much?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 29, 2011, 07:47:21 am
Quote
J Thomas: So for example, somebody here recently said that the Lancet study of Iraqi casualties was done with bad methods and should be ignored. There was a lot of propaganda claiming that, because it gave results that were politically inconvenient. The methods they claimed to use were in fact exactly the approved methods for that sort of problem.

With all due respect, I'm not at all certain that you know that much about the Lancet studies. The cluster method is not in doubt. The objectivity of the data collectors is. The Lancet is an anti-US, anti-war publication that admitted that their "studies" were timed to come out just before the US elections. George Soros, the famous anti-American and world class criminal funded half of the 2006 study.

The Lancet results indicated about 500 people died every day from violent causes, a very difficult figure to believe, as the morgue data showed an order of magnitude less, and the rabid press, who clung eagerly to every reported civilian death in Iraq, could not come close to corroborating the Lancet body count with their own. The Lancet also claimed to observe death certificates in about 90% of the death claims made in the households. This is also a bizarre figure, as the total number of deaths estimated in the 2006 study is 500,000 greater than the number of death certificates issued in Iraq during the time period they examined. No other survey -- some of which used the same methodology -- came within a quarter of their estimate. Their results on the forms they turned in are unverifiable. It comes down to trusting the data they provide, an extremely dubious proposition because of their known bias. Furthermore, the peer reviews could only examine the methodology the Lancet claimed to have used and crunch the numbers the Lancet gave them to crunch without having a chance to examine the critical source data, the houses the data collectors claimed to have visited, and the claim that their sample was taken randomly in each neighborhood.

A similar thing occurred with Michael Mann's now totally discredited "Hockey Stick" graph. There were many peer reviews that "confirmed" his data. The only problem: they took his word for his source data and ran the data according to his mathematics, both of which were grievously flawed. That's not much of a peer review.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 29, 2011, 07:57:46 am
Quote
quadibloc: I am quite puzzled. Even if she is rescued unharmed, why would execution be too much?

Personally, I don't think execution for the psychos would be too much, considering what they did and what they were planning. I was thinking more of what the Cerereans would do. Based on recent events with Bert and Earnie, I think that since they didn't actually do more than kidnap her, then they, or probably the girl in this case, might show leniency. I was shocked that Bert and Earnie didn't just space the bastards, because they stole their claim and were clearly going to let them freeze to death on an asteroid, but Bert and Earnie let them work off the damage.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 29, 2011, 08:08:31 am
His other claims about you do make a kind of sense. You have consistently taken the stand that the ways  our (sort of anglo-saxon US) customs have developed are workable and good,

My last post on this entire forum was 2 (TWO) DAYS AGO, what kind of consistently anglo-saxon non-sense Have I been promoting  :-\

I don't say it's nonsense. There's something to it, it has evolved and it works well enough to maintain itself. That's better than I can claim for ideas people come up with that they think ought to work.

Quote
Whatever is new and innovative must be connected to old roots, those truly vital roots which must be carefully selected from among those which have merely happened to survive.
Bela Bartok

So, you have set off this other guy to the point he keeps going after you. Are you the troll or is he the troll? Well, the first one who doesn't enjoy it and stops responding is the one who is refusing to be trolled.

Quote
I'm not even a freaking American, I'm African and I find it kind of mad that from one post I get this whole psychoanalyst nonsense ... are you sure you aren't confusing me with some one else  :-\

Sorry about that. It looks to me like you are taking this stand, and maybe your point is something different which I confused with this. If you want to say what your central point is, (if you do have a central point more than a whole lot of related points that are hard to say simply, which is OK too) then I'll try to read carefully. Or if you'd rather just accept that sometimes communication is hard and let it go, that's your choice.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 29, 2011, 08:12:34 am

He does tend to get confused on people a great deal, like confusing the top UW government official with George W. Bush, who BTW hasn't been in office for over 2 years.

Are you sure that wasn't me? I wrote about Bush instead of the UW top guy once.

Quote
As for "insane," by dictionary definition is NOT a measurement of mental health (or lack thereof).  It's a LEGAL term reserved for those adults unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions or decisions and CAN NOT be trusted with any authority over anything, including their own affairs.

Yes, but in common use, people say somebody is insane when they don't understand him.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 29, 2011, 08:15:04 am
Quote
J Thomas: So for example, somebody here recently said that the Lancet study of Iraqi casualties was done with bad methods and should be ignored. There was a lot of propaganda claiming that, because it gave results that were politically inconvenient. The methods they claimed to use were in fact exactly the approved methods for that sort of problem.

With all due respect, I'm not at all certain that you know that much about the Lancet studies. The cluster method is not in doubt. The objectivity of the data collectors is. The Lancet is an anti-US, anti-war publication that admitted that their "studies" were timed to come out just before the US elections. George Soros, the famous anti-American and world class criminal funded half of the 2006 study.

The Lancet results indicated about 500 people died every day from violent causes, a very difficult figure to believe, as the morgue data showed an order of magnitude less, and the rabid press, who clung eagerly to every reported civilian death in Iraq, could not come close to corroborating the Lancet body count with their own. The Lancet also claimed to observe death certificates in about 90% of the death claims made in the households. This is also a bizarre figure, as the total number of deaths estimated in the 2006 study is 500,000 greater than the number of death certificates issued in Iraq during the time period they examined. No other survey -- some of which used the same methodology -- came within a quarter of their estimate. Their results on the forms they turned in are unverifiable. It comes down to trusting the data they provide, an extremely dubious proposition because of their known bias. Furthermore, the peer reviews could only examine the methodology the Lancet claimed to have used and crunch the numbers the Lancet gave them to crunch without having a chance to examine the critical source data, the houses the data collectors claimed to have visited, and the claim that their sample was taken randomly in each neighborhood.

A similar thing occurred with Michael Mann's now totally discredited "Hockey Stick" graph. There were many peer reviews that "confirmed" his data. The only problem: they took his word for his source data and ran the data according to his mathematics, both of which were grievously flawed. That's not much of a peer review.

I disagree and I don't want to argue with you about it now.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 29, 2011, 08:54:29 am
Hang on. Is one of these fools now claiming that the Lancet, the worlds foremost and oldest peer reviewed journal of medical science is biased?
To be honest I'm more likely to trust them then any anarchist.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 29, 2011, 09:28:20 am
Quote
Commissar Holt: Hang on. Is one of these fools clear-thinking individuals now claiming that the Lancet, the worlds foremost formerly reputable and oldest peer reviewed journal of medical science is biased?

FIFY. Sadly, yes. The editors themselves blew their last wad of respectability when they admitted the results were timed to influence elections. The left's vile corruption and politicization of science continues. DDT, Global Warming, anti-war driven faked surveys -- where will it end?

Quote
Commissar Holt: To be honest I'm more likely to trust them then any anarchist.

I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 29, 2011, 09:39:09 am
So? It's a journal of MEDICAL SCIENCE not a political rag. Everything non-medical is not worth thinking about when it comes to the Lancet. You don't get it because you want to hear some editorial about the current political climate, you get it because you want to keep up to date on new medical breakthroughs.

The fact is though that they still have more credibility than you ever will.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 29, 2011, 10:19:42 am
Quote
Commissar Holt: The fact is though that they still have more credibility than you ever will.

It doesn't bother me at all if you say that. It's true, in a way, and the reverse is also true. I'm just one person. The Lancet is an international publication that was once universally respected. Among the left, it still is, or at least, since it's on the left's side, they continue to support it. To the informed rest of us, when it decided that politics was more important than science, it lost its credibility for both. This sort of thing nowadays is fairly common; the Lancet is hardly the first Scientific publication to abandon its principles. It's just a sad thing to see. The mental illness that is the left corrupts everything it touches.

This is not to say that the Lancet has lost all of it's value, but now on certain subjects, it's shown that it can't be trusted.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 29, 2011, 10:45:28 am
It's a medical journal.

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU READ A MEDICAL JOURNAL FOR POLITICS?!

Stop fucking herping while you derp
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 29, 2011, 10:59:08 am
It's a medical journal.

WHY THE frack DO YOU READ A MEDICAL JOURNAL FOR POLITICS?!

Stop fracking herping while you derp

There's a saying that your'e entitled to your own opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts. But in reality, people choose their own facts too. Any time scientists get results that people don't want to believe in, they blame the scientists and say the scientists did it wrong. Any time.

You'd think the ozone depletion stuff would be pretty clear by now, wouldn't you? But people still deny it. They come up with any way they can to interpret it as not happening, even now, when the politics have moved on.

One of the basic approaches to denying science is to claim that the scientists themselves have political opinions or political goals. Notice this example -- the claim is that the Lancet editors timed the release of an article for political reasons, and this is evidence that the article itself is no good. The underlying argument goes like this:  The scientists who did the research aren't "our kind of people". So they're liars, they got the wrong results on purpose. If they were our kind of people they would have published the truth, the truth that helps us and not published things that make us look bad.

Of course nothing you can can possibly get through against this sort of reasoning. Because if you argue against it, you are showing that you also are not "our kind of people" and so you are the enemy, who will make up any kind of lie or fallacy to try to sway them or worse to sway third parties who don't know better.

So don't argue unless it's fun to argue. And it's seldom fun to argue with people who are debating in bad faith.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on April 29, 2011, 11:11:12 am
I don't any label confirmation nonsense or nor I feel the need to respond to a clown behind his computer calling me ''a Authoritarian Conservative normative'' monster or whatever ... I come to comment about the comic, all else is BS especially if it is on sanctimonious tone.
You're confusing people I think. All I claimed is that you fail  Sartre's tests for "acting in good faith."
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sams on April 29, 2011, 11:45:37 am
if you'd rather just accept that sometimes communication is hard and let it go, that's your choice.


I will simply let it go, better this way.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on April 29, 2011, 11:50:55 am
Quote
J Thomas: There's a saying that your'e entitled to your own opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts. But in reality, people choose their own facts too. Any time scientists get results that people don't want to believe in, they blame the scientists and say the scientists did it wrong. Any time.

Any time? It all depends on whose ox is being gored? The truth is nothing but what you believe? You are so cynical. There are facts and there are assertions and there are lies. Facts are not variables. Honest people will agree on a set of facts and argue from there. Dishonest people will not. It's as simple as that.

Quote
J Thomas: One of the basic approaches to denying science is to claim that the scientists themselves have political opinions or political goals.

If it's true, it's true. If it's not, it's not. It is simply a fact that many scientists nowadays do have political opinions that override their science. The global warming fiasco is proof of this. Whether or not one comes down on one side of the issue or the other, at least one group of scientists is making up their facts.

Quote
J Thomas: Notice this example -- the claim is that the Lancet editors timed the release of an article for political reasons, and this is evidence that the article itself is no good. The underlying argument goes like this:  The scientists who did the research aren't "our kind of people". So they're liars, they got the wrong results on purpose. If they were our kind of people they would have published the truth, the truth that helps us and not published things that make us look bad.

Ahem. It isn't a claim, it's a verifiable fact that the Lancet admitted that they timed the release to come before the elections, and yes, it shows something of their politics and their lack of impartiality that they sought to influence US elections. That was hardly the only argument I made, however. You conveniently ignored the rest of the facts I presented to concentrate on one isolated piece of it and then pretended that it was the whole of the argument. That is a straw man, and it is disingenuous. However, if that's all you have, and you cannot offer any counter arguments to the rest of my arguments, then I can safely say that I have won the argument. And if you do offer counter arguments to what I've presented, then you admit that DID have other arguments and thus invalidate the straw man you've just set up. Either way, you lose. Thanks for playing!

Quote
J Thomas: So don't argue unless it's fun to argue. And it's seldom fun to argue with people who are debating in bad faith.

And we agree, although, I suspect, for different reasons. From what I've seen, Commissar Holt is a lefty whose hobby -- or whatever it is -- is to blast the US for any fault, real or imagined, but at least he has a sense of humor. Occasionally you have a point, but too often you remind me of a block of cheese left out too long: inflexible, crusty and unappetizing.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 29, 2011, 11:52:20 am
It's a medical journal.

WHY THE frack DO YOU READ A MEDICAL JOURNAL FOR POLITICS?!

Stop fracking herping while you derp

I've only been reading the current medical periodicals for about thirty-five years now, and even in that brief period I've personally read a helluva lot of stuff that was presented with deliberate duplicity (not to mention a little bit of honest error), and it's been in The Lancet and JAMA and the BMJ and The New England Journal of Medicine and all over the rest of the "gold standard" peer-reviewed plenum.  

I've found that people without proximal professional familiarity with what goes on in the publication of medical journals tend to vest a whole boatload more faith - and it's surely faith, as in "shake that rattle, dance the dance, carve out some guy's beating heart, and we get rain for our crops!" religious faith - in what appears in the glossy pages between the colorful pharmaceuticals advertisements than do those of us in the sawbones racket, many of whom have participated in clinical research, integrated the data derived therefrom, and written up the results.

With this understanding, permit me to observe that it is erroneous to assert that medical journals are not influenced by political chicanery, and that it is insane for a person appraised of this fact to keep on insisting that the contents of these periodicals should be received as if they were ex cathedra infallible.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 29, 2011, 12:05:42 pm
It's a medical journal.

WHY THE frack DO YOU READ A MEDICAL JOURNAL FOR POLITICS?!

Stop fracking herping while you derp

There's a saying that your'e entitled to your own opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts. But in reality, people choose their own facts too. Any time scientists get results that people don't want to believe in, they blame the scientists and say the scientists did it wrong. Any time.

You'd think the ozone depletion stuff would be pretty clear by now, wouldn't you? But people still deny it. They come up with any way they can to interpret it as not happening, even now, when the politics have moved on.

One of the basic approaches to denying science is to claim that the scientists themselves have political opinions or political goals. Notice this example -- the claim is that the Lancet editors timed the release of an article for political reasons, and this is evidence that the article itself is no good. The underlying argument goes like this:  The scientists who did the research aren't "our kind of people". So they're liars, they got the wrong results on purpose. If they were our kind of people they would have published the truth, the truth that helps us and not published things that make us look bad.

Of course nothing you can can possibly get through against this sort of reasoning. Because if you argue against it, you are showing that you also are not "our kind of people" and so you are the enemy, who will make up any kind of lie or fallacy to try to sway them or worse to sway third parties who don't know better.

So don't argue unless it's fun to argue. And it's seldom fun to argue with people who are debating in bad faith.


And this is the humanity I love...honestly it's like I'm a battered wife or something.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: GaTor on April 29, 2011, 12:22:38 pm
So? It's a journal of MEDICAL SCIENCE not a political rag. Everything non-medical is not worth thinking about when it comes to the Lancet. You don't get it because you want to hear some editorial about the current political climate, you get it because you want to keep up to date on new medical breakthroughs.

The fact is though that they still have more credibility than you ever will.

It a matter of ‘cred’.  The Lancet has a certain amount of ‘cred’ due to their history but that does not mean that everything they publish is true and factual.   Like any other magazine, professional or otherwise, the stories and articles are submitted by independent authors.  The Lancet does a good job of vetting submissions but they have had to retract and amend articles due to errors, new data and outright fraud.  The fact that ANY publication or person has credibility does not excuse or give them a pass from scrutiny.   The  ‘cred’ may give one an initial sense of believability and trust but does not mean one is immune to review and verification.
 
But you are absolutely wrong that Aardvark or most of the other posters here have less ‘cred’ than the Lancet which has a proven history of publishing false, inaccurate and misleading articles.  This does not even include their editorial statements, conclusions and “recommendations” which are notably elitist, socialist and give little concern over individual freedoms and liberty.     On the other hand, most of the veteran posters here (excluding the trolls) have a history of being truthful in their posting and are willing to give links to back up their fact based comments.   They also are very diligent in highlighting their ‘opinions’ as opposed to ‘facts’ used to support their arguments.   
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 29, 2011, 12:54:46 pm
It a matter of ‘cred’.  The Lancet has a certain amount of ‘cred’ due to their history but that does not mean that everything they publish is true and factual.
I think that Scientific American has a lot of credibility on scientific subjects. But I also think that they've waded into politics on occasion, and if they run an article saying that missile defense system X is going to escalate the arms race and is therefore a Bad Thing, I see no reason not to take that with a very big grain of salt.

In some quarters, at least, while jingoistic patriotism counts as a "political opinion", and thus has no place in a "non-political" publication, pacifism is viewed as an expression of a universal human aspiration, and thus is not to be treated as the expression of a partisan view. There has been a big cultural brainwashing job going on in the colleges and universities of the Free World for many decades, with the result that among many members of the "elite", it seems simply bizarre to denounce Communism in the same unsparing manner that one would denounce Nazism, and, as a corollary of that, which remains significant even after the downfall of Russia (but not China), accepting America unhesitatingly as the champion of Good against Evil (in the form, at present, of al-Qaeda rather than the Reds) - freedom against tyranny, liberty against slavery - just doesn't come naturally to them.

I would be more inclined to believe a report of more civilian casualties than previously estimated in Iraq if it came from people who were likely to have struggled mightily against their pre-existing political convictions in order to reach such a conclusion.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Holt on April 29, 2011, 01:54:02 pm
Funny because I've heard from fairly credible folk that Scientific American isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 29, 2011, 02:12:35 pm
I think that Scientific American has a lot of credibility on scientific subjects. But I also think that they've waded into politics on occasion, and if they run an article saying that missile defense system X is going to escalate the arms race and is therefore a Bad Thing, I see no reason not to take that with a very big grain of salt.

A grain is sixty-five milligrams (or so), no matter whose tail you're salting.  Even on scientific subjects, however, Scientific American has published some real howlers.  Gotta be expected in any publication that tries to be "bleeding edge."  The publishers and editors of Scientific American want their rag to grab eyeballs, and they do it by going for the most attention-gettingly sensationalistic material they can assemble.  

That they're not quite down to the level of The National Enquirer is only because they want to maintain the image of credibility.  Note that the word is "image."  Real scientific integrity? Not at the expense of circulation, "impact factor," or the management's prevailing political prejudices.

In some quarters, at least, while jingoistic patriotism counts as a "political opinion", and thus has no place in a "non-political" publication, pacifism is viewed as an expression of a universal human aspiration, and thus is not to be treated as the expression of a partisan view.

Viewed by whom? My personal position anent pacifism draws upon Keith Laumer's Retief's War: "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."

There has been a big cultural brainwashing job going on in the colleges and universities of the Free World for many decades, with the result that among many members of the "elite", it seems simply bizarre to denounce Communism in the same unsparing manner that one would denounce Nazism, and, as a corollary of that, which remains significant even after the downfall of Russia (but not China), accepting America unhesitatingly as the champion of Good against Evil (in the form, at present, of al-Qaeda rather than the Reds) - freedom against tyranny, liberty against slavery - just doesn't come naturally to them.

I would be more inclined to believe a report of more civilian casualties than previously estimated in Iraq if it came from people who were likely to have struggled mightily against their pre-existing political convictions in order to reach such a conclusion.

I'm disinclined to credit the people running the government of these United States as "Good."  Certainly "less bad" than their more overtly thieving, enslaving, and murdering colleagues in Pyongyang, Tehran, Tripoli, Damascus, and some cave in Waziristan, but letting the folks in Mordor-on-the-Potomac claim a pass just because they're careful to show clean hands after perpetrating violent homicide is pretty stupid.

I'm not anti-U.S.  But I'm sure as hell anti-U.S. government.  It's as much an error to mistake the politicians for the polity as it is to assume that a person afflicted with a humongous hookworm infestation is a nematode.  
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 29, 2011, 03:11:00 pm
I love to come comment the great EFT comics, but when a patronizing, condescending clown playing the internet gurus insult your intelligence ... I send him fracking off.

I enjoy some off-topic chat, but mighty-walls-of-text written in the condescending self-righteous tone don't interest me ... responding is only feeding the psychotic behaviour.

I'm sure you don't appreciate either the Libertarian/moron standard ''OMG You are a statist COnservative'' monster smear failed as intellectualism ... best answer is to send him fracking off.

Later on, we see sams whine:


Do I really have to respond to this massive straw-man and paternalist condescension ?

...and then whimper:

I don't any label confirmation nonsense or nor I feel the need to respond to a clown behind his computer calling me ''a Authoritarian Conservative normative'' monster or whatever ... I come to comment about the comic, all else is BS especially if it is on sanctimonious tone.

In a later post, sams informs that he (she?) is alien to these United States, and dwells somewhere in Africa. 

This thread having been started by sams to address the supposed "pedophilia" involved in the kidnapping and threatened gang-rape of a 12-year-old Belter female (which stretches the definition of pedophilia way to hell out of shape, 'cause normal, healthy 12-year-old females in the Belt as depicted would tend reliably to be nubile if not of full adult stature, personifying the concept of "jailbait"), for this crazy person to make sputtering noises about how the posts I've contributed to discuss the moral agency of children and their abilities to emancipate themselves - and participate in consensual sexual activities, if they wish - are in any way "off-topic" is either hypocritical or insane.

Having gotten to know sams adequately in the past few days, I'm gonna go with "insane."

This being a venue on the Web, and with nothing but reasoned argument to offer in any exchange of ideas, I've striven here to present the facts of reality as lucidly and explicitly as I can manage.  sams, on the other hand....

Well, sams is obviously insane.  Whether in Africa or sitting in some fundamentalist Protestant clapboard church in Appalachia, what sams is regurgitating on the subject of individual human rights (and even a child in the first decade of life is a human being and an individual distinctly separate from his/her parents) is entirely in the social/traditionalistic "conservative" line of political authoritarianism. 

It obviously irritates the hell out of sams that I should state this obvious fact, though why he gripes about it I can only speculate.  Probably because sams is insane. Insane people don't think or speak or act logically. 

In the discussion of conditions on Ceres and in the Belt culture as the authors of Escape From Terra (which sams claims to enjoy, though why that should be - sams being the typification of a mundane cement-head if ever there was one - I've got not the first idea) have thus far depicted, there is no reason why human beings below whatever arbitrary "age of consent" beloved of sams and his fellow social/traditionalist "conservative" authoritarians want to impose would not become sexually active according to their capacities and preferences, with age-peers or with elders, as long as no violations of the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) were involved. 

With regard to arguments about how "intense" sexual relationships might become (because such "intensity" is not a universal or by any means a necessary part of sexual activity; refer again to the expression "a roll in the hay") in the effort to "protect" children and adolescents out of the exercise of their libidinal capacities, it is flatly impossible to prevent intensity from developing in the lives of these youngsters by criminalizing their sexuality. 

Infatuations ("crushes") are commonplace throughout childhood, including not only erotic limerences but also emotional fixations that can be - you should pardon the expression - intense as all get-out. Seldom do they last, and when they go through perturbations and eventually break up, the adverse responses of the persons participating (no matter what their ages) are commonly quite stormy, whether sexual activity had been involved or not.   

So what?  Who the hell thinks that this is not a normal and expected part of emotional and intellectual maturation?  Or, indeed, that it doesn't go on throughout life? 

I suspect that sams and his social/traditionalist "conservative" co-religionists are not only insane and stupid but also tragically incapable of honestly considering the real nature of human thought and emotion.  If they've had any responsibility in the nurture of children, they've not only done a thoroughly crappy job of it but they're blind to just how crappy a job they did.  Or are presently doing. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 29, 2011, 05:13:32 pm

I've only been reading the current medical periodicals for about thirty-five years now, and even in that brief period I've personally read a helluva lot of stuff that was presented with deliberate duplicity (not to mention a little bit of honest error), and it's been in The Lancet and JAMA and the BMJ and The New England Journal of Medicine and all over the rest of the "gold standard" peer-reviewed plenum.

That's a good point. What I've noticed from medical researchers who were not reporting tests of new pharmaceuticals seemed to me to be a whole lot of honest error. They thought they knew the truth, ad they got results which were compatible with what they already believed, and they published their results as if providing proof for their claims.

It was almost always easier for me to think they were kind of stupid, than deceitful. And I think part of the reason was that I didn't really have any skin in the game, and they did. I could look at research papers, and the papers those used as background, and so on, and see the rickety belief structures that were built up on inadequate evidence. But actual MDs, whose patients' lives depended on them being right, wanted intensely to believe that their training was correct and that they really truly knew what they were doing. I would have had nightmares if I had to guess at how to save particular patients who depended on me, knowing the tenuous web of assumptions the theory was based on.

So it wasn't surprising that the MDs were always sure they were right. And when a statistician told an MD that his data did not actually show what he claimed it did, what did he do? Of course, usually he got a second opinion. It wasn't uncommon for an MD to go down the row of offices, looking for a statistician who would give him the answer he wanted. And when the statisticians thwarted the dean of the medical school one time too many, he hired his own statisticians....

I found the epidemiologists generally better. Since so much of what they did was collect and interpret data, rather than medical treatment, it was a bigger part of their skillset.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 29, 2011, 05:24:08 pm
Do I really have to respond to this massive straw-man and paternalist condescension ?

...(i.e., my dispassionately reasoned lucidly presented analysis of human nature with regard to both economic functions and sexual mores in the AnCap society characterized in Escape From Terra, wherein sams demonstrates no "straw man" fallacy whatsoever) we have:

Absolutely not. You have the right to not respond to anything you prefer to ignore. You have no obligation to respond to anybody.
(...)
People who think they should respond or must respond are troll-bait.

If a troll comes along and enrages you, and you respond to him and he enrages you more, and you keep coming back trying to prove to his satisfaction that you are better than him, in a way it is his fault for picking on you. But it is also your responsibility for being somebody who is easily trolled.

If somebody doesn't like you on the Internet, you have no obligation to make friends with him or defeat him. http://xkcd.com/386/

In general, when somebody on the internet says you are insane, he is only being rude. "Insane" on the internet basicly means "says things that don't make sense to me". In person, insane also includes "does things that don't make sense to me". The assumption is that if I don't understand it, it must be crazy.

I beg to differ.  When I describe sams as insane, I mean that his writings on this subject - the involvement of children in sexual activities (copulative or non-copulative), adult-child sexual relationships, pedophilia, and so forth - make no sense to anybody.  They have no support in objective reality, but spring entirely from sams' suppositions that the traditions and other usages he accepts without critical thought must be received without question despite contrary evidence which has undergone scrupulous verification and is appreciable by any honest person reading here, no matter how reluctant such a person might be to admit that understanding. 

Thus sams' emotional response to a subject that's really about as much a "moral" question as whether or not someone scratches when it itches.  In sams we find a disputant who typifies the presently prevailing idiocies about human sexuality, according the whole spectrum of lust - from flirtation through obsessive "sex addict" fixation - so goddam much psychological and emotional loading that he really can't seem to think or write reasonably about it. 

This is psychiatrically dysfunctional, right?  sams is insane not because he doesn't make sense to me but because he doesn't make sense - heck, he can't make sense - in this context at all.  Like the aichmophobe who can't even think about a butter knife without breaking into a cold sweat, sams is incapable of participating in a reasonable discussion of the subject at hand. 

His other claims about you do make a kind of sense. You have consistently taken the stand that the ways  our (sort of anglo-saxon US) customs have developed are workable and good, and that alternatives are probably not workable and bad. Most of the people here assume that coercion is bad in principle, and that all of our customs that involve coercing people are bad because of that, and that they can successfully be replaced by new customs that do not involve coercion except in response to prior coercion. (With a few exceptions or gray areas when you perceive threats of coercion.)

Can we create a noncoercive society? I'm reasonably sure it's possible, and I'm not certain people will get it right the first try. There are surely lots of things that don't work, some of them for reasons we will not understand ahead of time. Some for reasons we may never understand. Some things just don't work. So it may take time to develop whole societies that don't do coercion at all. We have a start with Quakers and Amish etc who already try to live noncoercively inside a deeply coercive society which possibly might be doing their dirty work for them, or might be just causing them problems.

Our old customs give us the results we have now. They have survived to this point, and it's an open question whether they can survive our new conditions. They do have a track record. Not great in my opinion, but there are survivors, which is better than some alternatives. Would it be worth it to look for something better? I say yes, and also it's important to keep the old ways going for a good long time in case there's something wrong with the particular choices we make when we create alternatives.

When you say the old ways are as good as it gets, of course people here will tend to get upset. I hope they will argue with you while it's fun for them, and quit before it stops being fun.

If it turns into a long argument where you don't have fun, and the other guy doesn't have fun, which one is the troll?

I think it reliable to conclude that sams' purpose in this forum is in substantial part to assert the supremacy of the out-of-date software on which his brain is running, the traditionalist "conservative" blank-out substitute for honest morality by way of which sams and his co-religionists evade acknowledgement of the criminality of their aggressively vicious interferences in the lives of their fellow human beings.

If we do not hear further from sams in this thread or on this subject, it won't be because sams is no longer having "fun" here, but because sams has been targeted accurately, cannot survive under such discernment, and must flee to preserve his fragile and diseased sense of self. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 29, 2011, 05:59:18 pm
What I've noticed from medical researchers who were not reporting tests of new pharmaceuticals seemed to me to be a whole lot of honest error. They thought they knew the truth, ad they got results which were compatible with what they already believed, and they published their results as if providing proof for their claims.

It was almost always easier for me to think they were kind of stupid, than deceitful.

No, it's deceitfulness.  Even if it's inadvertent - not consciously self-dealing with the overt intent to lie - the purpose of scientific method is to wring as much of the error-raddled unreliability of subjective prejudice out of the processes of inquiry and analysis as possible. 

The guy who evades the machinery and the intent of scientific method isn't conducting himself according to the ethical standards of science, good intentions be damned. 

In the most memorable instances of deviation from ethical practices in the clinical literature, the selective reporting of findings ("cherry-picking"), duplicitous number-bashing ("lies, damned lies, and statistics"), and wildly leaping conclusions to support recommendations in diagnosis and treatment that really don't have a damned thing to do with improving patient outcomes, have all been the results of deceitfulness. 

Honest error is just too doggone easy to catch.  If you stick conscientiously to scientific method, the checking function is strong. 

I found the epidemiologists generally better. Since so much of what they did was collect and interpret data, rather than medical treatment, it was a bigger part of their skillset.

Well.... Like 'em as much as you please. My personal and professional experience with the epidemiologists gives me to opine that they're as hot for eyeball-grabbing "high-impact" publication credit - and as susceptible to political bigotry - as anybody else in the sciences or in clinical medicine. 

You pays your money and you takes your chances.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 29, 2011, 06:38:57 pm
So what?  Who the hell thinks that this is not a normal and expected part of emotional and intellectual maturation?  Or, indeed, that it doesn't go on throughout life?
For some strange reason, almost everyone in our society looks down on a 30-year-old teacher who has consensual sexual intercourse with even a 15-year-old student of his who happened to have a crush on him. That is considered a very inappropriate response to the situation.

Although you have made arguments which, on the surface, appear plausible that this is a culturally-conditioned attitude, which if viewed from the outside in an impartial manner, would be seen as insane - I think you should not be surprised that people are reluctant to accept that the normal view of the whole world is insane, and the view of a very small group of people, radically opposed to long-established practice, is, instead, the truth.

This remains true even if it is difficult to articulate precisely where your arguments, plausible as they may appear, are wrong.

Our standards of sexual behavior formed, of course, when neither effective contraception nor safe abortion were available. The hormonal changes of pregnancy are partly responsible for the intensity of a mother's love for her child; it is not true that a typical woman, if she is abandoned by the father of her child before giving birth, can simply put the child up for adoption and be none the worse for wear.

In a society of peasant farmers, before there were careers for women as typists and stenographers, because women were not suited to at least some aspects of the heavy physical labor of farming, a woman's ability to play an economic role usually depended on her ability to be a good wife to a responsible husband.

He would support her and her children because they would also be his children - the fruit of his loins as well as of hers. And because she would be sincerely and genuinely emotionally attached to him.

It's been found empirically that it helps if they're virgins.

Now, though, that women are to be independent citizens in their own right, instead of marrying off 13-year-old girls, families send them to school. Ages of consent that are rather high in historical terms have come about as a result of attempting to reconcile the current situation with the habits of the past. While I won't deny that some sort of re-thinking may be in order, I see no reason to rush in with anything that is highly likely to expose many young women to predatory exploitation. Male sexuality is sufficiently intense that it is well known as a common stimulus to aggressive and untrustworthy behavior.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: GaTor on April 29, 2011, 06:58:27 pm
I think that most here are trying to parse things a bit too fine concerning age of consent and child abuse in an AnCap society.  Granted that there are many shades of grey in the current world and even in the USA the legal definition varies wildly from state to state.   However I’d think that 99% of situations would be pretty much cut and dried.   I’ll cite two examples from recent history. 
1.   Elizabeth Smart who at 14 years of age was kidnapped from her home by a religious fanatic and repeatedly raped over several months.    IMHO on Ceres this would be an open and shut case  with the perps Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee handed over to the Smart family for justice.   Were it my daughter I’d put a bullet into both of their brainpans and have the bodies hauled to to the recycling center.
2.   Nora Louise Kuzma aka Traci Lords who left home at 15 to escape abuse and wound up posing in Penthouse and making porn movies.    Again an open and shut case regarding her chosen profession.   On the other hand as there is no statute of limitations on Ceres, she could go back and claim arbitration against the bastards who first raped her at age 10 and continued to molest her until she fled her so called home.   Also IMO on Ceres there would have been an intervention shortly after her first rape and probably before it happened.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 29, 2011, 07:12:36 pm
2.   Nora Louise Kuzma aka Traci Lords who left home at 15 to escape abuse and wound up posing in Penthouse and making porn movies.    Again an open and shut case regarding her chosen profession.   On the other hand as there is no statute of limitations on Ceres, she could go back and claim arbitration against the bastards who first raped her at age 10 and continued to molest her until she fled her so called home.   Also IMO on Ceres there would have been an intervention shortly after her first rape and probably before it happened.
I'm not optimistic about interventions in a place like Ceres.

But she was the case I had in mind when I noted that a young girl of 15, fleeing sexual abuse at home, usually ends up on the street as a prostitute.

Traci Lords was one of the "lucky" ones - she avoided that.

But on a place like Ceres, other young women in that situation would have the even better option of working at the equivalent of McDonald's, which our system denies them. So this is, in my view, one of the strongest arguments for moving in the direction of AnCap.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: GaTor on April 29, 2011, 07:25:25 pm
Regarding our current situation with the kidnapping, threatened rape, torture and murder of a 12 year old…shades of grey?  Are you fracking kidding me?   From the moment they laid hands on her, Rhonda and her culpable cohorts are subject to the long walk, shortening, the last jump etc.   Not to mention Rhonda’s very public violation of ZAP.   I dunno what Sandy has in mind to resolve this arc, but it’s sure to be interesting. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: mellyrn on April 29, 2011, 09:42:01 pm
Quote
In a society of peasant farmers... [emphasis added]

Is this where you're getting your idea of human "normal" from?  Why should the last 7000 farmer years be more normal than the last 200,000 hunter-gatherer years?

I think human-normal is tribal.  For most of our human existence, the father might be any one of a handful of males in the tribe, depending on whether the mother snuck off with a beta male or stuck with the alpha.  Any child in the tribe was, if not the actual progeny of a given male, at least related, hence worth helping care for.  Virginity thus irrelevant.  And even in some agricultural communities it's happened that a woman who had already borne a child or two had proven her fertility and was thus worth marrying.  With respect to knowing the father, a virgin is useful; with respect to barrenness, a virgin is a pig in a poke.

And as for the 30-y-o with the 15-y-o, age has only really mattered in the last hundred years or so.  Heck, Georgette Heyer, writing romance novels in the 1930s, thought nothing of pairing a 17-y-o heroine with a 34-y-o (or older) suitor, and when I say "thought nothing" I mean that there is nothing in the story even hinting that it's at all inappropriate.

Finally, "normal" does not equal "healthy".  Shoes are normal and they are very bad for your feet, legs, hips and back (unless they are heelless).  I do think normal American attitudes towards sex, and the sexuality of children especially, are deeply unhealthy.

Quote
From the moment they laid hands on her, Rhonda and her culpable cohorts are subject to the long walk, shortening, the last jump etc.

I want brain surgery for Rhonda.  I'd like her incapacitated, drooling & unable to tie her own shoes, but able to remember that she used to be capacitated.  Death's too easy.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 29, 2011, 11:40:36 pm
I think human-normal is tribal.  For most of our human existence, the father might be any one of a handful of males in the tribe, depending on whether the mother snuck off with a beta male or stuck with the alpha.  Any child in the tribe was, if not the actual progeny of a given male, at least related, hence worth helping care for.  Virginity thus irrelevant.

This, like primitive socialism, is a PC fantasy, much like Margaret Meade's Samoa. 

In the Samoa Margaret Meade supposedly observed (while getting drunk and adulterously screwing her Samoan servant) teenagers had casual, relaxed, no strings sex.  In the Samoa recorded by missionaries, travellers, and colonial authorities, the penalty for adultery was death for the woman, and extremely brutal and horrifying death for the male.  At marriage, a woman's virginity was publicly examined.  Failure to pass the public pubic exam resulted in on the spot execution.   Married women always had to be under the supervision of their husband or their husband's close kin.  Merely having the opportunity to engage in adultery was subject to punishment.

When the Samoan myth was exposed, the myth was then moved to earlier times not subject to such inconveniently severe scrutiny.

The extent of male investment and female chastity is culturally determined, rather than innate in our nature, and varies dramatically from culture to culture, with no very obvious tendency to be greater or lesser in primitive or modern societies.

Human societies have had diverse sexual practices, and societies where the hippy norm applies that everyone screws in a great big pile did exist, among both primitives and moderns, although the Samoan norm (the actual rather than mythical Samoan norm) was probably more common. However, human societies with relaxed sexual practices fail to build, fail to defend themselves and their women, and fail to reproduce, disappearing from history - see JD Unwin's study on this topic "Sex and Civilization"

The basic problem probably is that human females do not reproduce very successfully without substantial male investment in children, and males obviously are more inclined to invest in their own children.

In addition, there is considerable specialization of roles in the upbringing of children.  Women specialize in taking care of children physically, while men teach them to be adults, and in particular teach boys to be men.  Thus a society that is short of male investment in children is apt to be not only short of children, but even more short of warriors.  This is as true for hunter gatherer societies as it was true for the later Spartans and the later Romans.

Female chastity and male investment is a prisoner's dilemma game.  Obviously both men and women are better off if women are faithful and men invest, but if a woman is faithful, a man has an incentive to halt investment after she is pregnant, and if a man invests, a woman has an incentive to get pregnant with someone else while attributing the pregnancy to her husband.

Prisoners dilemma games are subject to multiple equilibria, hence the diversity of sexual standards in diverse societies.  Undesirable equilibria are common when the game has a known and near ending (a women's short period of fertility) and undesirable equilibria need to remedied by social enforcement, which social enforcement has usually been provided by fathers, a system called "patriarchy".
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 30, 2011, 12:04:55 am
Is this where you're getting your idea of human "normal" from?  Why should the last 7000 farmer years be more normal than the last 200,000 hunter-gatherer years?
Our bodies and minds, indeed, evolved over the period of existence as hunter-gatherers. Our cultures, however, our societies, our "great religions" - these all developed during the more recent period of agriculture, writing, and civilization.

Our cultures are not necessarily a good fit to our biology. But civilization has been so successful that a return to the primitive does not seem to be an option. Of course, it could be said that, to at least some extent, AnCap does have that as its ideal, since civilization was synonymous with the rise of the State.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 30, 2011, 12:08:15 am
For some strange reason, almost everyone in our society looks down on a 30-year-old teacher who has consensual sexual intercourse with even a 15-year-old student of his who happened to have a crush on him. That is considered a very inappropriate response to the situation.

The age difference isn't so much the problem - for people who aren't absolutely rabid about "jailbait" issues - but that the teacher is in a position of authority over the student.  Same thing for a 30-year-old college professor messing around with an undergraduate old enough to buy himself an adult beverage in a bar.  The sexual relationship makes the pedagogical situation shaky.  It's malum prohibitum for the same reason that a well-ordered military force runs under standing orders prohibiting sexual contacts between personnel of differing rank, which is "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline."  

 Although you have made arguments which, on the surface, appear plausible that this is a culturally-conditioned attitude, which if viewed from the outside in an impartial manner, would be seen as insane - I think you should not be surprised that people are reluctant to accept that the normal view of the whole world is insane, and the view of a very small group of people, radically opposed to long-established practice, is, instead, the truth.

This remains true even if it is difficult to articulate precisely where your arguments, plausible as they may appear, are wrong.

That's because my arguments aren't just "plausible," they're (you should pardon the expression in a discussion where contraception is under consideration) impregnable.  It's not that it's "difficult" to make any case that my contentions are wrong, but altogether impossible.  I wouldn't voice those contentions were the case otherwise.  

Our standards of sexual behavior formed, of course, when neither effective contraception nor safe abortion were available. The hormonal changes of pregnancy are partly responsible for the intensity of a mother's love for her child; it is not true that a typical woman, if she is abandoned by the father of her child before giving birth, can simply put the child up for adoption and be none the worse for wear.

In a society of peasant farmers, before there were careers for women as typists and stenographers, because women were not suited to at least some aspects of the heavy physical labor of farming, a woman's ability to play an economic role usually depended on her ability to be a good wife to a responsible husband.

He would support her and her children because they would also be his children - the fruit of his loins as well as of hers. And because she would be sincerely and genuinely emotionally attached to him.

It's been found empirically that it helps if they're virgins.

Now, though, that women are to be independent citizens in their own right, instead of marrying off 13-year-old girls, families send them to school. Ages of consent that are rather high in historical terms have come about as a result of attempting to reconcile the current situation with the habits of the past. While I won't deny that some sort of re-thinking may be in order, I see no reason to rush in with anything that is highly likely to expose many young women to predatory exploitation. Male sexuality is sufficiently intense that it is well known as a common stimulus to aggressive and untrustworthy behavior.

To whatever extent these conditions have colored custom and law in Western civilization currently, we are in this forum discussing the cultures prevailing on Ceres and in the extraterrestrial solar system generally, some decades in the future.  In the speculative fiction context as has thus far been delineated in Escape From Terra, what might be reasonably expected to happen?  

You speak of our present codes of laws "as a result of attempting to reconcile the current situation with the habits of the past."

Okay. So given the circumstances in which the people of Ceres and the rest of the Belt find themselves in the EFT plenum, how d'you think that they might have reconciled their capacities and their resources so as to address both exigencies and opportunities?  

The depictions provided by the authors of EFT have made it clear that the Belt civilization is rich in raw materials, useful energy, information access (the Tanglenet), technical expertise, and freedom from the inhibitory toxicities of authoritarian government.  

For a number of reasons, I've inferred that their economy is relatively labor-poor, given the fact that there are market niches ("Ceres Spaceport Agent," for example) which are being profitably filled by older children and younger adolescents.  People of marginal physical capacities who want to engage in productive enterprise do not face the kinds of heavy competition which tend reliably to develop in labor-saturated economies. At the outset of the graphic novel, we see a couple of extremely unskilled U.W. bureaucrats having no difficulty finding work and providing themselves with comfortable living circumstances when they decide to relocate to the Belt.

Medical technology is extremely advanced.  This is a civilization in which a lady who runs a bed-and-breakfast/fast food eatery can afford to have her life extended and her physical condition restored to youthfulness in a "rejuvenation" process, and had only deferred the procedure because she'd become weary of living before the blossoming of romance gave her new zest for the pleasures of the flesh.

Noise about the supposed unreliability of contraception, or about the risks of incurable sexually transmitted diseases, is therefore not to be tolerated in this forum.  Anybody who tries to peddle that argument should find a proctologist and get his head unwedged.  

Families will doubtless continue to exist, but what gives anyone to conclude that they'll necessarily consist of male-female pairs, as we see them in most present-day Terran cultures?  It's been almost fifty years since Heinlein published The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, with its speculations on the ways in which human beings have structured various "arrangments for living" (polygyny, polyandry, etc.) as well as his suggestion about what he called "line marriages."  

A bit less than half a century later, do we have people reading here who are so bloody illiterate as to have never read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or such obdurate cement-heads as to have blocked out further thought about how people under anticipatable future conditions would adapt their social and cultural practices to serve their needs and desires?  

Ain't no "Defense of Marriage Act" in the Belt, folks.  

Even child-bearing might not necessarily require a woman to experience pregnancy and parturition.  On Mars in this graphic novel, they've got rejuvenation.  Speculation on extrauterine gestation has been present in science fiction for about half a century, too (recall A. Bertram Chandler's Spartan Planet, and look more recently to Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan Saga novels, set in the same plenum as her Falling Free and Ethan of Athos).  

It wouldn't - couldn't - happen in the extraterrestrial civilization described in Escape From Terra?  

Yeah, sure.

Technical resources have always changed human behavior.  Just how dead-from-the-neck up do the social/traditionalist "conservative" participants in this discourse have to be in order to blot out understanding of this inescapable fact?

Jeez, wotta buncha frackin' mundanes!  
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 12:20:48 am
What I've noticed from medical researchers who were not reporting tests of new pharmaceuticals seemed to me to be a whole lot of honest error. They thought they knew the truth, ad they got results which were compatible with what they already believed, and they published their results as if providing proof for their claims.

It was almost always easier for me to think they were kind of stupid, than deceitful.

No, it's deceitfulness.  Even if it's inadvertent - not consciously self-dealing with the overt intent to lie - the purpose of scientific method is to wring as much of the error-raddled unreliability of subjective prejudice out of the processes of inquiry and analysis as possible. 

Well, if you're talking about unconscious deceit, I doubt we have a real disagreement.

My experience has been that scientific method looks simple and obvious, but you only get good at it with practice. Like riding a bicycle or doing math. There are lots of ideas involved that people don't get easily.

Like, when you control for confounding variables by setting each of them to a known value, you can establish relationships among your test variables -- but what you have established is only the relationships among your test variables when all the confounding variables are set at the values you chose. The relationships among your test variables might be completely different when the confounding variables have different values. But there's a strong temptation to imagine that the confounding variables actually have no effect and that the relationships among the test variables have been determined....

There are lots of pitfalls. And the way it works, medical research is much easier to fund when it is run by MDs who know medicine than by PhDs who know scientific method. It's just one of those things.

Quote
In the most memorable instances of deviation from ethical practices in the clinical literature, the selective reporting of findings ("cherry-picking"), duplicitous number-bashing ("lies, damned lies, and statistics"), and wildly leaping conclusions to support recommendations in diagnosis and treatment that really don't have a damned thing to do with improving patient outcomes, have all been the results of deceitfulness.

Yes. In my experience, intro statistics courses have mostly failed. The students think it's very hard (lots of math) and also often think it's bullshit they are required to endure. The teachers water it down and concentrate on getting students to correctly do t-tests and such, with perhaps some rote rules about when a t-test is appropriate. It's only natural that MDs who sat through something like that will believe they know the real truth already, and that proving significance etc is only a bullshit obstacle they have to somehow cross. So a few dramatic results that convince them naturally tend to result in cherry-picking, and a belief that statistics is bullshit in the first place leads them to lie about statistics, and when they jumped to conclusions in the first place from dramatic outliers....

I found the epidemiologists generally better. Since so much of what they did was collect and interpret data, rather than medical treatment, it was a bigger part of their skillset.


Well.... Like 'em as much as you please. My personal and professional experience with the epidemiologists gives me to opine that they're as hot for eyeball-grabbing "high-impact" publication credit - and as susceptible to political bigotry - as anybody else in the sciences or in clinical medicine. 

You pays your money and you takes your chances.
[/quote]

There is that temptation. It's frustrating to do a big expensive study that takes a long time and a lot of work that then only gets muddy useless results. I sat in on intro epidemiology classes that got the training in scientific method and in statistics-gone-wrong that the MDs didn't get. And in the things I could check, the average performance was much better. But it's mostly impossible to collect epidemiological data double-blind, and so there are various forms of unintended bias that I can't check. And it's generally hard to detect fraud unless it's done sloppily.

There's the argument that if somebody fakes an exciting result, it will get enough attention that others will do similar things and note the problems. And if you fake work that nobody has any interest in, why bother? But like other arguments that say X should not happen because the people who do X will suffer for it in the long run, somehow we can't depend on people to think about the long run. Particularly, people who are in danger of failing in the short run often do things they hope will get them by in the short run and hope the long run will somehow take care of itself. So while I prefer to think there is no scientific fraud, still it does get discovered every now and then.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 12:33:21 am


In general, when somebody on the internet says you are insane, he is only being rude. "Insane" on the internet basicly means "says things that don't make sense to me". In person, insane also includes "does things that don't make sense to me". The assumption is that if I don't understand it, it must be crazy.


I beg to differ.  When I describe sams as insane, I mean that his writings on this subject - the involvement of children in sexual activities (copulative or non-copulative), adult-child sexual relationships, pedophilia, and so forth - make no sense to anybody.

Well, you are wrong. It appears to me that his ideas make sense to a whole lot of Americans, and in particular to a large fraction of Republicans.

You can argue that they're all crazy, but....

Quote
They have no support in objective reality, but spring entirely from sams' suppositions that the traditions and other usages he accepts without critical thought must be received without question despite contrary evidence which has undergone scrupulous verification and is appreciable by any honest person reading here, no matter how reluctant such a person might be to admit that understanding. 

Yes? A whole lot of people accept those traditions without critical thought. They agree with each other, and a lot of them say that it's wrong to apply critical thought on those topics.

And I strongly suspect that you fully understand his claims. They make sense to you that way. It's just that you disagree, and you believe that you are right and that he is wrong. You believe that you could point to objective scientific evidence that you are right and he is wrong.

For what it's worth I tend to think you're mostly right and he's mostly wrong. But "insane" in this context is just name-calling.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 12:56:39 am
I think that Scientific American has a lot of credibility on scientific subjects. But I also think that they've waded into politics on occasion, and if they run an article saying that missile defense system X is going to escalate the arms race and is therefore a Bad Thing, I see no reason not to take that with a very big grain of salt.

Scientific American traditionally went to people who were considered near the top of their specific fields, and asked them to explain it in therms laymen could understand. Needless to say, the experts they called on had varying competence at writing for laymen. And when there was important ongoing controversy in their fields the experts often explained it their way and not the other guys' ways.

I noticed them drift beyond game theory into questions of military strategy that US citizens might care about. Like, at one point we were looking at taking our second-strike theory as far as it could go. We wanted to show the Soviets that we didn't have more missiles than our treaties allowed without actually letting them know where the missiles were. So we were going to have a giant system with lots of silos ad a gigantic underground railroad to move missiles from one silo to another. Ginormous expense. And we would occasionally open some of the silos to show the soviets that they didn't have missiles parked in them so we didn't have all the silos full. And if they wanted to do a first strike and knock out all our missiles they would be playing whack-a-mole bombing empty silos and it would nuclear-winter them. The idea was kind of crazy, but Scientific American covered it in depth so its proponents could explain what they wanted to do and why.

There was one about tracking the world phosphate trade. The idea was that if anybody wanted to make a lot of nerve gas, which is after all a WMD which they should not make, we could tell they were doing it by the amount of phosphates they traded. And the article explained the details of how that would work.

And there was one about how we were getting rid of our old nerve gas stocks and replacing them with new binary nerve gas which was much safer to store and transport. It described in detail how binary nerve gas worked -- it only got mixed together after the artillery shell or cluster-bomb etc was already launched, and while the munition was in the air the chemical reactions happened to made the nerve gas, and so the bombs were completely safe. Even if one of the components leaked it was no big deal.

I guess what gives it credibility is that it's supposed to be real experts writing the articles. Sometimes they have political agendas etc, but they are actual experts with agendas and not people with agendas who pretend they understand the details.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 01:26:56 am
Quote
In a society of peasant farmers... [emphasis added]

Is this where you're getting your idea of human "normal" from?  Why should the last 7000 farmer years be more normal than the last 200,000 hunter-gatherer years?

The last 7000 or so years is enough to get a lot of genetic adaptation. So, populations which have traditionally kept cattle tend to be lactose-tolerant. Populations which have used a lot of wheat tend to be gluten-tolerant. Populations which have used a lot of soybeans tend to be phytate-tolerant. Since cultures are supposed to adapt quicker than genes, it makes sense that the most recent thousands of years would have a big effect.

Quote
I think human-normal is tribal.  For most of our human existence, the father might be any one of a handful of males in the tribe, depending on whether the mother snuck off with a beta male or stuck with the alpha.

Modern humans are tremendously variable about sex, and moderately variable about families. It's possible that for most of human existence people fit into one single ecological niche that demanded one particular approach to tribes and families and so on. Do you believe that?

Quote
Any child in the tribe was, if not the actual progeny of a given male, at least related, hence worth helping care for.  Virginity thus irrelevant.  And even in some agricultural communities it's happened that a woman who had already borne a child or two had proven her fertility and was thus worth marrying.  With respect to knowing the father, a virgin is useful; with respect to barrenness, a virgin is a pig in a poke.

This all makes sense. However, in europe starting in the 1490's they had a lethal syphilis epidemic. At first the disease killed quickly. It killed horribly, and in large numbers. Maybe 5 million deaths. And there were lesser STD epidemics which had consequences. One immediate conclusion is that there was a whole lot of fornication going on in those days. You don't get syphilis epidemics without that. Is it possible that the intense emphasis on virginity etc might have come after that? A virgin bride will not give her new husband syphilis. Too bad they couldn't check the boys....

Sometimes traditional customs don't make sense. But there's a possibility they might be responses to serious problems. Get rid of the solution and you might get the original problem back. Or maybe it's gone extinct or mutated in the meantime.

Quote
And as for the 30-y-o with the 15-y-o, age has only really mattered in the last hundred years or so.  Heck, Georgette Heyer, writing romance novels in the 1930s, thought nothing of pairing a 17-y-o heroine with a 34-y-o (or older) suitor, and when I say "thought nothing" I mean that there is nothing in the story even hinting that it's at all inappropriate.

When one spouse has a great deal more experience at most things than the other, it makes a difference in how they relate. That doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 01:37:35 am

Female chastity and male investment is a prisoner's dilemma game.  Obviously both men and women are better off if women are faithful and men invest, but if a woman is faithful, a man has an incentive to halt investment after she is pregnant, and if a man invests, a woman has an incentive to get pregnant with someone else while attributing the pregnancy to her husband.

Why does a woman have an incentive to get pregnant with someone else?

Here's the best possibility I found: If a woman has 7 children with the same man, a single disease that they neither are predisposed to resist, might kill all the children. But if one of the children has a different father, then the chances are much better that one will survive. (Though a disease might take that one and leave the rest.) DNA data indicates that the rate of pregnancy by someone other than the designated husband is about 10%, pretty much worldwide. Maybe this is the reason.

What is the man's incentive to leave a pregnant woman stranded? Say he does that once and runs off with another woman. He has one child he does not have to support. Then he does it a second time and he has two children he doesn't have to support. But at this point, it's only particularly stupid women who will run off with him, so the rest of his children are likely to be stupid. What has it gotten him?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 01:42:04 am
Now, though, that women are to be independent citizens in their own right, instead of marrying off 13-year-old girls, families send them to school. Ages of consent that are rather high in historical terms have come about as a result of attempting to reconcile the current situation with the habits of the past.

Pretty much the entire world, representing a wide array of wildly different cultures and societies, now theoretically has ages of eighteen or so, including parts of the world where we see eight year old girls being married to eighty year old men, and parts of the world where school break tourist spots often feature drunken fourteen year olds screwing in a great big pile.

And when you say "historical standards", I am sure that many older readers screwed twelve year old girls back when screwing twelve year old girls was legal - we are not talking ancient history here.

Plus,observed behavior is that people just do not get upset when they see intergenerational heterosexual sex.  Even though it is theoretically rape, ordinary people just do not react as if it was rape.

Thus the age of consent laws represent a social aspiration, rather than any actual intent of social practice.

We wish that sex was done rationally and that people engaged in sexual acts were well behaved to society, family, and each other, that lovers just had good clean fun, though in practice, the adage that all is fair in love and war applies.  People get hurt, and hurt other people badly.  People behave in destructive and self destructive ways.  People get vicious and act crazy as a result of sex.  Since we are reluctant to control that, or entirely unable to control that, we pass laws that are pious aspirations, without contact to reality.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 02:01:06 am
Female chastity and male investment is a prisoner's dilemma game.  Obviously both men and women are better off if women are faithful and men invest, but if a woman is faithful, a man has an incentive to halt investment after she is pregnant, and if a man invests, a woman has an incentive to get pregnant with someone else while attributing the pregnancy to her husband.

Why does a woman have an incentive to get pregnant with someone else?

Women are hypergamous, men are polygynous.  In the absence of social restraints, ninety percent of women screw the most attractive ten percent of males  (example: college).  Obviously males in that ten percent are not supporting anyone. 

This strategy, in the ancestral environment, got women the best quality genes for their children.

With contraception, this results in a society where a large proportion of women wind up as cat ladies, and despite contraception, results in a society where a large proportion of children do not have fathers.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 02:10:07 am
Medical technology is extremely advanced.

If belters reproduce in the old fashioned way, then they have the same problems with love and sex and children as the Romans did.

If, on the other hand, they are decanted, rather than born, then things will be different.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 30, 2011, 02:17:40 am
In response to my assertion that sams is reliably characterized as insane because his writings on this subject - the involvement of children in sexual activities (copulative or non-copulative), adult-child sexual relationships, pedophilia, and so forth - make no sense to anybody:

Well, you are wrong. It appears to me that his ideas make sense to a whole lot of Americans, and in particular to a large fraction of Republicans.

You can argue that they're all crazy, but....

You mean those Republicans who aren't simply lying?  When recent years have revealed so very many among their senior leadership to be subject to all kinds of extremely deviant paraphilias (emphatically including homosexual ephebophilia and pedophilia), I'd merrily make that contention.  Considering the rank-and-file among the core Red Party constituencies, there's much to be explained by mass psychosis, no?

Of course, things are entirely the same for the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP, useta be "Democrat" before they shoved Obamacare up the national cloaca in the face of their own voters' enraged opposition).  

The social/traditionalist "conservative" mindset has always been intensely - one might even say pathologically - neophobic.  Some of them have lucidly appreciated reasons for hating and fearing the "new," particularly the workings of the free market.  They are so invested (materially as well as emotionally) in things-as-they-are that anything possibly perceivable as having even the remotest prospect of upsetting their applecart is going to be attacked with implacable viciousness.

They're alien to the Zero Aggression Principle because aggressive violence is their customary response to people who peaceably speak or act in ways which can and would cause social/traditionalist mores and methods to be exposed as less than "the best of all possible worlds."  

The Republicans are the political party of mercantilism, of state and corporate socialism, and of rigorous orthodoxy in thought and speech.  They always have been.  They were that way when they were calling themselves "Whigs," and before that "Federalists."  Where they're not a criminal conspiracy, they're an enormous cluster of functional but definite neurotics and psychotics.  

Insane?  You betcha.

With regard to the traditions and other usages accepted uncritically (and defended rabidly) by sams:

Yes? A whole lot of people accept those traditions without critical thought. They agree with each other, and a lot of them say that it's wrong to apply critical thought on those topics.

Not that reasoned observation of objective fact is subject to majority opinion, of course.  Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, and if we want to get the discussion down to the level at which children understand it, let's remember the moral of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes."  

I'm not quite at the level of Bethe, of whom a possibly apocryphal story is told regarding his discovery of the principles of stellar fusion, to the effect that the evening after he'd made his breakthrough, while walking with his girl under the darkened sky, he responded to her exclamation: "My, aren't the stars shining brightly tonight?" with "Right now I'm the only man in the world who really understands how they shine."  

But there aren't a whole helluva lot of people who know - more importantly, who are willing even to admit to themselves - that what I've written here on this subject is a correct reflection on the reality of human nature.

And I strongly suspect that you fully understand his claims. They make sense to you that way. It's just that you disagree, and you believe that you are right and that he is wrong. You believe that you could point to objective scientific evidence that you are right and he is wrong.

For what it's worth I tend to think you're mostly right and he's mostly wrong. But "insane" in this context is just name-calling.

Nope. It's because I understand sams' claims - and their grounding in sams' psychopathology - that I appreciate the nature and the crippling depth of his insanity.  

As for belief in "objective scientific evidence," we have in sams' argument for violent aggressive interference with non-coercive human action among parties he does not legitimately control a strong burden-of-proof obligation when it comes to justifying the viciousness he espouses.

Me?  I'm saying nothing more than "Keep Your Fracking Hands Off" ("KYFHO") and guess what happens.  

What real need have I to prove anything?  sams and his co-religionists are the ones straining like hell simply to shut off discussion of this subject.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 02:24:11 am
Female chastity and male investment is a prisoner's dilemma game.  Obviously both men and women are better off if women are faithful and men invest, but if a woman is faithful, a man has an incentive to halt investment after she is pregnant, and if a man invests, a woman has an incentive to get pregnant with someone else while attributing the pregnancy to her husband.

Why does a woman have an incentive to get pregnant with someone else?

Women are hypergamous, men are polygynous.  In the absence of social restraints, ninety percent of women screw the most attractive ten percent of males  (example: college).  Obviously males in that ten percent are not supporting anyone. 

I believe you are out of date on this. In, say, the 1950's, only 10% of the college males could get up the nerve to actually seduce a woman. This did not make them the most attractive, it made them the only ones in the running.

In the 2000's, it's more like 70% of the college males who have that nerve. Society has changed.

Quote
This strategy, in the ancestral environment, got women the best quality genes for their children.

If it had been the way you said, and only 10% of the males were attractive enough to get women interested in them, why would that involve good-quality genes? Peahens who followed that strategy might wind up with hatchlings that would grow up to have the biggest rack of tailfeathers. Is that good? I guess it's good if you're a peacock.

If it's only 10% of the men who have convertibles with tailfins, and just the right ducktail haircuts, and they roll up their cigarette packs into their t-shirt sleeves just right, how does that translate to good quality genes?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 30, 2011, 02:39:05 am
If belters reproduce in the old fashioned way, then they have the same problems with love and sex and children as the Romans did.

If, on the other hand, they are decanted, rather than born, then things will be different.

Oh, I'll go ya one better (if "better" can be used in such an extremely perverse context) on that.

If extrauterine gestation becomes technically possible, what's to prevent a Belter (or a consortium of Belters) from acquiring the material means and the expertise to bake babies to order?  

Gaining germ plasm from sources as might suit him/her, the fixated pedophile pays the baby-bakery to gin up a conceptus, bring it to term, and hand him/her the little critter for to raise into the pervert's notion of an ideal child sex object.

Yeesh.  Talk about "grooming"....
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 02:41:42 am
Women are hypergamous, men are polygynous.  In the absence of social restraints, ninety percent of women screw the most attractive ten percent of males  (example: college).  Obviously males in that ten percent are not supporting anyone. 

I believe you are out of date on this.

I doubt it.

This strategy, in the ancestral environment, got women the best quality genes for their children.

If it had been the way you said, and only 10% of the males were attractive enough to get women interested in them, why would that involve good-quality genes?

Everything that makes men attractive is an indication of good quality genes, or was such an indication in the ancestral environment.  Everything that makes women attractive is an indication of good quality genes and/or fertility.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 03:02:01 am
If extrauterine gestation becomes technically possible, what's to prevent a Belter (or a consortium of Belters) from acquiring the material means and the expertise to bake babies to order?  

Gaining germ plasm from sources as might suit him/her, the fixated pedophile pays the baby-bakery to gin up a conceptus, bring it to term, and hand him/her the little critter for to raise into the pervert's notion of an ideal child sex object.

Or the non pedophile might apply large doses of growth hormone and estrogen, so that at the age of three, the child is the size of a ten year old, has adult sized genitals, and adult secondary sexual characteristics, indeed hyperadult secondary sexual characteristics that would be incapacitating under earth normal gravity.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 30, 2011, 03:26:06 am
...observed behavior is that people just do not get upset when they see intergenerational heterosexual sex.  Even though it is theoretically rape, ordinary people just do not react as if it was rape.

Thus the age of consent laws represent a social aspiration, rather than any actual intent of social practice.

It appears that the reality of consent (and the capacity of a child or adolescent to appreciate the circumstances under which he/she enters voluntarily into sexual liaison with an adult) is better accepted in Western polities than is the fiction of both statute law and the customs driving such political hypocrisies.

Normal people are prepared to accept the sort of stuff which we may characterize in the words of the immortal Hoban Washburne as "Wacky fun...."

It should be noted that in many contemporary cultures (and in subcultures within the Western nations), intergenerational male homosexual sex is viewed as at most an entirely pardonable peculiarity, wholly unthreatening, it being well-understood that the catamites of today will overwhelmingly tend to grow into happy gash-hounds, standing to stud in the matrimonial bed with fervor and fecundity throughout their adult lives.  
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 03:38:35 am

Everything that makes men attractive is an indication of good quality genes, or was such an indication in the ancestral environment.  Everything that makes women attractive is an indication of good quality genes and/or fertility.

I can't imagine how you'd measure that. And I don't see it.

Men who wear uniforms have good-quality genes?

"Bad boys" who act out in ways that are not considered socially acceptable have good-quality genes?

Guys who take steroids to get bulging muscles have good-quality gees? (Well, but most women don't particularly go for that.)

Guys who act supremely confident have good-quality genes?

Guys who actually proposition women have good-quality genes?

Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

I just don't see it.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on April 30, 2011, 03:39:42 am
If extrauterine gestation becomes technically possible, what's to prevent a Belter (or a consortium of Belters) from acquiring the material means and the expertise to bake babies to order? 

Gaining germ plasm from sources as might suit him/her, the fixated pedophile pays the baby-bakery to gin up a conceptus, bring it to term, and hand him/her the little critter for to raise into the pervert's notion of an ideal child sex object.

Or the non pedophile might apply large doses of growth hormone and estrogen, so that at the age of three, the child is the size of a ten year old, has adult sized genitals, and adult secondary sexual characteristics, indeed hyperadult secondary sexual characteristics that would be incapacitating under earth normal gravity.

Tsk. Why be so timid in your hypothesis? Remember, we have in the Escape From Terra plenum the body-morphing capabilities of rejuvenation, with nanotechnological means to achieve physical habitus in a subject very much as desired.

Babette the Elder might have chosen to emerge on Mars looking younger than her granddaughter, were it to have been to Reggie's taste to bed a female partner who could readily pass as a little boy. 

The "non pedophile" (male or female) might secure a ward who, at the age of three, is fully adult in stature and the development of secondary sex characteristics, but with the mind of a very small child.

Gawd, the dumbest possible "dumb blonde" imaginable.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 04:48:06 am
Everything that makes men attractive is an indication of good quality genes, or was such an indication in the ancestral environment.  Everything that makes women attractive is an indication of good quality genes and/or fertility.

I can't imagine how you'd measure that. And I don't see it.

I do see it.

Men who wear uniforms have good-quality genes?

You won't see women going for males in bellhop uniforms.

Women (having poor judgment about male social hierarchies) tend, like small children, to overrate the capacity for violence as a measure of success and status.

Uniforms, in a certain social context, indicate power and success, or the capacity to get away with violence.  He who succeeds, probably has good genes.  If one man can kill another, the killer probably has better genes than the killed.  it is the capacity for violence symbolized by the uniform, not the uniform itself, that attracts women.

"Bad boys" who act out in ways that are not considered socially acceptable have good-quality genes?

Women are less capable of judging male social status than men are.  Ability to break the rules and seemingly get away with it is, in the ancestral environment, and perhaps in our environment, an indication of status.  Who has higher status?  Prince William or a thug?  The thug will probably have a lot more children, which is the ultimate measure of genetic success.

Women are notoriously incompetent in judging the extent to which a bad boy is successful in breaking the rules and getting away with it, but a preference for those who can successfully defy the rules will lead to a women collecting better quality semen.  Of course, in practice, they frequently wind up getting semen from those who unsuccessfully break the rules, but that is not what they are after.

Guys who take steroids to get bulging muscles have good-quality gees?

In the ancestral environment, where steroids were unavailable, and to a large extent in our environment, bulging muscles are an indication of good quality genes.

Guys who act supremely confident have good-quality genes?

That is a pretty good bet.

Guys who actually proposition women have good-quality genes?

The will to do what it takes to reproduce and survive  is a major part of what makes creatures actually reproduce and survive, often the major part.  If you look at creatures that are on the verge of extinction, and compare them with creatures that we cannot eradicate no matter how hard we try, the ones that are on the verge of extinction often just don't seem very enthusiastic about finding food, eating food, fighting, sex, taking care of their offspring, and all that stuff.   You have to be in it to win it.  So the woman who prefers the man that gets in her face is likely get better genes in his semen.

Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Sure - the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her has better genes that the guy who failed to get women pregnant, and the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her is now available, whereas the guy who got a women pregnant and failed to dump her is less available.  So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time, and, from the point of view of evolution, rightly so.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 07:17:23 am

"Bad boys" who act out in ways that are not considered socially acceptable have good-quality genes?

Women are less capable of judging male social status than men are.  Ability to break the rules and seemingly get away with it is, in the ancestral environment, and perhaps in our environment, an indication of status.  Who has higher status?  Prince William or a thug?  The thug will probably have a lot more children, which is the ultimate measure of genetic success.

This is a silly JustSo story.

Quote
Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Sure - the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her has better genes that the guy who failed to get women pregnant, and the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her is now available, whereas the guy who got a women pregnant and failed to dump her is less available.  So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time, and, from the point of view of evolution, rightly so.

This is a pathetic JustSo story. A woman without a man will usually be able to raise less than half as many children, barring government interference. So "superior" genes need to be more than twice as good. Is that at all plausible? No.

A man who has nine children by single mothers has accomplished something, but consider the quality of the genes he has chosen. He has chosen the stupidest women around to have his children with, and then put those children into poor environments to be raised. If he's so superior, why didn't he do a better job of it?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 30, 2011, 08:17:38 am
What is the man's incentive to leave a pregnant woman stranded? Say he does that once and runs off with another woman. He has one child he does not have to support. Then he does it a second time and he has two children he doesn't have to support. But at this point, it's only particularly stupid women who will run off with him, so the rest of his children are likely to be stupid. What has it gotten him?
What if the alternative is no children at all, instead of children with a mother with better genes, because he can't find a steady job?

So when he does have money, he uses it to seduce women, then he runs. Not hard to figure out.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 10:25:16 am
...and parts of the world where school break tourist spots often feature drunken fourteen year olds screwing in a great big pile.

What parts of the world, exactly, are you talking about? I have never heard such a thing, but I would be love to see your videos!

And when you say "historical standards", I am sure that many older readers screwed twelve year old girls back when screwing twelve year old girls was legal - we are not talking ancient history here.

Not is the United States, that is for sure. Where were you thinking about?

BTW, while size, strength, health and symmetry are factors in how women select sex partners are important, the primary factor during maximum libido (ovulation) is pheromones. Why? Because pheromones are a direct readout of a potential partner's immunological system, specifically, the 50-some genes that make up one's HLA (human leukocyte antigen). This is vitally important because partners with similar HLA (like your brother), lack the diversity found in partners with very different HLA. A combination of highly diverse HLAs, statistically ensures the genetic health of any progeny that arise from the union.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 11:35:43 am
What is the man's incentive to leave a pregnant woman stranded? Say he does that once and runs off with another woman. He has one child he does not have to support. Then he does it a second time and he has two children he doesn't have to support. But at this point, it's only particularly stupid women who will run off with him, so the rest of his children are likely to be stupid. What has it gotten him?
What if the alternative is no children at all, instead of children with a mother with better genes, because he can't find a steady job?

So when he does have money, he uses it to seduce women, then he runs. Not hard to figure out.

This does not seem to me like it particularly indicates superior genes.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Brugle on April 30, 2011, 11:45:49 am
Why does a woman have an incentive to get pregnant with someone else?

Come on, JT.  Instead of coming up with silly questions and long-winded irrelevant scenarios, try putting just a tiny fraction of the effort into answering your own questions.

The obvious incentive for a woman to get pregnant with "someone else" is to have a baby with genes that are more likely to exist several generations later.  The desirable qualities in a biological father are quite different from the desirable qualities in a man who helps raise one's children.  Is that so difficult to understand?

Of course, a man might not help raise children who are not biologically his.  So whether getting pregnant with "someone else" is a winning strategy depends on (among other things) how good men are at recognizing biological fathers.

What is the man's incentive to leave a pregnant woman stranded? Say he does that once and runs off with another woman. He has one child he does not have to support. Then he does it a second time and he has two children he doesn't have to support. But at this point, it's only particularly stupid women who will run off with him, so the rest of his children are likely to be stupid. What has it gotten him?

Stupidity (as defined by JT) is not the criterion of evolutionary failure.  The criterion of evolutionary success is the fraction of one's genes in the appropriate gene pool several generations later.  Is that so difficult to understand?

If having 15 "stupid" children produces more great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren than does having 3 "smart" children, then it is a superior evolutionary strategy.


Everything that makes men attractive is an indication of good quality genes, or was such an indication in the ancestral environment.  Everything that makes women attractive is an indication of good quality genes and/or fertility.

I can't imagine how you'd measure that. And I don't see it.

Men who wear uniforms have good-quality genes?

"Bad boys" who act out in ways that are not considered socially acceptable have good-quality genes?


Guys who take steroids to get bulging muscles have good-quality gees? (Well, but most women don't particularly go for that.)

Guys who act supremely confident have good-quality genes?

Guys who actually proposition women have good-quality genes?

Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Some of your questions are off-topic, since they don't apply to the ancestral environment.  The answers to some others are "quite probably yes--it depends on several things".

I just don't see it.

That's obvious.  There's nothing wrong with ignorance--all of us are ignorant of most of current knowledge.  However, you have a history on this forum of being aggressively ignorant: refusing to learn the basics of a subject yet subjecting us to long diatribes based on your ignorance.

I suggest that you learn a little evolutionary psychology.  I don't know if the Wikipedia article is any good--it starts out OK but I didn't want to read it all.

Face it, JT.  sams does know some evolutionary psychology.  Plenty of what he says is disputable, but your ignorant arguments make his arguments sound better than they actually are.

Quote
Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Sure - the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her has better genes that the guy who failed to get women pregnant, and the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her is now available, whereas the guy who got a women pregnant and failed to dump her is less available.  So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time, and, from the point of view of evolution, rightly so.

This is a pathetic JustSo story. A woman without a man will usually be able to raise less than half as many children, barring government interference. So "superior" genes need to be more than twice as good. Is that at all plausible? No.

A man who has nine children by single mothers has accomplished something, but consider the quality of the genes he has chosen. He has chosen the stupidest women around to have his children with, and then put those children into poor environments to be raised. If he's so superior, why didn't he do a better job of it?

This is an example of how your ignorant arguments make sam's arguments look better.  Rather than focusing on the questionable part of sam's answer: "So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time,", you focus on the parts that are, if not obviously true, at least highly plausible.

It is highly plausible that a man who has lots of children by women that you disapprove of will have more great-to-the-Nth-grandchildren than a man who has a few children by a woman that you approve of.  You (and I) may not like it, but refusing to face facts is not reasonable argumentation.

What is the man's incentive to leave a pregnant woman stranded? Say he does that once and runs off with another woman. He has one child he does not have to support. Then he does it a second time and he has two children he doesn't have to support. But at this point, it's only particularly stupid women who will run off with him, so the rest of his children are likely to be stupid. What has it gotten him?
What if the alternative is no children at all, instead of children with a mother with better genes, because he can't find a steady job?

So when he does have money, he uses it to seduce women, then he runs. Not hard to figure out.

This does not seem to me like it particularly indicates superior genes.

Is your (or my, or sam's, or anyone else's) opinion of what makes genes "superior" relevant to this discussion?  No.  We are discussing evolutionary success.  Genes that become more common in the appropriate gene pool after several generations are, by definition, evolutionarily successful.

You may wish that evolutionary psychology was based on your particular criteria of success, but it isn't.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 11:51:01 am
A combination of highly diverse HLAs, statistically ensures the genetic health of any progeny that arise from the union.

It gives a better chance that your immunological system will respond effectively to any particular disease.

It might sometimes lead to worse auto-immune problems, but for most people that's probably much less important than better disease protection. Disease is not the only thing that matters in genetics, but it's one big important thing.

Now, the last I knew this was one of those scientific speculations. We had solid evidence that HLA is central to immune response, and that people who are heterozygous for the limited number of genetic regions for HLA have more different immune responses than those who get two copies of the same things.

And there were some provocative studies that seemed to indicate women statistically found the smell of men's sweat more pleasant when it was from someone whose HLA genes were different from theirs. But under other circumstances (while pregnant? I forget) they found the smell of their relatives' sweat more pleasant.

The whole package makes sense once we accept the studies. But the last I knew the whole package had not been tested at all. Do you really believe the study where the women smelled cotton swabs with men's sweat on them and they did statistics? Does the rating the women gave correlate with their pregnancies? Does heterozygous HLA actually improve health?

It's a tenuous web, but it makes sense and it's easy to believe. If we gave it the sort of skeptical view that people give global warming, it would melt away fast.

We instinctively believe science that makes sense to us. We refuse to believe science that we dislike.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 12:03:07 pm
Women are less capable of judging male social status than men are.  Ability to break the rules and seemingly get away with it is, in the ancestral environment, and perhaps in our environment, an indication of status.  Who has higher status?  Prince William or a thug?  The thug will probably have a lot more children, which is the ultimate measure of genetic success.

This is a silly JustSo story.

So say the politically correct whenever evolutionary psychology makes politically incorrect predictions:

Rather, it is observed reproductive success.  Famously, Napoleon Chagnon got in deep trouble for actually counting the offspring of killers, compared to non killers.  Killers had more sexual partners and more children, which result is deeply politically incorrect, precisely because it is quite obviously true.  So women are evolutionarily correct to be attracted to men who have killed, to be attracted to violent men.

Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Sure - the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her has better genes that the guy who failed to get women pregnant, and the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her is now available, whereas the guy who got a women pregnant and failed to dump her is less available.  So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time, and, from the point of view of evolution, rightly so.

This is a pathetic JustSo story.

Again, observation:  If you try picking up girls with a wing girl, you will have a lot more success than with a wing man, and even more success if you appear to treat your wing girl like a pest and a third wheel who you barely tolerate following you around.   Similarly, wearing a wedding ring helps a man to pick up girls, while for a woman, wearing a wedding ring deters men from hitting on her.

He has chosen the stupidest women around to have his children with, and then put those children into poor environments to be raised.

Doubtless he has put those children in poor environments, but not necessarily  the stupidest women.  In our present day society, university educated feminists seem even more apt to sleep with such men than anyone else, and in the ancestral environment, abortion was less available.

Sleeping with men who successfully break the rules is a sound evolutionary strategy for women.  (Recall that Lord Byron was "Mad, bad, and dangerous to know".)  Sleeping with men who have demonstrated reproductive success is a sound evolutionary strategy for women.  The man with nine illegitimate children by nine different mothers has demonstrated both.  Women are attracted to men that behave badly to women and get away with it,   Nice guys finish last.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 12:27:09 pm
Why does a woman have an incentive to get pregnant with someone else?

The obvious incentive for a woman to get pregnant with "someone else" is to have a baby with genes that are more likely to exist several generations later.  The desirable qualities in a biological father are quite different from the desirable qualities in a man who helps raise one's children.  Is that so difficult to understand?

See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later? You have assumed that the genes of a man who won't help raise his children will be "better" than those of a man who does help raise his own children, and that women will recognize this. But there is no reason whatsoever to believe either of these assertions. Unless somebody collects some actual evidence.

Quote
What is the man's incentive to leave a pregnant woman stranded? Say he does that once and runs off with another woman. He has one child he does not have to support. Then he does it a second time and he has two children he doesn't have to support. But at this point, it's only particularly stupid women who will run off with him, so the rest of his children are likely to be stupid. What has it gotten him?

Stupidity (as defined by JT) is not the criterion of evolutionary failure.  The criterion of evolutionary success is the fraction of one's genes in the appropriate gene pool several generations later.  Is that so difficult to understand?

If having 15 "stupid" children produces more great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren than does having 3 "smart" children, then it is a superior evolutionary strategy.

Yes. Provided it actually works, which has not been determined.

Quote
I just don't see it.

I suggest that you learn a little evolutionary psychology.  I don't know if the Wikipedia article is any good--it starts out OK but I didn't want to read it all.

I know considerable evolutionary psychology, enough to recognize some of the stupid arguments. You do not. You give uncritical belief to pop evolutionary psych, while you deny climate science. The difference is ... you want to believe one and you don't want to believe the other.

Quote
Quote
Guys who get women pregnant and dump them, have good-quality genes?

Sure - the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her has better genes that the guy who failed to get women pregnant, and the guy who got a women pregnant and dumped her is now available, whereas the guy who got a women pregnant and failed to dump her is less available.  So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time, and, from the point of view of evolution, rightly so.

This is a pathetic JustSo story. A woman without a man will usually be able to raise less than half as many children, barring government interference. So "superior" genes need to be more than twice as good. Is that at all plausible? No.

A man who has nine children by single mothers has accomplished something, but consider the quality of the genes he has chosen. He has chosen the stupidest women around to have his children with, and then put those children into poor environments to be raised. If he's so superior, why didn't he do a better job of it?

This is an example of how your ignorant arguments make sam's arguments look better.  Rather than focusing on the questionable part of sam's answer: "So women will go for the guy with nine illegitimate children by nine previous girlfriends, every time,", you focus on the parts that are, if not obviously true, at least highly plausible.

It is highly plausible that a man who has lots of children by women that you disapprove of will have more great-to-the-Nth-grandchildren than a man who has a few children by a woman that you approve of.  You (and I) may not like it, but refusing to face facts is not reasonable argumentation.

But consider -- he is having his extra children at the expense of those women. So here's the woman's reasoning: This guy has increased his own reproduction at the expense of these other women. He has lots of surviving children, they have few surviving children which they work their fingers to the bone to support. So if I get pregnant by his superior genes, I won't have as many children myself, BUT maybe my son will have genes that help him victimise a lot of other women in the next generation. OK! I'll do it! It's a good bet, provided I get a son.

His genes spread because he can outsmart women. Womens' genes spread if they can resist him. He has children with women who have loser genes.

Quote
Quote
What if the alternative is no children at all, instead of children with a mother with better genes, because he can't find a steady job?

So when he does have money, he uses it to seduce women, then he runs. Not hard to figure out.

This does not seem to me like it particularly indicates superior genes.

Is your (or my, or sam's, or anyone else's) opinion of what makes genes "superior" relevant to this discussion?  No.  

Well, yes. The whole point of pop sociobiology or pop evolutionary psych is to guess which hypothetical genes will be "superior" by increasing in frequency in the population.

I haven't looked at this Wikipedia link but it's the right topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

Pop sociobiology is precisely what we're doing here. We make wild assumptions about genes and then we predict which behaviors caused by the genes will "succeed" for the hypothetical genes.

And you are assuming that some speculations that some pop sociobiologists made 40 years ago are right, because they fit your preconceptions.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 30, 2011, 12:53:48 pm
See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later?
She doesn't.

She involves herself with the kind of men she likes - the guys who are her type.

The kind of men her mother and her grandmothers and her great-grandmothers and so on liked - to the extent that this facet of personality is inherited.

And she is more likely to be the descendant... of the kind of woman... who liked the kind of man... who left the most descendants.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 12:59:29 pm
Women are less capable of judging male social status than men are.  Ability to break the rules and seemingly get away with it is, in the ancestral environment, and perhaps in our environment, an indication of status.  Who has higher status?  Prince William or a thug?  The thug will probably have a lot more children, which is the ultimate measure of genetic success.

This is a silly JustSo story.

So say the politically correct whenever evolutionary psychology makes politically incorrect predictions:

Rather, it is observed reproductive success.  Famously, Napoleon Chagnon got in deep trouble for actually counting the offspring of killers, compared to non killers.  Killers had more sexual partners and more children, which result is deeply politically incorrect, precisely because it is quite obviously true.  So women are evolutionarily correct to be attracted to men who have killed, to be attracted to violent men.

You have missed the point entirely. Women who actually behave in ways that will increase their genes in future generations, don't pick men who are evolutionarily successful. They pick men who will make the women evolutionary successful.

The strategy you suggest for women is analogous to the following investment strategy: I want to make a lot of money on the stock market. So I will pick a stockbroker who has gotten rich handling accounts for his clients. I want a successful stockbroker and that's what it means for a stockbroker to be successful.

But what an investor actually wants is a stockbroker who will make money for his client, not a stockbroker who gets rich while his clients go broke.

Quote
Again, observation:  If you try picking up girls with a wing girl, you will have a lot more success than with a wing man, and even more success if you appear to treat your wing girl like a pest and a third wheel who you barely tolerate following you around.   Similarly, wearing a wedding ring helps a man to pick up girls, while for a woman, wearing a wedding ring deters men from hitting on her.

And this apples to reproduction how? You're looking at how women behave with easy contraception and easy abortion. So if you want to look at activities that produce many children, maybe you should look at how men picked up girls back when we didn't have those things.

And the answer was, you picked up poor women who had no prospects, and when you dumped them pregnant then pretty often they died, and pretty often their abandoned babies died.

Quote
He has chosen the stupidest women around to have his children with, and then put those children into poor environments to be raised.

Doubtless he has put those children in poor environments, but not necessarily  the stupidest women.  In our present day society, university educated feminists seem even more apt to sleep with such men than anyone else, and in the ancestral environment, abortion was less available.

So, what's the evolutionary payoff for being a university educated feminist? How are these women maximising their reproductive potential?

If a whole lot of people are in fact not maximising their reproductive potential, perhaps it might be worth considering the possibility that people do not do a very good job in general of doing that, and people who don't believe they are doing it are not somehow subconsciously doing it but in fact are not doing so.

Quote
Sleeping with men who successfully break the rules is a sound evolutionary strategy for women.  (Recall that Lord Byron was "Mad, bad, and dangerous to know".)

In the same sense that sleeping with rich men is a sound evolutionary strategy. After all, if you sleep with somebody who has inherited a billion dollars from his maternal grandfather, there's the chance that your child will inherit the right genes to inherit a billion dollars from his maternal grandfather too....  ;)  But money doesn't rub off between the sheets.

Quote
Sleeping with men who have demonstrated reproductive success is a sound evolutionary strategy for women.

I hope I have demonstrated by now why this is a stupid idea.

Quote
Women are attracted to men that behave badly to women and get away with it,

There are women like that. It may not be genetic.

I suspect a lot of the women who do that for awhile and then quit, are actually following the following strategy: It isn't convenient for me to marry and start a family now, but I want to have sex and play around some. So I will choose a man that I am unlikely to actually get serious with, and I will spend months or years having drama with him.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 01:02:05 pm
See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later?
She doesn't.

She involves herself with the kind of men she likes - the guys who are her type.

The kind of men her mother and her grandmothers and her great-grandmothers and so on liked - to the extent that this facet of personality is inherited.

Good save!

Quote
And she is more likely to be the descendant... of the kind of woman... who liked the kind of man... who left the most descendants.

And she's more likely to be descended from the kind of woman who herself left the most descendants.

Women whose own genes tell them to sacrifice themselves for some particular kind of man and his own genes, will eventually be a dying breed.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 01:26:43 pm
And when you say "historical standards", I am sure that many older readers screwed twelve year old girls back when screwing twelve year old girls was legal - we are not talking ancient history here.

Not is the United States, that is for sure. Where were you thinking about?

In 1895, age of consent in Delaware was seven.  In 1901, age of consent in the US was generally around ten.  In Australia, in 1970, fourteen for girls of good character, twelve for girls of poor character. 

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 01:43:45 pm
See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later?

The woman does not.  Natural selection does, and selects women that prefer characteristics, that in the ancestral environment, were indicative of genes that are more likely to exist several generations later.

These characteristics are usually indicators of physical health, and/or anti social behavior, the latter because display of anti social behavior is an indicator of capacity to successfully get away with anti social behavior.

Consider the song "He is a rebel", the admiring description of Lord Byron.  "Mad, bad, and dangerous to know", and most Errol Flynn and Marlon Brando movies.

Consider also the Britney Spear song "Criminal"  http://www.directlyrics.com/britney-spears-criminal-lyrics.html (http://www.directlyrics.com/britney-spears-criminal-lyrics.html)

Women, notoriously, have a perception of male status that is unsophisticated compared to male perceptions, and resembles that of children.  I conjecture that males are under stronger selection to correctly judge male status, since a single incorrect male judgment could be fatal, and in the ancestral environment, probably frequently was fatal, whereas female judgments only need to be mostly correct.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 02:04:54 pm
See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later?

The woman does not.  Natural selection does, and selects women that prefer characteristics, that in the ancestral environment, were indicative of genes that are more likely to exist several generations later.

Worse and worse. Now you want genes to be selected based on how they judge other genes. I have studied this question and it is possible to do it in a very large population, with many changeover cycles, provided the judging genes are closely linked to the genes they choose. (And of course provided that we actually evolve judging genes in the first place.) That is, it works for bacteria and maybe yeast over evolutionary time. It would take many thousands of generations for a human population of size 4 billion. In a smaller population, or in a large population divided into many small populations it could possibly spread faster but quite hit-or-miss, less likely to develop at all.

In short, this does not work unless somebody is doing genetic engineering to make it work.

Quote
These characteristics are usually indicators of physical health, and/or anti social behavior, the latter because display of anti social behavior is an indicator of capacity to successfully get away with anti social behavior.

I could make my own estimate of how plausible your ideas are, but I want to point out that you are entirely making this up. There is no particular evidence. It's entirely hypothetical, based mostly on folktales.

Quote
Consider the song "He is a rebel", the admiring description of Lord Byron.  "Mad, bad, and dangerous to know", and most Errol Flynn and Marlon Brando movies.

Exactly. Popular songs and movies as evidence about the genetics that hypothetically determine womens' hypothetical choices.

Quote
Women, notoriously, have a perception of male status that is unsophisticated compared to male perceptions, and resembles that of children.

Brugle implies that when I respond to you with arguments he doesn't like, it makes him lose his judgement and agree with you, so I think I'll just pass on this one.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 05:20:35 pm
See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later?

The woman does not.  Natural selection does, and selects women that prefer characteristics, that in the ancestral environment, were indicative of genes that are more likely to exist several generations later.

Worse and worse. Now you want genes to be selected based on how they judge other genes.

As the politically correct always do, you have wound arguing against evolution itself, wound up arguing that the mind cannot be a product of evolution, cannot reflect evolutionary forces, wound up arguing the PC equivalent of creationism.

Popular songs and movies as evidence about the genetics that hypothetically determine womens' hypothetical choices.

Also, observations of women's actual choices.  Also observation of actual primitive societies:  Yanomamo live in a fair approximation to the ancestral environment, and direct measurement shows that Yanomamo killers do have greater reproductive success, so women who mate with killers and therefore produce killer sons should have greater reproductive success.

Evolutionary theory predicts women should choose badly behaved males. Popular songs and movies reveal that women lust for badly behaved males.  Everyday casual observation shows that women do choose badly behaved males.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on April 30, 2011, 05:40:56 pm
Evolutionary theory predicts women should choose badly behaved males. Popular songs and movies reveal that women lust for badly behaved males.  Everyday casual observation shows that women do choose badly behaved males.
This is going to be hard to accept for some.

It is easy enough to attempt a point-by-point refutation of what you've said, on the order of:

You claim that this is what evolutionary theory predicts, but the people who should know don't say things that aren't PC.
Anecdotal evidence!
Anecdotal evidence!

I think, though, that we can all agree that this particular "refutation" is dishonest. (The problem is that while it is valid in saying "this isn't quite proof", it isn't sufficient to be a disproof in its own right of common sense. Then there's the favorite, "oh, you asserted something, so that makes it false unless you can prove it".) So I think the problem lies elsewhere. Such as in the definition of "badly behaved males".

Think "The Log-Driver's Waltz" instead of "Leader of the Pack".

The claim is not that women want men who will abuse them and cheat on them. (Shall I cite "These Boots Were Made for Walking" and "Half as Much"?)

The claim is rather that they want a man who is rugged and masculine, rather than weak and effeminate - because they want a man who is capable of defending them. The thing is, though, to get that kind of man, they have to take the bad along with the good. Or, at least, it has generally been believed, at least up until recently, that they would have to; avatars of the New Manhood such as Alan Alda have only come along rather recently.

Also, another problem is that "typical female behavior" is being used as shorthand for "typical female behavior, unmediated by an excess of cultural conditioning; that is, female behavior in the lower social classes". In the upper social classes, of course nonsense about marrying some football player or musician not of substance and pedigree is of course not countenanced in one's daughters.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 05:59:03 pm
See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later?

The woman does not.  Natural selection does, and selects women that prefer characteristics, that in the ancestral environment, were indicative of genes that are more likely to exist several generations later.

Worse and worse. Now you want genes to be selected based on how they judge other genes.

As the politically correct always do, you have wound arguing against evolution itself, wound up arguing that the mind cannot be a product of evolution, cannot reflect evolutionary forces, wound up arguing the PC equivalent of creationism.

No. First you hypothesize genes that cause particular behaviors. This is a big leap for humans, though there is no compelling evidence that it can never happen.

Then you argue that those behaviors cause the genes to become assorted with other genes which are then selected. This is not in evidence, but it could be true, except to actually work it requires genetic mechanisms which are not yet known. Say a gene on chromosome 4 causes women to mate with men who have a particular gene on chromosome 6. So 1/4 of the time, the two genes will wind up together in a child and the good effects from this chromosome 6 will carry over to this chromosome 4. The child itself has more children, and half the children carry the right allele of chromosome 4 and half carry the right allele from chromosome 6. And the female grandchildren that get the right version of chromosome 4 will then prefer men with the right version of chromosome 6.

Can you imagine that this sort of rube goldberg evolution will take a long long time to actually work? And in the meantime, conditions are likely to change and that version of chromosome 6 stops being selected and something else is selected in its place....

When I do the numbers on that, it doesn't work out very well. Extremely slow evolution. However, it might work given some unknown molecular mechanism. For example, if some unknown mechanism moves the gene on chromosome 4 onto chromosome 6 near the gene it affects, or vice versa moves the other gene to chromosome 4, then all bets are off.

Quote
Popular songs and movies as evidence about the genetics that hypothetically determine womens' hypothetical choices.

Also, observations of women's actual choices.

Occasional startling anecdotal evidence. It happens sometimes and gets a lot of attention.

Quote
Also observation of actual primitive societies:  Yanomamo live in a fair approximation to the ancestral environment, and direct measurement shows that Yanomamo killers do have greater reproductive success, so women who mate with killers and therefore produce killer sons should have greater reproductive success.

Yanomamo gets a whole lot of attention partly because they fit people's stereotypes and partly because they are so different from most other cultures. They're exciting and different, which does not make them the norm to go by.

Quote
Evolutionary theory predicts women should choose badly behaved males.

Your theory of sociobiology. Not evolutionary theory in general, which is waiting for behavioral genetics to give them data to work with.

Quote
Popular songs and movies reveal that women lust for badly behaved males.  Everyday casual observation shows that women do choose badly behaved males.

It happens sometimes. It is by no means universal. I averaged less than 1 in 5. It gets a whole lot of attention because somehow people assume it should never happen. It gets into a lot of movie scripts because it's so much less boring than people who do what they're supposed to. You're drawing sweeping conclusions from anecdotal evidence. That doesn't prove you're wrong. I'm only pointing out that you are talking through your hat, you're making sweeping claims on the basis of essentially zero evidence.

If you made this level of claim for global warming the deniers would rightly point out that you had nothing.

They might then wrongly claim that because you have zero evidence for your claims, therefore you must be wrong. You could be right in spite of yourself. Just because you have no evidence whatsoever for something which we have no faintest concept of the biology for, and the population genetics does not work, does not mean you are wrong. You could have accidentally stumbled onto something which is true. Just because you have no faintest shred of proof for it, is not evidence against it. Only actual evidence that it does not happen would be evidence against it. And I don't have that evidence.

All I have is proof that your reasoning is flawed, and the genetic methods you postulate have as far as I know never been observed, and your social evidence comes from biased personal observation and pop culture. You have given no reason to believe you are right. But still, you could be right anyway.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 08:45:04 pm
Evolutionary theory predicts women should choose badly behaved males. Popular songs and movies reveal that women lust for badly behaved males.  Everyday casual observation shows that women do choose badly behaved males.
This is going to be hard to accept for some.

It is easy enough to attempt a point-by-point refutation of what you've said, on the order of:

You claim that this is what evolutionary theory predicts, but the people who should know don't say things that aren't PC.
Anecdotal evidence!
Anecdotal evidence!

Actually they say things that violently politically incorrect in difficult to read scientific language

"Eppur si muove"

But precede and follow the political incorrectness by saying things that are politically correct in easy to read unscientific language, indeed, deliberately anti scientific, religious sounding language, language that has intentionally has the sound of a religious catechism.   

Similarly, similarly, Jay Zwally, having found that Greenland ice is increasing in thickness and continues to cover the same area as always, has been forced ever since to wander the earth crying "Repent, repent, the end is near, the ice is melting.  Melting, melting, melting, I tell you.", while continuing to publish scientific papers that if you read them very carefully, still say the Greenland ice is getting thicker, though now he phrases it much more obscurely.

And similarly similarly, Nei and Takezaki, of the Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics were so careless as to publish in plain English that some human races were more evolved than others, and that the genetic difference between human races was large and comparable to the genetic difference between species, then publicly recanted and repented, and ever since have loudly and frequently proclaimed in plain English that there is no genetic difference between races, all differences between races (presumably including skin color) are purely cultural and environmental, that races are merely social and cultural convention, while continuing to publish papers that if you read them very carefully, and understand the obscure and cryptic scientific jargon deployed, actually say …

In the twenty first century, genuine science has gone underground to hide from the inquisition, and speaks in difficult to decipher code.

I think, though, that we can all agree that this particular "refutation" is dishonest. (The problem is that while it is valid in saying "this isn't quite proof", it isn't sufficient to be a disproof in its own right of common sense. Then there's the favorite, "oh, you asserted something, so that makes it false unless you can prove it".) So I think the problem lies elsewhere. Such as in the definition of "badly behaved males".

Think "The Log-Driver's Waltz" instead of "Leader of the Pack".

The claim is not that women want men who will abuse them and cheat on them. (Shall I cite "These Boots Were Made for Walking" and "Half as Much"?)

The claim is rather that they want a man who is rugged and masculine, rather than weak and effeminate - because they want a man who is capable of defending them.

Possibly, but my impression is that females are not merely unimpressed by rugged and protective masculinity, but incapable of recognizing it when they see it.

Your theory presupposes they are patrolling for a mate, rather than a fling.  They primarily go with the bad boys for a fling.

They don't want a man who abuses them and cheats on them, but it looks to me that they do want a man who abuses and cheats on other women.  Observe that a wedding ring is no impediment, and possibly a considerable advantage, in picking up women, and a wing girl an enormous advantage.

The relative diversity of mitochondria as against Y chromosomes indicates the number of males among our ancestors was about half the number of females among our ancestors.

Also, another problem is that "typical female behavior" is being used as shorthand for "typical female behavior, unmediated by an excess of cultural conditioning; that is, female behavior in the lower social classes".

My observation is that educated women are no better behaved than working class women in terms of the males they get with.  The only large difference is that they are more apt to have abortions and less apt to bring random thug spawn to term.  Female lawyers are notorious.

In a marriage where housework is divided equally, or in a reasonably fair fashion, rather than being divided into man's work (taking out the garbage, unplugging the drains, mowing the lawn, and barbecuing meat) and woman's work (almost everything else)  the wife will stop sleeping with the husband, and very likely once in a week or so the wife's lover drops in to bang her on the main bed, rough her up a bit, take her money, and leave a mess for the husband to clean up.

The only marriages that survive are marriages that are substantially patriarchal, and for a marriage to be substantially patriarchal, the husband has to be able to shrug off extreme pressure and dire threats by his wife.

Now you might think that all those women going after death row killers are just a tiny minority of sexual weirdos - but you will not find one marriage where housework is strictly shared and rotated, except the husband sleeps on the couch, and the wife is banging a bad boy who would never share the housework.  Women who will not have sex with a man who truly treats them as equals are *not* a small minority of sexual deviants, but the overwhelming majority.

The politically correct do not in fact act as if they have internalized political correctness.  The average liberated woman would bang King Robert the Weasel as if she was a barn door in a high wind, without asking him to remove his blood covered boots first.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 09:49:29 pm
And there were some provocative studies that seemed to indicate women statistically found the smell of men's sweat more pleasant when it was from someone whose HLA genes were different from theirs. But under other circumstances (while pregnant? I forget) they found the smell of their relatives' sweat more pleasant.

Actually, pheromones have no odor, though the effect of the pheromones may be interpreted as odor by test subjects. With regard to "testing the whole package is concerned," the t-shirt test is almost conclusive by itself. For all intent and purposes, every woman picked the the t-shirt belonging to the man whose HLA was most different from her own. Testing is ongoing, but so far, nothing has contradicted the basis thesis that HLA opposites attract.

The pregnancy thing is very interesting and I have come up with a speculation about it. The attraction that a women has to similar HLAs (i.e., family) not only was exhibited while a woman when she was pregnant, but also when she was experiencing fake pregnancy (i.e., was on the birth control pill). This interesting reversal is thought to exist, because it would move a pregnant woman more deeply into the protective environment of family. That is just speculation at this point, but it certainly makes sense.

I was thinking about going into a pheromone-related business, so I researched and thought about all aspects of this phenomenon a lot. A thought occurred to be, I did some research and came up with a striking correlation between the dramatic increase in the use of the birth control pill beginning in the'60s and the dramatic increase in the number of marriages that ended in divorce.

Of course, there are many factors associated with the increase in divorce, but a big factor could be the selection of a mate while using the pill. When a couple decided to have children, the wife would stop taking the pill and then realize, to her horror, that she had, from an HLA perspective, married her brother. Hello divorce court. The discovery of this correlation is apparently unique to me. I haven't seen it in the literature.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 09:58:07 pm
In 1895, age of consent in Delaware was seven.  In 1901, age of consent in the US was generally around ten.  In Australia, in 1970, fourteen for girls of good character, twelve for girls of poor character. 

Your post suggested that living members of this Forum could have had sex with a 14-year old. Now, I am old, but not that old.

More to the point, though. I do not believe your numbers. Citations please, specifically for 1895 Delaware and 1901 United States ages of consent.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 10:14:25 pm
As the politically correct always do, you have wound arguing against evolution itself, wound up arguing that the mind cannot be a product of evolution, cannot reflect evolutionary forces, wound up arguing the PC equivalent of creationism.

No. First you hypothesize genes that cause particular behaviors.

If you don't believe that behavior is largely genetically determined, you don't believe in evolution by natural selection.

As evidence that behavior is for the most part genetically determined, and thus evidence that evolution is capable of producing the human mind and human nature, recollect the striking similarities between identical twins raised apart.

Everyone sees, and only the politically correct purport to doubt, that the apple rarely falls far from the tree.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 11:18:14 pm
Popular songs and movies reveal that women lust for badly behaved males.  Everyday casual observation shows that women do choose badly behaved males.

It happens sometimes. It is by no means universal.

First, consider the extremes.  The guy in jail for on death row for killing and eating some women gets marriage proposals in the mail from hot chicks.  The guy who lands the accounting contract for Intel does not.

Now consider the mainstream respectably married woman.  The marriage where the husband keeps the upper hand, lets his wife do the woman's work, restrains his wife's misbehavior, and checks on any of his wive's nights out and prohibits those that seem to give opportunity for misconduct, survives.  The equal and liberated marriage does not - to the best of my knowledge, none of them do - at least none survive where the housework is fairly and equally shared, none survive where there is no such thing as women's work and men's work.

Now consider the in between case:  picking up chicks.  If a man wears a wedding ring, it does him no harm and arguably does him some good.  If he has a wingwoman, it does him a great deal of good.

Put these facts together, it looks like the female preference for bad boys is as universal as the male preference for curvy females, or not far from it.

Since this preference is notoriously self destructive, and is damaging to family and society, needs explanation.  Evolutionary biology has a plausible explanation.  It is, you may well complain, a just-so story - but then, that is what creationists also complain.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on May 01, 2011, 12:39:06 am
Quote
sam: Put these facts together, it looks like the female preference for bad boys is as universal as the male preference for curvy females, or not far from it.

I'm with you, sam. William the Conquerer's other nickname was William the Bastard, and it was a compliment. In those days having an affair was risky, especially for the man who had to sneak in and ravish the lady. Being a bastard was scandalous, but it also romantic, and it meant that one's parents were virile, strong and bold.

Rome's finest women were attracted to gladiators, well-built men who risked their lives in the arena. They threw money and themselves at them, and, no doubt, produced many a child from the union. Yet the gladiators (the vast majority) were slaves. In those days, it wasn't adultery for a free-born women to have sex with slaves and sex wasn't the big deal it is today, but still....

Men have always desired a shapely, healthy body, the kind the kind that can produce children. Women have always sought strong, virile, healthy men who could protect them. Women marry up, regardless of how much money they make. Men don't care about a woman's wealth as much as they care about her body and ability to be a wife. When a woman has a lot of money,it's actually a net minus: unless she inherited it, it's a likely indicator that the woman will be more interested in her career than her guy, and it's also a red flag, not because wealth in itself is intimidating, but because it generally means that somewhere down the road, it will be used to establish her dominance in the relationship, and the vast majority of men don't like to be dominated by women.

A patriarchy is simply a male-dominated society. As far as I know, there never has been a true matriarchy. Even when women are put on pedestals and worshipped, men have always, from what I've read, taken the preferred positions in society for themselves.

As far as one sex being braver than the other, it's been noted that a mother will go crazy when she sees her children being hurt, but so will a father. Without any evidence to the contrary, I'll call it even. However, there is a fight or flight reflex, and men, who are more aggressive, tend to stand and fight, while women tend to flee, almost certainly a survival instinct.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on May 01, 2011, 04:23:49 am
We've got a thread here started on the putative "pedophilia" of Commissar Rhonda's U.W. plan to extort a simulacrum of Belter aggression by way of the kidnapping and threatened gang rape of a 12 year old Ceres female (which, as I've observed, distorts the concept of "pedophilia" all to hellangone), and now we're witnessing a bunch of speculation on sociobiology.

Go figure.

I don't think that it can be honestly contended that there aren't genetic factors involved in the human mating dance, however elaborate and inefficient and embarrassingly stupid it is.  The process of evolution results from a selection bias which favors the propogation and survival of traits (physical and mental/behavioral) which are conducive to getting offspring and ensuring their growth to reproductive maturity and their creation of the next generation, and so on. 

Didn't Larry Niven go into this big-time when he thought up the Pak (see Protector, 1973)?

The individual human being's sexual behavior, however, doesn't seem to be focused even at second or third remove on baking babies and raising them to adulthood, but rather upon erotic pleasure, and we've got some considerable fund of knowledge regarding paraphilias, which I've tended to consider libidinal fixations which divert a person's erotic efforts from orthosexual copulation, whether somebody considers it "atypical and extreme" or not.   

In vitro fertilization aside, if it results in ejaculation outside the vaginal fornix of a female with ovaries capable of putting viable eggs into the Fallopian tubes, it's being done entirely for pleasure, and procreation has nothing to do with it.  Noise about how the mother of dependent children uses her yoni as a honey trap to keep her kids' breadwinner from decamping is a contention that discounts to damn' near worthlessness. 

Rather than emphasis on the hardware - the genes which encode for traits physical and instinctual - it's more sensible to focus our attention on the software, the ways we human beings "program" our conduct in order to overcome adversity and exploit opportunity. 

This explains our courtship rituals and "arrangements for living" a whole bunch more effectively than do pheromones and "bad boy" posturing and the scent of Old Spice.  I don't deny the limbic system's role, but the telencephalon has to be given it's due.  We're a sapient - not just sentient - species. 

Insofar as the begetting and raising of children is concerned, if it's a desideratum among human beings, it's a process undertaken for reasons way beyond the blind urge to increase the prevalence of one's genetic complement.  The cost of child-rearing is high.  In polities where levels of technological sophistication are much above that of subsistence agriculture, it's definitely a negative-sum game for parents and other caregivers, so why do we do it?

There are sociobiological factors operating, certainly, but they're not the most of the motive, else human beings wouldn't invest so much thought and effort and material resource in the activity.  And there wouldn't be that much reliable tendency for people to make that investment in children who don't carry their genes, which a whole bunch of us have done since before the beginning of recorded history, not only through adoption but by way of charitable and educational and recreational activities undertaken in support of other, unrelated, people's kids.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 06:13:19 am
And there were some provocative studies that seemed to indicate women statistically found the smell of men's sweat more pleasant when it was from someone whose HLA genes were different from theirs. But under other circumstances (while pregnant? I forget) they found the smell of their relatives' sweat more pleasant.

Actually, pheromones have no odor, though the effect of the pheromones may be interpreted as odor by test subjects. With regard to "testing the whole package is concerned," the t-shirt test is almost conclusive by itself. For all intent and purposes, every woman picked the the t-shirt belonging to the man whose HLA was most different from her own. Testing is ongoing, but so far, nothing has contradicted the basis thesis that HLA opposites attract.

The pregnancy thing is very interesting and I have come up with a speculation about it. The attraction that a women has to similar HLAs (i.e., family) not only was exhibited while a woman when she was pregnant, but also when she was experiencing fake pregnancy (i.e., was on the birth control pill). This interesting reversal is thought to exist, because it would move a pregnant woman more deeply into the protective environment of family. That is just speculation at this point, but it certainly makes sense.

I was thinking about going into a pheromone-related business, so I researched and thought about all aspects of this phenomenon a lot. A thought occurred to be, I did some research and came up with a striking correlation between the dramatic increase in the use of the birth control pill beginning in the'60s and the dramatic increase in the number of marriages that ended in divorce.

Of course, there are many factors associated with the increase in divorce, but a big factor could be the selection of a mate while using the pill. When a couple decided to have children, the wife would stop taking the pill and then realize, to her horror, that she had, from an HLA perspective, married her brother. Hello divorce court. The discovery of this correlation is apparently unique to me. I haven't seen it in the literature.

That's a fascinating idea! Thank you!
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on May 01, 2011, 09:03:06 am
Quote
Tucci78: Insofar as the begetting and raising of children is concerned, if it's a desideratum among human beings, it's a process undertaken for reasons way beyond the blind urge to increase the prevalence of one's genetic complement.  The cost of child-rearing is high.  In polities where levels of technological sophistication are much above that of subsistence agriculture, it's definitely a negative-sum game for parents and other caregivers, so why do we do it?

Instinct. It's not a calculation. The desire to reproduce is powerful. Look at a woman looking at a cute baby. Unless she has a burr up her butt, her face softens. She might say something like, "Aww, he/she's so cute." Women come from a very long, unbroken line of mothers, most of whom wanted kids. When guys settle down, most of them want to make their wives mothers.   

Quote
There are sociobiological factors operating, certainly, but they're not the most of the motive, else human beings wouldn't invest so much thought and effort and material resource in the activity.  And there wouldn't be that much reliable tendency for people to make that investment in children who don't carry their genes, which a whole bunch of us have done since before the beginning of recorded history, not only through adoption but by way of charitable and educational and recreational activities undertaken in support of other, unrelated, people's kids.

I think that it's obvious that the vast majority of human beings want to pass their own genes along to the next generation. Few wives are stupid enough to tell their husbands that the child he's supporting came from the guy down the street. People adopt, but it's by choice. In an adoption, the original parents (if they are alive) give up their rights to the child. It's a contract, a legal transfer of parental rights.

However, there are social factors that determine if a mother or father want children, more important than the simple calculus of how much money one is willing to spend to rear a child. Certain poor societies have a lot of children. Other, richer societies aren't having enough children to replace those who are dying of old age.

Why is this? Part of it is due to birth control. Without birth control, a woman has children, usually lots of them, and with those children, her destiny is mainly that of housewife and mother. In those societies, she grows up with that knowledge and generally embraces her fate. With birth control, a woman has more control over her life. She may decide that one or three children are enough, and stop. A career becomes an option, and gradually, the society stabilizes or wanes.

The ancient Romans also had birth control. Emperors issued edicts reminding Roman women to do their duty and have children to replenish the state. Roman society was interesting enough, apparently, even without many careers for women, and Roman women generally chose not to have more than three, the number required for a Roman woman to fulfill her duty, or four. Plus, having children was dangerous back then. Roman men used to complain about the dearth of marriageable women. There were other factors, too, such as not wanting to have too many heirs for an estate, but other societies that had the same problem had more children than the Romans did.

But there are yet other factors, that, I think are at least as important as birth control: the strength of a society and how one feels about it.

Fairly recently, a British newspaper, or perhaps it was the BBC, polled those men and women who went through the WWII era, and asked them if they were glad to see today's Britain. The majority were angry and bitter about what happened to their country. They felt betrayed by the post-war government. It isn't just them. When a parent has lost hope and is disgusted with their own culture -- when they find that they don't share its values -- it's less likely that he or she will desire children, and that is reflected in the below replacement birth figures of the majority of the EU. However, immigrant populations, notably the Muslims, who see themselves as an expanding culture, are having far more children. In something like fifty years, if the birth rates and immigration rates remain the same, England could have a Muslim majority.

Relating this to Ceres, I think that even absent a very long life span, people would be more willing to have children. They seem to be a happy, optimistic group, proud of their culture and seeing a boundless future of opportunity.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on May 01, 2011, 09:12:08 am
One aggregation of available U.S. information (see http://tinyurl.com/2ylwsl, published 2005) states that the then-prevailing median age at first intercourse was 16.9 years for males and 17.4 years for females

It does not seem at all plausible that age of first intercourse was older for females than males.

Claimed age of first intercourse might be older, given that actual age was usually illegal.
It's certainly true that, given current cultural norms, a woman would be less likely to admit to early sexual experience than a male.

However, it does not follow that this necessarily accounts for the discrepancy seen here.

Problem:

In a study, 40 typical males, and 40 typical females, from the same population group, are interviewed.

These interviews revealed the following statistics:

1) The average age of first intercourse for the males was 15.

2) The average age of first intercourse for the females was 17.

3) When a male had his first sexual experience, he did so with a female who was, on the average, 1 year younger than he was.

Suggest a scenario, involving another 40 males and 40 females whose ages would have been appropriate to their being reproductively isolated, but whose characteristics are the same as those interviewed, which could yield these results.

Solution:

One scenario which is consistent with all three statistics is as follows:

All 40 males had their first intercourse at age 15.

Of the 40 females, 10 of them had their first intercourse at age 14, and the other 30 had their first intercourse at age 18.

At 14, those 10 tramps had all the 40 males to themselves. QED
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 01, 2011, 01:33:00 pm
Problem:

In a study, 40 typical males, and 40 typical females, from the same population group, are interviewed.

These interviews revealed the following statistics:

1) The average age of first intercourse for the males was 15.

2) The average age of first intercourse for the females was 17.

3) When a male had his first sexual experience, he did so with a female who was, on the average, 1 year younger than he was.

Suggest a scenario, involving another 40 males and 40 females whose ages would have been appropriate to their being reproductively isolated, but whose characteristics are the same as those interviewed, which could yield these results.

Solution:

One scenario which is consistent with all three statistics is as follows:

All 40 males had their first intercourse at age 15.

Of the 40 females, 10 of them had their first intercourse at age 14, and the other 30 had their first intercourse at age 18.

At 14, those 10 tramps had all the 40 males to themselves. QED

I seem to perceive the reverse - that one or two popular guys screw all the girls.

This anecdotal observation fits with the genetic data, which indicates that we have substantially fewer male ancestors than female ancestors, and violently contradicts the survey data, which reports that males somehow manage to have more and earlier sex than females.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 01:56:27 pm
Relating this to Ceres, I think that even absent a very long life span, people would be more willing to have children. They seem to be a happy, optimistic group, proud of their culture and seeing a boundless future of opportunity.

My opinion is that they would have fewer children. This is in line with the trend of people in richer counties having fewer and fewer children as wealth grows. In most cases, I don't think that phony "reproductive immortality" would hold a candle to the real "immortality" of living young, healthy and strong for hundreds of years or more. But that is just me. The few comments Scott and I have exchanged on the subject, would suggest he is in your camp. Anyway to the extent that EFT has a opinion on the subject, it is that though some "early adopters" might reproduce at the levels found in today's US and Canada, second-generation types would be less inclined to permit children to interfere with their fun. YMMV
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 03:24:17 pm
Relating this to Ceres, I think that even absent a very long life span, people would be more willing to have children. They seem to be a happy, optimistic group, proud of their culture and seeing a boundless future of opportunity.

My opinion is that they would have fewer children. This is in line with the trend of people in richer counties having fewer and fewer children as wealth grows. In most cases, I don't think that phony "reproductive immortality" would hold a candle to the real "immortality" of living young, healthy and strong for hundreds of years or more. But that is just me. The few comments Scott and I have exchanged on the subject, would suggest he is in your camp. Anyway to the extent that EFT has a opinion on the subject, it is that though some "early adopters" might reproduce at the levels found in today's US and Canada, second-generation types would be less inclined to permit children to interfere with their fun. YMMV

You refuse to predict about abortion, but you hold an opinion on this topic -- and you do YMMV, you don't insist too hard.

I tend to think there is something wrong with our "industrial" "post-industrial" etc societies. I feel like societies which fail to maintain themselves have some sort of fundamental flaw. But when I look at the assumptions that lead me to that conclusion I'm not as sure as I am when I just feel it in my gut.

Anyway, if you have a society where most people live for hundreds of years, a very low birthrate can maintain their numbers. Get some big accident etc where a whole lot of them die and maybe people will have a big surge in births to replace them -- and if they can't then they have some problems.

If there are lots of opportunities in the Belt then it might turn out that the population expands fast until those opportunities don't look so big any more.

I dunno. We might not understand yet why the US upper-middle-class and above have such a low birthrate. It might not apply to future societies, or maybe it will.

I think I completely agree with your final conclusion here. YMMV.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 01, 2011, 04:00:56 pm
In 1895, age of consent in Delaware was seven.  In 1901, age of consent in the US was generally around ten.  In Australia, in 1970, fourteen for girls of good character, twelve for girls of poor character. 

Your post suggested that living members of this Forum could have had sex with a 14-year old. Now, I am old, but not that old.

This forum is international.  Some doubtless live, or lived, in Australia or other western countries, where the age of consent laws were, and to some extent still are, less extreme than America.

More to the point, though. I do not believe your numbers. Citations please, specifically for 1895 Delaware and 1901 United States ages of consent.

  Wikipedia says:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent)
Quote
In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. A New York Times article states that it was still aged seven in Delaware in 1895. [4] Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on May 01, 2011, 04:18:37 pm
I seem to perceive the reverse - that one or two popular guys screw all the girls.
That's what happens later.

In adolescence, only a portion of young women, due to the good fortune or misfortune of lax parental supervision, escape social norms enough to be sexually active at unreasonably young ages. They don't screw all the guys, as in my oversimplified example, but they do take on more than their share of the guys who are halfway popular.

After high school, most men get married. Some of those men fool around too, and some of their wives are unfaithful. And some of the unmarried men as well as some of the married ones manage to be popular enough to be involved with a lot of women.

Both sexes have variability in their sexual behavior. Because of the time it takes for a woman to bear a baby, male variability has had the potential to be more genetically rewarding.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 01, 2011, 04:39:47 pm
Rather than emphasis on the hardware - the genes which encode for traits physical and instinctual - it's more sensible to focus our attention on the software, the ways we human beings "program" our conduct in order to overcome adversity and exploit opportunity. 

This explains our courtship rituals and "arrangements for living" a whole bunch more effectively than do pheromones and "bad boy" posturing and the scent of Old Spice.  I don't deny the limbic system's role, but the telencephalon has to be given it's due.  We're a sapient - not just sentient - species. 

I would not know that by looking at our sexual activities.

Indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, the patriarchal program, with its emphasis on formal consent before witnesses and enforcement of contract, is intended to bring our mating and reproductive practices out of the ape era into the human era - and doing so requires a great deal of coercion.  We don't naturally and normally engage in sex in the manner that a species that has long been sapient should, hence the saying "all is fair in love and war"

The cost of child-rearing is high.  In polities where levels of technological sophistication are much above that of subsistence agriculture, it's definitely a negative-sum game for parents and other caregivers, so why do we do it?

As it says in the Epic of Gilgamesh:  Immortality.  Just as our genes impel us to stay away from the edge of high cliffs and the impel us to avoid activities likely to lead to death, they impel us to engage in activities that in the ancestral environment would unintentionally result in offspring, and they impel us to intentionally have offspring.

And there wouldn't be that much reliable tendency for people to make that investment in children who don't carry their genes, which a whole bunch of us have done since before the beginning of recorded history, not only through adoption but by way of charitable and educational and recreational activities undertaken in support of other, unrelated, people's kids.

We adopt pets too, but we are only playing at it.  When a pet gets ill, we have it put to sleep.  No one puts their natural children to sleep.  The "accidental" death rate among step children is notorious.  We are no less keen, and no more keen, on other people's children than on kittens.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 05:10:51 pm
Wikipedia says:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent)
Quote
In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. A New York Times article states that it was still aged seven in Delaware in 1895. [4] Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen

For a moment there, I thought I was going to have to eat crow. However, on careful reading of the "History and social attitudes" section, beginning with the paragraph "The American colonies followed the English tradition..." it is clear that the "age of consent" referenced was clearly about marriage, not sex outside of marriage. So wrong on the topic under discussion.

But wait; it gets better. The sole source of the nonsense was from an article in the New York Times, a consistently unreliable source. These are the folks who told us rockets would not work in a vacuum and that Stalin was a nice guy.

But it gets better still. They NYT article only quotes the opening speaker at the "Purity Conference" one Aaron Macy Powell. (THE Aaron Macy Powell? I guess so. Never heard of him myself.) He is quoted as saying he is a "reformer." Wow, I know I'm impressed now. Even he claimed that only four states had an "age of consent" of ten years, not most states as alleged. The sole source of this nonsense can be read in the original article, here:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B01EEDC113AE533A25756C1A9669D94649ED7CF

So Sam, is that all you got?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 01, 2011, 05:45:37 pm
For a moment there, I thought I was going to have to eat crow. However, on careful reading of the "History and social attitudes" section, beginning with the paragraph "The American colonies followed the English tradition..." it is clear that the "age of consent" referenced was clearly about marriage, not sex outside of marriage. So wrong on the topic under discussion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LFoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA165 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LFoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA165)
"The Crisis" published 1916
Quote
In Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida, a child of ten years may consent to her own ruin

You think she was talking about age of consent to marriage?

So Sam, is that all you got?

The fact that you ask for citations demonstrates a striking ignorance about our recent past.  Present day culture is a rather recent aberration from historical norms.  Weirdness was on the horizon around 1890.  Things started getting strikingly weird by historical standards around 1910, and have become ever stranger since.

Human nature does has not changed.  We still find the heroes of old books heroic, even though they routinely do stuff that we theoretically find abhorrent, but we have a state sponsored effort to remake human nature, which effort has proclaimed itself successful, and rewritten the past.  I would expect that in anarchic society, we would swiftly revert to historical norms.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 06:07:43 pm
http://books.google.com/books?id=LFoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA165 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LFoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA165)
"The Crisis" published 1916
Quote
In Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida, a child of ten years may consent to her own ruin

You think she was talking about age of consent to marriage?

I have no idea what "she" (I could not find an author to the editorial) was talking about. People say a lot of things. Again, you have no original sources. Just the word of some unnamed editorial writer in an obscure social activism magazine. You are not dazzling me. In fact, I smell desperation as you grab at even the most tenuous straws.

Look, I want to help you here. Original documents such as state laws are available on line. Show me the law that says it's okay to screw a 12-year old (absent marriage) and I will concede, but you haven't come even close with your citations. For all I know, you will find such a law, the world is strange. If so, I will be happy to say, "Ya got me!" (to the degree that you have gotten me, of course).

So Sam, is that all you got?

The fact that you ask for citations demonstrates a striking ignorance about our recent past...

Not only that, asking for actual evidence from people without it is rude.  ;D

Anyway, ignorant lawyer, writer, actor, teacher and entrepreneur that I am, I still want to see the evidence. The rest of your post was off-topic theatrics and pontification.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on May 01, 2011, 06:52:18 pm
I tend to think there is something wrong with our "industrial" "post-industrial" etc societies. I feel like societies which fail to maintain themselves have some sort of fundamental flaw. But when I look at the assumptions that lead me to that conclusion I'm not as sure as I am when I just feel it in my gut.
I think that I know what the cause of our current low birthrate is.

Back in the early 1960s, before the victory of many modern attitudes, but still when they had obtained widespread acceptance by much of society, population growth was taking place at a rate of 2% per annum. If people then weren't that different from people now, it would seem to be the case that there isn't "something wrong" with us in a cultural sense. We still want to have children.

What took place since the 1960s was an economic downturn. So young people graduating from high school or college have had to take whatever jobs they could get - instead of starting steady careers. Women have been seeking, and getting, employment in their own right in much greater numbers than before.

So, instead of having a society of men with well-paying steady jobs, with stay-at-home wives who have all day to look after their children... we have couples where both spouses are working, the woman's job still doesn't pay quite as well, and because of her past training, she still gets stuck with more than her share of housework (hey, just like we used to make fun of Russia about...) - for the family to spend money on day care, and for a child to increase the need for housework is just too much to put up with.

What's wrong with our society isn't something wrong with us personally, it's something wrong with our circumstances. Give the men jobs that pay enough so they can afford a house in the suburbs while their wives stay home, and they'll be making babies just fine.

Competent socialists, who happen to be currently in pursuit of cannon fodder, have known what to do before, and would be able to do it again. It would be nice if we could get feel-good economics for less sinister purposes.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 08:40:01 pm

What's wrong with our society isn't something wrong with us personally, it's something wrong with our circumstances. Give the men jobs that pay enough so they can afford a house in the suburbs while their wives stay home, and they'll be making babies just fine.

That makes very good sense to me and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you're right.

When I say I don't know I mean that, while your explanation makes perfect sense, there could easily be something else which is a more important cause.

I've known lower-class families who go right on having children. They accept that they just aren't going to have much money, and they spend what they have carefully. The approach that looked to me like it worked best, the man came home and gave his whole paycheck to his wife, who handled the finances. She would give him X dollars each weekend to go out and drink or something. Enough for a couple of drinks. They could raise 4 or 5 children that way, on one paycheck which wasn't all that big. Save money for the bad times when he was out of work.

And I've know people who made 20 times as much money with 2 paychecks, who felt like they could barely afford 1 child.

I don't know what's really going on, and I can't point my finger at why I feel like it's a bad thing. Your explanation makes perfect sense and I don't know why I'm not convinced that's all there is to it.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on May 01, 2011, 08:52:41 pm
Quote
Sandy: For a moment there, I thought I was going to have to eat crow. However, on careful reading of the "History and social attitudes" section, beginning with the paragraph "The American colonies followed the English tradition..." it is clear that the "age of consent" referenced was clearly about marriage, not sex outside of marriage. So wrong on the topic under discussion.

Did you look at the top of the wiki article where they defined what they mean by "age of consent"?

"While the phrase age of consent typically does not appear in legal statutes,[1] when used in relation to sexual activity, the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent of consenting to sexual acts. The European Union calls it the legal age for sexual activities. It should not be confused with the age of majority, age of criminal responsibility, the marriageable age, the age at which one can purchase and consume alcoholic beverages, or drive a car, or other purposes."

Clearly, the wiki was not speaking about marriage, it was speaking of the age of sexual consent. Regardless, even if it defined "age of consent" as the legal marriageable age of the day, I don't think it matters.

On Ceres and in the Belt, if girls of ten and twelve are considered to be full citizens, old enough to carry a gun, surely it follows that they have the right to decide when and with whom to have sex.  
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 10:37:22 pm
Quote
Sandy: For a moment there, I thought I was going to have to eat crow. However, on careful reading of the "History and social attitudes" section, beginning with the paragraph "The American colonies followed the English tradition..." it is clear that the "age of consent" referenced was clearly about marriage, not sex outside of marriage. So wrong on the topic under discussion.

Did you look at the top of the wiki article where they defined what they mean by "age of consent"?

Yes, of course. However the article clearly discusses different uses of the phrase. All of the examples given in the section I referenced had to do with marriage. In any case, your underlying "evidence" turns out to be a source without any reference to primary sources. You still have not addressed this weak point in your evidence. How about giving it a go?

On Ceres and in the Belt, if girls of ten and twelve are considered to be full citizens, old enough to carry a gun, surely it follows that they have the right to decide when and with whom to have sex.  

Stop! Please stop saying stupid words such as "citizen." Clearly, you do not understand how silly that is in the context of a market anarchy. Man, you guys just cannot think outside the collectivist box, can you? As to when girls can decide to have sex, it is you, not I, who keeps yammering about an "age of consent." What is your point?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: quadibloc on May 01, 2011, 10:37:31 pm
I don't know what's really going on, and I can't point my finger at why I feel like it's a bad thing. Your explanation makes perfect sense and I don't know why I'm not convinced that's all there is to it.
Actually, I'm sure that you're right, and it isn't all there is to it. The decline of traditional family values and of church attendance, and so on, also does have some influence - I'm not really out to deny that. My position is, instead, that while these factors are influential, they wouldn't be enough to account for negative population growth, and so, even given a modernistic secular society, if prosperity is at levels sufficient to bring social contentment, population growth would be a problem.

If, on the other hand, prosperity can't be achieved, and population growth is needed, then one would need a religious revival and so on.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 01, 2011, 11:06:43 pm
http://books.google.com/books?id=LFoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA165 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LFoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA165)
"The Crisis" published 1916
Quote
In Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida, a child of ten years may consent to her own ruin

You think she was talking about age of consent to marriage?

I have no idea what "she" (I could not find an author to the editorial) was talking about. People say a lot of things. Again, you have no original sources.

She lived in 1916, was writing at in 1916, therefore is an original source for the age of consent at that time (ten in some states)

Plus,I am an original source.  I recollect my own youth and sexual activities.  Most of the world outside the US had fairly young age of consent until quite recently.  

Recollect the Polanski case.  He raped a thirteen year old, was plea bargained down from actual rape to statutory rape, fled the US, and hey, no problem in most of the rest of the world because thirteen year olds OK.

In fact, the recent remarkable uniformity of age of consent laws world wide is in large part US pressure.  The rest of the world is humoring the US by pretending to have high ages for consent which are very seldom enforced

Look, I want to help you here. Original documents such as state laws are available on line. Show me the law that says it's okay to screw a 12-year old (absent marriage)

There can never be a law that says something is OK.  You need to produce an old law that says it is illegal.  I don't have to produce a law that says something that everyone used to do and no one made a fuss about is legal.  The absence of such laws, and the absence of such enforcement, leads to an absence of records.

Statutory rape is the nineteenth century equivalent of date rape.  No one had heard of date rape until around 1965 or so.  And similarly no one had heard of statutory rape until feminists started making a song and dance about it in the period 1895-1916.

and I will concede

No you will not concede - no records can possibly exist that meet your standards.  You want a law legalizing sex with twelve year olds - but obviously no such law can exist until it is first illegal.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 11:56:29 pm
She lived in 1916, was writing at in 1916, therefore is an original source for the age of consent at that time (ten in some states)

Oh please, the relevant original sources are the laws of the time. You don't even know who "she" is. Got a name? Was she a lawyer? Legislator? Any sort of authority on the laws in the various states. You are grasping at straws again.

BTW, I do know the editor of that rag. It was the commie writer, W. E. B. Du Bois. Anything he edited is presumptively false, in my opinion. Remember my comment about the NYT thinking Stalin was a good guy? Read Du Bois' valentine to that mass murderer:

"Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. He was simple, calm and courageous. He seldom lost his poise; pondered his problems slowly, made his decisions clearly and firmly; never yielded to ostentation nor coyly refrained from holding his rightful place with dignity. He was the son of a serf but stood calmly before the great without hesitation or nerves. But also—and this was the highest proof of his greatness—he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate."

Show me the laws. Put up or shut up.

Plus,I am an original source.  I recollect my own youth and sexual activities.  Most of the world outside the US had fairly young age of consent until quite recently.  

You were a lawyer? You read the original statutes of those countries? If not, your "evidence" is just hearsay. Please, you are embarrassing yourself.

Recollect the Polanski case.  He raped a thirteen year old, was plea bargained down from actual rape to statutory rape, fled the US, and hey, no problem in most of the rest of the world because thirteen year olds OK.

Your obvious contempt for facts makes me doubt even your own youthful recollections. There was no evidence that Polanski raped the girl, i.e., forcefully had sex with her against her will. He clearly was guilty of statutory rape, which obtains even where there is consent, what appears to be what was present in this case. The reason Polanski had little trouble outside the US, was because he violated US law in the US, not French law in France.

So your facts are unsupported bullshit and I have no idea what your point is. Apparently you do not either, since you have ducked that question. Care to share your point about age of consent  and how it is relevant to a 12-year old being abducted and threatened with rape in EFT?

There can never be a law that says something is OK...

Are you daft? There are authorizing laws written all the time. That is the entire point of age of consent laws. They tell you when someone may get married, have consensual sex, etc. I.e., when it is okay. Have you dug up those laws yet? I'm not holding my breath. In any case, What is your point and how is it relevant to a 12-year old being kidnapped and threatened with gang rape and death as written in EFT?

And of course, you do have the burden of proof as to age of consent laws in America. Why? Because it is you who claims that such laws existed. So I guess logic and rhetoric are not your strong points in school. My guess is that you were a poli-sci major, assuming you went to college. That sounds about your speed.

and I will concede

No you will not concede - no records can possibly exist that meet your standards.

My standard is simple. Show me what you claimed, that is, laws that set the age of consent (to have sex, not just marriage) at the ages you claimed. Gee, that's a toughie. How difficult is it to look up the laws of the jurisdictions you claim and within those laws, look up the definition of age of consent. Most county law libraries are open to the public. I suggest you start there. The librarian will help you.

As I said, you might turn out to be right, but so far, you haven't even come close to meeting your burden of proof with regard to your claims about age of consent laws in the US.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 02, 2011, 01:54:30 am
She lived in 1916, was writing at in 1916, therefore is an original source for the age of consent at that time (ten in some states)

Oh please, the relevant original sources are the laws of the time.

And the laws of the time don't have anything about age of consent as such - it was not an issue until 1895.  We don't get laws specifically and explicitly addressing the age of consent until it was raised, and it was not raised everywhere in the US until well into the twentieth century - and in most of the rest of the world, not raised until well into the latter part of the twentieth century.

If you claim that sex with ten year old girls was illegal in Florida and so forth, you need to find a law making illegal.  I don't need to find a law making it legal, because things that are legal seldom have laws making them legal.  They just are - at least they are before women's libbers start making a fuss.

Show me the laws. Put up or shut up.

Before twentieth century, there were no such laws - at least none that addressed the issue explicitly and directly.  Judges had to reason their way from laws that arguably addressed the issue indirectly, or, as judges are prone to do, just make stuff up. They did not need to pass a law making it legal because there was no team of women's libbers worrying that it should be illegal.

Recollect the Polanski case.  He raped a thirteen year old, was plea bargained down from actual rape to statutory rape, fled the US, and hey, no problem in most of the rest of the world because thirteen year olds OK.

Your obvious contempt for facts makes me doubt even your own youthful recollections. There was no evidence that Polanski raped the girl, i.e., forcefully had sex with her against her will.

There is ample evidence that Polanski had forceful sex with her against her will and in the face of her vigorous physical resistance and verbal protests, but that is irrelevant to the fact that having plea bargained down to statutory, he was then safe in the rest of the world.  Whether he actually raped her with violence, or she consented, he was still safe in the rest of the world, as was I.

And of course, you do have the burden of proof as to age of consent laws in America. Why? Because it is you who claims that such laws existed.

It is I who claim such laws did not exist until after women's libbers started carrying on in 1895, often did not exist until well after they started carrying on in 1895 - until then most people had not even heard of statutory rape, just as before 1965, most people had not heard of date rape.  It was something that was arguably illegal, but to prosecute, you had to argue from existing laws.  It was not directly and explicitly addressed by existing laws.

Before 1895, judges had not thought about this issue much, and legislators had not thought about this issue at all.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on May 02, 2011, 02:36:42 am
Quote
Sandy: You still have not addressed this weak point in your evidence. How about giving it a go?

What laughable mental contortions.

A) I gave you a direct quote of the definition of "age of consent" in the article, and you still insist that it means something else.

B) Ten seconds worth of thought and you'd have figured it out for yourself. If you ask a "Reasonable Man" what age of consent is, he'd say "The age one is permitted to have sex." Since when has "age of consent" ever been the exact same as "legal marriageable age"?

C) Here's a table compiled from a number of listed sources. It turns out that sam was right: in 1880, most states had 10 as the age of consent, and Delaware's was 7. Note, the NYT was not one of the sources listed.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24

Time to put some sauce on that crow and dig in.

D)  And yet, I just said that none of the above mattered, that even if your interpretation were correct, that "age of consent" was really, despite a direct quote to the contrary, about marriage, it didn't matter. So why did you continue to go on about the issue? Straw man, anyone? What would a "Reasonable Man" say about picking on details that I already said didn't matter?

Quote
Sandy: Stop! Please stop saying stupid words such as "citizen." Clearly, you do not understand how silly that is in the context of a market anarchy.

Not silly at all. You want to quibble about the word "citizen"? Look at definition #1. Clearly, it fits Ceres and the Belt. What do you call them, inhabitants, followers, votaries? If you don't like the term, just say what term you prefer instead of nagging others for not being able to read your mind.

"Definition of CITIZEN (merriam-webster.com)

1
: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman

2
a : a member of a state
b : a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
3
: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state"

Quote
Sandy: Man, you guys just cannot think outside the collectivist box, can you? As to when girls can decide to have sex, it is you, not I, who keeps yammering about an "age of consent." What is your point?

I don't know, Sandy, you tell me why you keep demanding sources if you don't think they matter. Personally, I could care less at what age the girls of this hypothetical society on Ceres have sex. Apparently, it's a big deal to some who might be queasy at the thought of doing a ten year-old, or paying for an eleven year-old prostitute, but it affects me not at all. Me, I just like to go where the facts take me.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on May 02, 2011, 07:26:08 am
Quote
Sandy: You still have not addressed this weak point in your evidence. How about giving it a go?

What laughable mental contortions.

A) I gave you a direct quote of the definition of "age of consent" in the article, and you still insist that it means something else.

B) Ten seconds worth of thought and you'd have figured it out for yourself. If you ask a "Reasonable Man" what age of consent is, he'd say "The age one is permitted to have sex." Since when has "age of consent" ever been the exact same as "legal marriageable age"?

C) Here's a table compiled from a number of listed sources. It turns out that sam was right: in 1880, most states had 10 as the age of consent, and Delaware's was 7. Note, the NYT was not one of the sources listed.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24

I think reasonable people would agree that Sam is right about this factoid, or rather fact.

In the interest of pedantry, though, I want to point out that the source you give did not include any original source but only secondary sources, none of them before 1995. And of the older sources it links to, the only one that actually says something about the question is one from Texas that lists racist reasons not to put the age of consent above 13 or 14, and what is quoted is a redacted quotation through other sources.

It said, "Information on the ages used historically in western age of consent laws is not readily available."

So, on the one hand we have researchers who could lose their reputation if they misrepresent the data. One of the sources was published by UNC-Chapel Hill press, and they would hate to have their name on something scandalously wrong. On the other hand, it's obscure enough that maybe nobody digs it up except politically-motivated biased researchers all on one side, and they trust the scandal will not happen.

What if the primary sources are all scurrilous pamphlets that got things wrong? In 2200 someone might use links to EFT articles that claim the US government staged 9/11 or that Iraqi civilian casualties were low in Operation Iraqi Liberation, as evidence that the US government staged 9/11 etc. Well, the possibility is there but it's remote. There's every reason to think that these are reputable historians who collect the truth to the best of their ability. Almost always, people question academic integrity only after they dislike the results and want to discredit them.

One last nit to pick -- one of the arguments in the Texas document against an age-of-consent law was that the seduction laws already covered the topic. And the central idea in one of the british sources was that pimps could grab young virgins and force them into prostitution, and there was nothing anybody could do about it. The newspaper editor who made the claim, attempted to prove it by kidnapping a girl to show how easy it was, and on publishing his evidence was convicted and served 3 months in prison. Perhaps the original purpose of age-of-consent laws was not the current purpose. Like, it might have been focused on how young a girl had to be before it was illegal with her consent and her parents' consent. And perhaps in the early days there was a more libertarian view, that if the parents agree and the girl agrees, it shouldn't be an issue for third parties unless she's very young. I don't know that this is true, but how the law was used before, versus how laws with a similar name were used after the Women's Christian Temperance Union did their lobbying, might have been very different and that would surely make a big difference in what the laws actually meant.

So, as lawyers, I'm sure that Sandy and Sam would agree that it's less important what number went into the law, than how the law actually got used....
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on May 02, 2011, 08:46:25 am
Oh please, the relevant original sources are the laws of the time.

And the laws of the time don't have anything about age of consent as such - it was not an issue until 1895.

You wrote:

In 1895, age of consent in Delaware was seven.  In 1901, age of consent in the US was generally around ten.

You have offered zero evidence beyond hearsay. Show me the "age of consent" laws before or after 1895 that comport with your above assertion. Show me a law review article that contains citations that prove your thesis. If you cannot do that, your naked assertion quoted above is dispositive of nothing. Repeating your assertion does not make it stronger. Put up or shut up.

If you do not either put up authoritative evidence (i.e., laws or law review articles with citations) or admit you cannot find such evidence, I will relegate you in my exclusive "Plonk File of Losers."

The way it works is, after I plonk you, as I have done with losers Holt and Contrary Guy, if I see a post by you, I will ignore it. I will only read your unsupported opinions within posts by others who wish to waste their time commenting on your, unsupported blatherings.  You have until Friday evening to put up real evidence or admit you don't have it. In the meantime, I will only read your post to the degree necessary to verify whether or not you have addressed the evidence question sufficiently to avoid plonking. Clear enough for you?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on May 02, 2011, 09:24:05 am
Quote
Sandy: You still have not addressed this weak point in your evidence. How about giving it a go?

What laughable mental contortions.

A) I gave you a direct quote of the definition of "age of consent" in the article, and you still insist that it means something else.

I agree that the age of consent is largely about the age one can have sex. However, the section quoted only explicitly references age of consent for marriage. If you want to pretend that the specific reference sex, I say take that remedial reading course. I don't see anyone with Forum cred defending our assertion. In any case, I have clearly discredited the cited evidence supporting the assertion. NYT, my ass.  ::)

B) Ten seconds worth of thought and you'd have figured it out for yourself. If you ask a "Reasonable Man" what age of consent is, he'd say "The age one is permitted to have sex." Since when has "age of consent" ever been the exact same as "legal marriageable age"?

C) Here's a table compiled from a number of listed sources. It turns out that sam was right: in 1880, most states had 10 as the age of consent, and Delaware's was 7. Note, the NYT was not one of the sources listed.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24

Your B) is totally speculative.

You C) does not support sam. In fact, it clearly contradicts his recent excuses for not show us the law. He said that there were no age of consent laws before 1895. That is not what your chart says.

Now, the chart alludes to age of consent laws, but fails to cite those laws. If these laws existed, where can we look at the original sources? Well, it turns out that Stephen Robertson--a history professor--only cites other people's books. He cites no statues, just repeats what he read in sources of dubious authority.
Show me the law. How hard is that?

Not silly at all. You want to quibble about the word "citizen"?

In common, modern usage, it means a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection. It's clearly not what inhabitants (better word) of the Belt would call themselves. If that is not what you meant, I am more than happy to let you use a less usual definition of the word. Knock yourself out.

Quote
Sandy: Man, you guys just cannot think outside the collectivist box, can you? As to when girls can decide to have sex, it is you, not I, who keeps yammering about an "age of consent." What is your point?

I don't know, Sandy, you tell me why you keep demanding sources if you don't think they matter.

Because I think rational discourse matters. Hey, they don't call it Big Head Press just for the fun of it.  ;)

Personally, I could care less at what age the girls of this hypothetical society on Ceres have sex. Apparently, it's a big deal to some who might be queasy at the thought of doing a ten year-old, or paying for an eleven year-old prostitute, but it affects me not at all. Me, I just like to go where the facts take me.

Yeah, but first you have to have some facts. I don't care either, but I did not bring up the subject. I am just trying to inject some accuracy into the discussion. This includes revealing the truth instead of phony facts.

Until you come up with some actual facts, e.g., the statutes in question I am disinclined to continue a discussion predicated on opinions. If you wish to keep picking the scab, be my guest.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on May 02, 2011, 10:48:32 am

Now, the chart alludes to age of consent laws, but fails to cite those laws. If these laws existed, where can we look at the original sources? Well, it turns out that Stephen Robertson--a history professor--only cites other people's books. He cites no statues, just repeats what he read in sources of dubious authority.
Show me the law. How hard is that?

Let's back up a little. When Sam first made this claim, I had the impression he was arguing that 13-year-old girls have always had lots of sex, and until fairly recently the laws respected that.

But looking a bit deeper, what I'm seeing is more like -- say you seduce an 18-year-old girl from a respectable family and then you refuse to marry her. You are a cad, and if her family chooses to go that route you can be in big trouble.

Now, say you instead seduce an 11-year-old. This is worse than just refusing to marry her. You are more than just a cad.

These laws are not saying it's OK for 13-year-olds or 14-year-olds to have sex whenever they want to. They are providing a way to throw the book at guys who seduce 12-year-olds.

And then we get the WCTU saying the laws are not strict enough. Somebody is probably getting away with something. There are pimps kidnapping 10-year-old girls and forcing them into prostitution! Make it stop happening! Pass a law!

So it looks to me like age-of-consent laws before or after WCTU don't tell us much at all about how many 13-year-old girls were having sex in those days, any more than laws about under-age alcohol tell us how many teens drink.

Assuming we actually find out what the laws said, as opposed to what WCTU claimed they said. WCTU shouldn't have made lies that were easy to disprove, and so I tend to believe them, but I don't much believe them about what the laws meant. And I definitely don't believe that in a state with an age-of-consent of 10, that there was some sort of consensus that it was OK to have sex with 10-year-olds.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on May 02, 2011, 12:17:48 pm
Quote
Sandy: Until you come up with some actual facts, e.g., the statutes in question I am disinclined to continue a discussion predicated on opinions. If you wish to keep picking the scab, be my guest.

Yep, keep moving those goalposts. Your original objection was that a NYT article was used as a reference. You also claimed that the definition of "age of consent" as it applied to the state ages, referred to marriageable age. Both objections, I thought, were absurd, but you chortled with glee that you "clearly discredited" the body of evidence -- and yet, those "issues" have both been resolved.

The NYT article in question is not sourced in the new link. The new link also supplies a definition of "age of consent": "In western law, the age of consent is the age at which an individual is treated as capable of consenting to sexual activity." Go to the bottom of the page where it references the source material and follow the link. It's in the top paragraph. If you do a basic search on "age of consent" definition, you'll find similar descriptions of the term.

Perhaps I could recommend a bit of remedial reading for you?

Not only have both your original objections been removed, it's been cross-referenced in greater detail. I repeat: the facts have now been established to your original demands. It's over. It would be next to impossible to satisfy any of your new demands -- even the Australian link mentions that the sources aren't readily available. It's quite possible, as sam claims, that statutes -- or some statutes -- weren't written into state law, but that a body of precedent had been established, in which case there would be no, or few statutes to find.

Unless you can convince me why that Australian University course would "fake" such statistics, the issue has been resolved well beyond any "Reasonable Man's" forum definition. If one were to go back in time to 1880 and defend a client in court, that level of detail would prove useful, but that situation is unlikely to happen. The crow is on your plate, whether you admit it or not. In fact, it's very well-done, and I see you frantically moving it all around with your fork.

And all for what? If you want to continue to deny the obvious, that's up to you, but according to both of us, none of that matters anyway. Who cares what the age of consent in the US was in 1880 or 1890? How does that relate to Cererean society? I'm repeating this because you ignored that very key point in my last reply, preferring instead to concentrate on a straw man.

To me, the issue is to define Cererean society and get a feel for how it operates. The age of consent is one aspect of that society. You have shown on page 658 http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=658 that girls of ten sometimes carry guns.

I repeat from two comments ago:
Quote
On Ceres and in the Belt, if girls of ten and twelve are considered to be full citizens, old enough to carry a gun, surely it follows that they have the right to decide when and with whom to have sex.

I noticed that you avoided commenting on that. Unless you care to claim that on Ceres, a girl is mature enough to carry a gun, yet her "self-ownership" doesn't carry to rights to her own body, this matter is closed.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on May 02, 2011, 01:08:32 pm
To me, the issue is to define Cererean society and get a feel for how it operates. he issue at hand is the kind of society Ceres and the Belt would be. The age of consent is one aspect. You have shown on page 658 http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=658 that girls of ten sometimes carry guns.
(...)
I noticed that you avoided commenting on that. Unless you care to claim that on Ceres, a girl is mature enough to carry a gun, yet her "self-ownership" doesn't carry to rights to her own body, this matter is closed.

There does seem to be something of a Gordian-Knot-cutting nature about the recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms. 

Once it's established that a person cannot be prevented from exercising his/her ability to carry and use implements specifically designed to kill or wound other human beings, there's no argument possible to support the contention that said person can be prevented from exercising his/her ability to engage in sexual hanky-panky with other human beings.

Do "girls of ten" (and younger) have the capacity to find pleasure in the forms of genital stimulation we call "sex"? 

This is, of course, a purely rhetorical question.  Note that we're not saying "should they," but rather "do they." 

Inasmuch as they do, are there legitimate reasons to prevent (by way of violently forcible intervention) such girls - and their male age-peers - from exercising their rights to make such use of that capacity to whatever extent does not involve the violation of other people's rights?

In this forum, much is made of the characteristics of a truly anarchocapitalist society, and what might be seen in the various aspects of purposeful human action were the principles of AnCap instantiated. 

It's been made obvious thus far (get a look at those NSFW pages) that Mrs. Grundy would die the death.  Clothing would be worn for comfort, utility, the idiosyncracies of personal self-expression (that useless battered damnfool cowboy hat Ed wears), but not to assuage the neuroses of mental cripples driven into gibbering fits by the sight of human anatomy. 

The focus of the social/traditionalist "conservative" disputants on this thread (and, no, I'm not gonna let up on 'em) is on the horrible-sinful-nasty-victimizing sexual appetites of the adults - the "pedophiles" - who are desirous of sexual contact with people of years less than whatever wholly arbitrary age of consent is set in law or custom, all the while doing the "blank out" bit when it comes to what the youngsters themselves might want to do with their affections, their pleasures, and the bodies they own. 

Very traditional. Very "conservative."  Extremely stupid, and as maliciously anti-AnCap as are legal tender laws, price controls, and victim disarmament statutes. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on May 02, 2011, 01:57:37 pm
Quote
Tucci78: The focus of the social/traditionalist "conservative" disputants on this thread (and, no, I'm not gonna let up on 'em) is on the horrible-sinful-nasty-victimizing sexual appetites of the adults - the "pedophiles" - who are desirous of sexual contact with people of years less than whatever wholly arbitrary age of consent is set in law or custom, all the while doing the "blank out" bit when it comes to what the youngsters themselves might want to do with their affections, their pleasures, and the bodies they own.  

Ah, you agree with me that Cerereans have no defined age of consent -- or at least that the right comes with the right to a gun. Now if Sandy would admit it.... :)

You're insulting social/traditionalist "conservatives," but I see none of those dreadful misanthropes here -- at least not the way you describe them.

How dare you insult cowboy hats! Ed's from Texas, ferchissakes. What else is he going to wear, a cap with "I *heart* Ceres" on it? :)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on May 02, 2011, 03:20:59 pm
Ah, you agree with me that Cerereans have no defined age of consent. Now if Sandy would admit it....

You're insulting social/traditionalist "conservatives," but I see none of those dreadful misanthropes here -- at least not the way you describe them.

How dare you insult cowboy hats! Ed's from Texas, ferchissakes. What else is he going to wear, a cap with "I *heart* Ceres" on it?

"A hat should be taken off when you greet a lady and left off for the rest of your life. Nothing looks more stupid than a hat." (P.J. O'Rourke, 1983) 

I think it possible for people in an AnCap society to generally agree on qualifications of competence required for a person to participate in binding commitments, such that contract (and other pledges of conduct susceptible to acceptible determination in arbitration) can function to make more predictable the vicissitudes of human interaction. 

Just how the hell much of a commitment, however, is made in having sex? 

When the objective of sexual congress is not the combination of gametes even remotely apt to bake a baby, but rather pleasurable erotic stimulation (in whatever ways the participants' erotic desires might find non-coercive fulfillment), who else has cause to care? 

And, yeah, I am "insulting social/traditionalist 'conservatives.'"  Notably sams.  I'm going to keep on insulting them, too.  Also refuting their cement-headed,  illogical, kneejerk neophobic contentions in all aspects of praxis. 

I quote from Eric Raymond's essay "A Political History of SF" (see http://tinyurl.com/mhlae9), in which he had written:

"There was also a political aura that went with the hard-SF style, one exemplified by Campbell and right-hand man Robert Heinlein. That tradition was of ornery and insistant individualism, veneration of the competent man, an instinctive distrust of coercive social engineering and a rock-ribbed objectivism that that valued knowing how things work and treated all political ideologizing with suspicion. Exceptions like Asimov's Foundation novels only threw the implicit politics of most other Campbellian SF into sharper relief.

"At the time, this very American position was generally thought of by both allies and opponents as a conservative or right-wing one. But the SF community's version was never conservative in the strict sense of venerating past social norms — how could it be, when SF literature cheerfully contemplated radical changes in social arrangements and even human nature itself?"


And that's why I hold the social/traditionalist "conservative" mindset in such profound contempt.  They're a buncha frackin' mundanes, damn them.  What any such critters are doing commenting upon Escape From Terra - except as obviously hostile trolls - I cannot accept or credit.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on May 02, 2011, 03:41:49 pm
Quote
Tucci78: The focus of the social/traditionalist "conservative" disputants on this thread (and, no, I'm not gonna let up on 'em) is on the horrible-sinful-nasty-victimizing sexual appetites of the adults - the "pedophiles" - who are desirous of sexual contact with people of years less than whatever wholly arbitrary age of consent is set in law or custom, all the while doing the "blank out" bit when it comes to what the youngsters themselves might want to do with their affections, their pleasures, and the bodies they own.  

Ah, you agree with me that Cerereans have no defined age of consent -- or at least that the right comes with the right to a gun. Now if Sandy would admit it.... :)

I never denied it. It is axiomatically drived from the concept of self-ownership, which underlies ZAP and market anarchy. I merely declined to debate the obvious. Happy now?  ;D

So, that is what happens in a market anarchy such as the Belt. So it is your turn to provide primary evidence (or admission of your lack there of) in support of the claims from the "Purity" guy, quoted in the NYT? Any closer to putting up or being plonked?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 02, 2011, 05:39:47 pm
Who cares what the age of consent in the US was in 1880 or 1890? How does that relate to Cererean society? I'm repeating this because you ignored that very key point in my last reply, preferring instead to concentrate on a straw man.

It relates because of my original argument, that political correctness is a state imposition, and that an anarchic society would be substantially less politically correct, and would, if we continue to reproduce in the old fashioned way, probably be as patriarchal as past anarchic societies.

In past anarchic societies, protection is provided primarily by the father, and by people's connection to organized groups of fighting men, which connection tends to mediated by the father, and/or the family's primary income earner.  Thus parents would likely exercise more authority over dependents than today, and husbands more authority over wives than today, resembling what was normal over the past several thousand years, rather than than the new institutions.

Sandy objected to my suggestion that the current standards were abnormal and strange, among them the standard for consent.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on May 02, 2011, 05:54:06 pm
In past anarchic societies, protection is provided primarily by the father, and by people's connection to organized groups of fighting men, which connection tends to mediated by the father, and/or the family's primary income earner.

Damned peculiar definition of "anarchic," isn't it?  Under the premise that government is just goons with guns - systematized institutional aggressive violence imposed upon people "for your own good" - this bit about "organized groups of fighting men" stinks on ice.

Whatever it is, it sure as hell isn't "anarchic." 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on May 02, 2011, 05:58:33 pm
Sandy objected to my suggestion that the current standards were abnormal and strange, among them the standard for consent.

No I didn't. Citation please or retract that last statement. It is certainly an untruth and I suspect it was an intentional lie. You would not be the first liar on the Forum, but that does not excuse it.

What I did was call bullshit on the factual correctness of the quote you pulled from a NYT article. So far, "bullshit" still holds.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 02, 2011, 06:54:32 pm
Oh please, the relevant original sources are the laws of the time.

And the laws of the time don't have anything about age of consent as such - it was not an issue until 1895.

You have offered zero evidence beyond hearsay.

For something to be illegal, someone has to be prosecuted for doing it.  I cannot produce absence of laws and absence of prosecutions.  You have to produce prosecutions, or laws that display an intent to prosecute.

The phrase "statutory rape" is extremely rare until recent times.  Searching google books, "statutory rapes" does not show up in in preview and limited view until the 1920s, though women's libbers were campaigning on the issue, using different terminology, from 1895 onwards.  Before 1895, the thought just does not occur to people.

Show me the "age of consent" laws before or after 1895 that comport with your above assertion.

There are no age of consent laws as such until after 1895, often well after, and when "age of consent" laws were first introduced, after 1895, often well after 1895, they were for substantially older ages.  This is not an issue that normal people talked about or thought about until 1920 or so in America, only political activists talked about or thought about after 1895, and no one talked about or thought about before 1895.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 02, 2011, 07:11:43 pm
I agree that the age of consent is largely about the age one can have sex. However, the section quoted only explicitly references age of consent for marriage.

Produce prosecutions.  If no prosecutions, legal.  If Polanski is fine outside the USA, legal.

Legal is what there are no laws against, no prosecutions about.  No one can produce evidence of absence to the standard that you demand.  If you insist on that standard evidence, you have to produce evidence of presence.  The best evidence of absence that can ever exist is what I have already produced.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on May 02, 2011, 08:07:30 pm
There are no age of consent laws as such until after 1895, often well after, and when "age of consent" laws were first introduced, after 1895, often well after 1895, they were for substantially older ages.  This is not an issue that normal people talked about or thought about until 1920 or so in America, only political activists talked about or thought about after 1895, and no one talked about or thought about before 1895.

Hm. So as with "the moral equivalent of war" ("the War on Poverty" and "the War on (some) Drugs" and "the War on Terror"), we're looking at yet another toxic residuum of the "Progressive" era. 

Wotta surprise....
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 02, 2011, 09:10:03 pm
When the objective of sexual congress is not the combination of gametes even remotely apt to bake a baby, but rather pleasurable erotic stimulation (in whatever ways the participants' erotic desires might find non-coercive fulfillment), who else has cause to care?  

If we were wholly rational creatures, no problem, but quite obviously, we are not.

If a woman has sex with lots of different people, then when someone is considering marrying her, he faces the problem that she will probably feel dissatisfied, since the best male who is willing to bang her is apt to be considerably more attractive than the best male willing to stick around, hence he will be reluctant to expose his assets to her potential lawyers, reluctant to have children with her, and so forth.

So, the parent of a daughter engaging in sex with lots of people faces the likelihood that he will have no grandchildren, but grandcats instead, or he, the grandfather, rather than the father, will have to support such children.

Thus parents, in particular fathers, suffer a great and grave externality when their daughters have sex with people who are unlikely to stick around, who are apt to be the great majority of people their daughters have sex with.

In addition, fathers prefer their daughters to have sex with high status males as males measure status.  Daughters notoriously have a more primitive concept of status, to the continual and great grief of fathers.

Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on May 02, 2011, 09:40:38 pm
Quote
Me: Ah, you agree with me that Cerereans have no defined age of consent -- or at least that the right comes with the right to a gun. Now if Sandy would admit it....

Quote
Sandy: I never denied it. It is axiomatically drived from the concept of self-ownership, which underlies ZAP and market anarchy. I merely declined to debate the obvious. Happy now?  

Ecstatic.  :)

Quote
So, that is what happens in a market anarchy such as the Belt. So it is your turn to provide primary evidence (or admission of your lack there of) in support of the claims from the "Purity" guy, quoted in the NYT? Any closer to putting up or being plonked?

I never had a dog in that hunt. I couldn't care less what the NYT guy had to say about morality or lack of. All I was after were the basic facts, such as age of consent law in the states and the amazing claim that Delaware's AoC age was 7. Wikipedia is a rotten source for politics and religion, and highly suspect for the the soft sciences and hot button historical events, such as WWII bombings, but it's usually good for hard science and non-politicized stats. I was curious why you rejected what I thought was a pretty good case on age of consent state statistics, so I did some searching of my own. I was startled, but not too surprised, to see the 7 year-old Delaware figure repeated in what looks to be a completely independently researched document.

***

Quote
Me to Sandy: Who cares what the age of consent in the US was in 1880 or 1890? How does that relate to Cererean society? I'm repeating this because you ignored that very key point in my last reply, preferring instead to concentrate on a straw man.

Quote
sam: It relates because of my original argument, that political correctness is a state imposition, and that an anarchic society would be substantially less politically correct, and would, if we continue to reproduce in the old fashioned way, probably be as patriarchal as past anarchic societies.

That's an interesting argument, sam.  To me, PC has always gone hand in hand with the peculiar, and what I cal mentally ill leftist mind. They feel they are doing good by forcing people to change their language or habits -- for the good of all, all definitions being reserved to themselves, of course. These tyrannical caretakers elevate feelings over facts, and live in simplistic fantasy worlds where they are, by definition, good, and those who oppose them must be evil. To that extent it isn't a state imposition, it's a philosophical imposition.

However, since these sick people took over the state, their policy has become the state's. It's an insidious union of overlapping drives: the lefties want to impose "correctness" on us all, and the state's natural tendency is to bring more power to itself. They are in paradise at the moment, ensnaring their citizen/subjects in a web of controlling regulations and correct-think.

You make the argument that without PC, Cererean society would follow the patriarchal, traditional family values, sort of a frontier model. That's interesting. A few pros and cons:

Pros:

1)  Men who would go to live in the Belt would not be the PC beta males of the UW; they'd be of sterner alpha male stock. Alpha males are more secure in their masculinity. Unlike their emasculated counterparts on Earth, they'd be less willing to accept an instinctually unnatural PC "equality" role, and certainly not a secondary role.

2) Women are attracted to alpha males. Such marriages would tend to the more traditional man-woman type -- a patriarchy.

3) The Belt is huge and there's plenty of room for expansion within it and beyond. An optimistic, proud, happy society produces children. If women wanted to play it safe, they'd stay on Earth. Women Belters are likely to be a rugged variety of female.

4) The Belters and Cerereans are relatively wealthy. Most wouldn't require two salaries to survive.

Cons:

1) They live a long time, so some might feel the need to restrain their child-bearing instincts.

2) Women are generally better educated than those of the past. They might be interested in their careers more than having children

3) A patriarchy where women packed firearms could be something of a contradiction.

Overall, I'll go with a modified patriarchy. Unlike the UW and its suffocating rules of conduct, the Belt sounds like a place where men can be men and women can be proud of it.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on May 02, 2011, 11:50:38 pm
Quote
Tucci78: And that's why I hold the social/traditionalist "conservative" mindset in such profound contempt.  They're a buncha frackin' mundanes, damn them.  What any such critters are doing commenting upon Escape From Terra - except as obviously hostile trolls - I cannot accept or credit.

I don't think that blind obedience to traditional values is productive. However, I think the past is a gold mine of sociological knowledge. We aren't so genetically different from those who lived in the Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia or Egypt. It can be instructive to compare societies. What worked, and why? Which societies were happiest, and which were strong and enduring? Which societies disintegrated through weakness and were held together under tyranny? And it can get PC perilous: what roles make men and women happiest?

The lessons we can take from studying the past, and through it, human nature, is hideously complex and debatable. Modern inventions -- and future inventions such as long life -- make a good deal of what made sense in the past obsolete, and yet, there are societies from which we can reasonably extrapolate: we can expect a Utopian collective to be a soul-deadening tyranny. Enforced equality and wide-open sex produces few quality marriages, a lack of male commitment, and ultimately, a lot of unhappy women who can't find what they desire in a man. I don't think it's wrong to consider the past when constructing or evaluating a society.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: mellyrn on May 03, 2011, 08:50:14 am
Quote
what roles make men and women happiest?

The ones they choose for themselves.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: spudit on May 03, 2011, 09:38:27 am
Quote
what roles make men and women happiest?

The ones they choose for themselves.

The Lady is right again.

In my opinion only. The age of consent, drumroll,  is the age when they as a unique individual are smart and sophisticated enough to make that decision. I know 13 year old adults and 30 year old children. I think we all do.

Forget the IQ tests and the rest of the apptitude and intelligence tests, too restraining and a lousy way to sort people. We have far more mental, intellectual, psychological variation than ever imagined. It is a treasure beyond belief.

Take ADD/ADHD, I like the Hunter Farmer hypnosis by Hartman. He observed that what makes for a lousy dirt farmer/public school kid makes for a superb hunter/warrior/inventor.Then looked at diagnosed cases among recent hunter gatherer cultures, the Inuit for one as I recall, and compared them to strains of humans long domesticated. This last my own tongue in cheek terminology.

Know what, the kid who was hopeless in school tended to be superb at patiently waiting hyper focused on the ice at a seal's breathing hole then making an instant transition to run like hell when a polar bear climbed out. Don't even think about asking him to till turnips.

Imagine Henry Ford sentenced to Julliard or some budding Mozart doomed to shop class. One size does not fit all.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 03, 2011, 04:18:15 pm
Quote
what roles make men and women happiest?

The ones they choose for themselves.

What they choose, depends on other people's roles, what other people agree to - and if they cannot trust other people to carry out those roles, they behave differently.

Thus happiness, requires some role enforcement.

The Roman Republic had some of the most harshly coercive marriage laws ever, but for a marriage to take place, the father of the bride had to publicly consent, the father of the groom had to publicly consent, the bride and the groom had to publicly consent three times before three sets of witnesses, and then romantically hold each other.

One cannot choose a role for oneself, since roles involve other people. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on May 03, 2011, 04:56:22 pm
When the objective of sexual congress is not the combination of gametes even remotely apt to bake a baby, but rather pleasurable erotic stimulation (in whatever ways the participants' erotic desires might find non-coercive fulfillment), who else has cause to care? 

If we were wholly rational creatures, no problem, but quite obviously, we are not.

To the extent that the irrationalities can be brought under conscious consideration and rational solutions thereby applied, that's not necessarily true. 

We ("Whaddaya mean 'we,' Kemo Sabe?") are not "wholly rational creatures" on the subject of human sexuality right now, sure.  But does this mean that we're always gonna have to be bloody irrational damned fools about this aspect of our lives?

More "conservative" cement-headed shortsightedness.  If the history of western civilization in particular seems to show anything, it's that radical departures from the time-tested verities are not only possible but - because such changes have produced improvements in people's material condition - they've become something of an expectation built into our (and I mean "our," no joke) sociocultural system. 

Over the past half-century especially, in the Western cultures (and that's come to include not only Japan and the rest of the "Asian Tiger" polities but also China), people have given much more weight to the natural neophilia of our species, as opposed to the neophobia so prevalent among the social/traditionalist "conservative" clowns afflicting America's political scene. 

What we're looking at in Escape From Terra and in speculative fiction generally are hypothetical situations in which human action is taking place under conditions different from those which had prevailed.  SF is a kind of entertaining Gedankenexperiment, which is one of the reasons why reasoned consistency and intellectual integrity have value in this genre as in no other art. 

Let me pull a couple more paragraphs from Eric Raymond's "A Political History of SF" here:

"From World War II into the 1950s Campbell's writers — many working scientists and engineers who knew leading-edge technology from the inside — created the Golden Age of science fiction. Other SF pulpzines competing with Astounding raised their standards and new ones were founded. The field took the form of an extended conversation, a kind of proto-futurology worked out through stories that often implicitly commented on each other.

"While space operas and easy adventure stories continued to be written, the center of the Campbellian revolution was "hard SF", a form that made particularly stringent demands on both author and reader. Hard SF demanded that the science be consistent both internally and with known science about the real world, permitting only a bare minimum of McGuffins like faster-than-light star drives. Hard SF stories could be, and were, mercilessly slammed because the author had calculated an orbit or gotten a detail of physics or biology wrong. Readers, on the other hand, needed to be scientifically literate to appreciate the full beauty of what the authors were doing."


Those readers have also been praxeologically literate in the extreme.  This is perhaps the single most important reason why socialism has never been able to gain sustained traction in science fiction, no matter all the efforts of Marxists and crypto-Communists and other socialists among writers and editors throughout the history of the genre. 

If a woman has sex with lots of different people, then when someone is considering marrying her, he faces the problem that she will probably feel dissatisfied, since the best male who is willing to bang her is apt to be considerably more attractive than the best male willing to stick around, hence he will be reluctant to expose his assets to her potential lawyers, reluctant to have children with her, and so forth.

Er, WTF? You might be susceptible to such insecurities, sam, but I'm not.  Neither are a helluva lot of other men who marry widows and divorcees. 

Projecting your neuroses on other folks, sam?

Jeez, how "conservative."
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: wdg3rd on May 03, 2011, 05:19:46 pm
Sam does seem hung up on monogamy as well.  Those of us who've been involved in multiple partner marriages (and I'm not talking mormon/muslim style polygyny here) seem to be completely outside of his scope.  Although polygyny seems to be my next step.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on May 03, 2011, 05:44:09 pm
I don't think that blind obedience to traditional values is productive. However, I think the past is a gold mine of sociological knowledge.

It's also not a goddam straitjacket.

We aren't so genetically different from those who lived in the Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia or Egypt.

Not altogether true.  Those of us who directly descend from those ancient Dead White Guys are a helluva lot more resistant to a lot of infectious diseases than they were, chiefly because those among the populations of Europe in the "Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia [and] Egypt" who were genetically susceptible to such pathogens died or were otherwise rendered incapable of passing along their genes. 

Just to avoid "eurocentrism," didja ever consider the survival benefits of sickle trait?

It can be instructive to compare societies. What worked, and why? Which societies were happiest, and which were strong and enduring? Which societies disintegrated through weakness and were held together under tyranny? And it can get PC perilous: what roles make men and women happiest?

The authoritarian assignment of "roles" to suit somebody else's ideas of what's supposed to make the assigned human being "happiest" is idiocy.  It might be well-meaning idiocy, but it's still pretty goddam dumb, don'tcha think?

Why don't you just say: "When I have the power to assign other people to the roles for which I think them best suited, I'm happy," and be done with it? 

Beyond that, of course, I'm not sure if I can express this with proper strength without using what the proprietors of this Web site consider obscenities, Aardvark, but would you please quit reifying the abstraction called "society" as if it were a concrete entity capable of being "happy"?  Human beings can be - subjectively, relatively - happy or sad.  A society? Nope.

And I suspect they'd be happiest if people like you aren't allowed to meddle in their lives.

I agree that we can gain insight by examining the praxis prevailing in a precedent society, but only to determine how those modes of human action operated to achieve the results - for good and ill - they attained, and how they were superceded by the sociopolitical arrangements that replaced them. 

Optimistically, it might show us how to reproduce what was good (hopefully doing an even better job of it) and pessimistically speaking, it might enable us to avoid screwing up in quite the same way. 

I tend to put the greatest value on the study of history to avoid screwing up.  No matter what our predecessors achieved, remember, there was a lot that they screwed up, much of the time catastrophically.

We lose focus on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (and the fact that even more common in the universe than hydrogen and dark matter is human stupidity), and we're fracked.

Hm. Guess that's yet another reason why I'm emphatically not a "conservative."  Praiseworthy though some small number of our predecessors might have been, most of them were spectacular screw-ups.  Copying those screw-ups is pathologically stupid.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on May 03, 2011, 06:17:44 pm
See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later?
Pheromones include DNA compatibility according to a psych friend of mine who studied this extensively. She advocated the same point different ways, and discussed mate selection by gender, by history, from different perspectives, etc.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on May 03, 2011, 07:17:33 pm
Rather than have 5 separate replies for the discussion over the last two days with quotes and references to each quote I'm just going to jump in peanut gallery style. Each numbered point is separate from the others, but connected to the discussion. I am glad someone looked up my Vanuatu rape reference and found out that I was correct.

#1 Humans are the only species where the females have permanent breasts. All the talk of tribal selection, "bad boy" attraction, etc is either talking about "a society" or "a species". When we discuss attraction at the species level, pheromones and breasts are key topics. What is it about a woman that made her ability to hide her pregnancy better at selecting mates?

#2 According to Freud sexual stimulation for females is very early, as in toddler early. Female babies are born capable of orgasm, while males must wait until the gonads develop more. Freud claimed males derived pleasure other ways at the same age, but I only have (impersonal) evidence for females and I don't trust Freud.

#3 The "Age of Consent" in Japan is still 13 at the national level, but 18 in some cities. Women can marry in Japan at age 16, men at 18. The man is expected to provide for his wife. Rome had an age of consent at age 18, due to property laws. In some states of Greece, it was a large benefit for a boy to begin sexual consort with an older man who would later provide him advantages in education, job placement and be his advocate in general. Historical references, even modern references and discussions over age of consent are all loaded guns.  I much prefer the condom debate, because it contains all of the relevant elements but none of the gunpowder. In the US, using a condom is considered responsible. In Mexico, you go to hell for using a condom.

#4 SandySandfort clearly lost the argument on all fronts but used smoke, mirrors and a lack of replying on topic to hide that fact.

#5 Rights, justice, happiness, morals, all of these are fuzzy topics that we can't measure. I like Heinlein's idea of sticking to things that we *can measure* like damage but not risk. E.g. Risk is not wrong. Elevated risk is not wrongdoing. Damage is wrongdoing. No damage? You're just applying your preconceptions onto someone else. Back off.

#6 Population soared as soon as infant mortality dropped. Industralized societies mitigate the boom by requiring extended education in order to have a decent lifestyle. Unfortunately this means the stupid people outbreed the intelligent educated ones.

#7 With Telomerase treatment (and there are different kinds) we could live a lot longer. There are a number of contentions, but none of them change three core pieces of information A) The Hayflick limit is no longer obeyed (80 divisions for humans, then the cells die) B) Telomerase is used in the eyes, bone marrow and sex organs (selectively) of humans, and none of these areas develop cancer. C) Telomerase active differentiated cells will dedifferentiate in varying degrees, replicate more quickly, and function more adeptly (the first two I can back up with paper only medical studies, the last is a summary)
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on May 03, 2011, 07:48:08 pm
Quote
Quote from: Aardvark on Today at 12:50:38 AM
I don't think that blind obedience to traditional values is productive. However, I think the past is a gold mine of sociological knowledge.

Quote
Tucci: It's also not a goddam straitjacket.

Straw man. Nobody said it was.

Quote
Quote from: Aardvark on Today at 12:50:38 AM
We aren't so genetically different from those who lived in the Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia or Egypt.

Quote
Tucci: Not altogether true. Those of us who directly descend from those ancient Dead White Guys are a helluva lot more resistant to a lot of infectious diseases than they were, chiefly because those among the populations of Europe in the "Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia [and] Egypt" who were genetically susceptible to such pathogens died or were otherwise rendered incapable of passing along their genes.  

Just to avoid "eurocentrism," didja ever consider the survival benefits of sickle trait?

We aren't so genetically different means we have some genetic differences. Obviously, I was speaking about genetic differences that have sociological meaning. Straw man again. I swear, you just like to throw up things to attack other people with, don't you?

Quote
Quote from: Aardvark on Today at 12:50:38 AM
It can be instructive to compare societies. What worked, and why? Which societies were happiest, and which were strong and enduring? Which societies disintegrated through weakness and were held together under tyranny? And it can get PC perilous: what roles make men and women happiest?

Quote
The authoritarian assignment of "roles" to suit somebody else's ideas of what's supposed to make the assigned human being "happiest" is idiocy.  It might be well-meaning idiocy, but it's still pretty goddam dumb, don'tcha think?

Why don't you just say: "When I have the power to assign other people to the roles for which I think them best suited, I'm happy," and be done with it?

I speak of what the experience of the past might teach us about ourselves, and you try to twist that innocent message, the heart and soul of the science of Anthropology, into some sort of ... who knows ... a sociological attack? if it weren't so sad it'd be laughable.

The rest of your uttering contains much of the same irrational drivel. I weary of repeating myself, so I'll stop my analysis here.

What is this with you and the word "conservative" that has you raging mad? Why this dripping condescension in nearly every phrase, when I'm just trying to have a reasonable discussion? Is it possible for you to simply disagree and state your case without hurling insults about one's intelligence?
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on May 03, 2011, 08:15:31 pm
Quote
what roles make men and women happiest?

The ones they choose for themselves.

l remember Benjamin Franklin wrote about visiting the Moravians (in North Carolina?). They sort of practiced arranged marriages. People could not marry unless the village elders told them to.

Quote
I objected, if the matches are not made by the mutual choice of the parties, some of them may chance to be very unhappy. "And so they may, answered my informer, if you let the parties choose for themselves"; which, indeed, I could not deny.

I guess there are no guarantees. Since it's a lot of trouble and no gratitude if we work to prevent people from the pursuit of unhappiness, it's better to just let them choose for themselves unless it clearly hurts us.

But in general we still can't expect people to be happy with the roles they choose for themselves.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Aardvark on May 03, 2011, 08:45:13 pm
Quote
Rorschach: #3 The "Age of Consent" in Japan is still 13 at the national level, but 18 in some cities. Women can marry in Japan at age 16, men at 18. The man is expected to provide for his wife. Rome had an age of consent at age 18, due to property laws.

Not sure about the male age of consent in ancient Rome (do you mean marriageable age?), but the female age of consent for having sex was 14. Rome, having few career choices for fertile women, produced a lot of Lolitas searching to snag the right husband. You probably know this, but for the benefit of any who don't and are interested, sex was rather wide open in ancient Rome. Having sex was much like fulfilling a bodily need, and there was no adultery between a married Roman woman and a non-freeborn man, or between her and someone she paid for sex. The main purpose of marriage was not romance, it was to have children, and fertile women were required to have three to fulfill their duty to Rome. Divorce for a man or woman was as easy as leaving, and quite a few important Romans were divorced in absentia, their wives finding new lovers as soon as their husbands were across the Tibur.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on May 03, 2011, 09:56:48 pm
Well to be fair, the polis and the aristocrats who expected to join the senate had completely separate rules. There was a law, and it was likely enforced only for aristocratic men. The punishment was probably losing your political opportunities. *shrug* I found that in most cultures the property and inheritance rules directly influenced the marriage and sexual customs. In Ancient Egypt the oldest male controlled the wealth inherited through the eldest female daughter. When she marries off, her father in law now controls her father's estate. Because of this, many fathers encouraged their sons and daughters to marry each other so he could retain control. Having more sons probably increased his estate as well.

With regard to some aspects of Roman culture, I confess to being informed via this book, but she lists which aspects are fiction and which are educated guesses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Man_in_Rome_(novel) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Man_in_Rome_(novel))
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 03, 2011, 10:46:54 pm
We ("Whaddaya mean 'we,' Kemo Sabe?") are not "wholly rational creatures" on the subject of human sexuality right now, sure.  But does this mean that we're always gonna have to be bloody irrational damned fools about this aspect of our lives?

That is the way to bet.  Women are 100% irrational about love and sex and all of that, and men not much better.

More "conservative" cement-headed shortsightedness.  If the history of western civilization in particular seems to show anything, it's that radical departures from the time-tested verities are not only possible but - because such changes have produced improvements in people's material condition - they've become something of an expectation built into our (and I mean "our," no joke) sociocultural system. 

The current departure from the time tested verities seems to be producing massive failure to reproduce and near fifty percent fatherlessness, which is pretty much what it produced when tried by previous civilizations.

It is also disgenic, since intelligent far sighted single women get pregnant and abort, and stupid short sighted single women get pregnant, and have kids.

If a woman has sex with lots of different people, then when someone is considering marrying her, he faces the problem that she will probably feel dissatisfied, since the best male who is willing to bang her is apt to be considerably more attractive than the best male willing to stick around, hence he will be reluctant to expose his assets to her potential lawyers, reluctant to have children with her, and so forth.


Er, WTF? You might be susceptible to such insecurities, sam, but I'm not.  Neither are a helluva lot of other men who marry widows and divorcees. 

Projecting your neuroses on other folks, sam?

The massive increase in fatherlessness and massive decrease in marriage indicates men are refusing to get married, that males are in large part on strike.  It is rational for a man to marry a virgin, and a lot more rational when divorce laws favor women.  Thus a virgin shortage contributes to a husband and father shortage.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 08:11:13 am

Humans are the only species where the females have permanent breasts. All the talk of tribal selection, "bad boy" attraction, etc is either talking about "a society" or "a species". When we discuss attraction at the species level, pheromones and breasts are key topics. What is it about a woman that made her ability to hide her pregnancy better at selecting mates?

I read about this some years ago. The field may have advanced since then, but I can give the flavor of it.

As far as I know, the first theory about this went as follows: Our prehuman ancestors used to always have sex doggy-style. But as we evolved we found that face-to-face sex, missionary-style, created better pair-bonding because men looked at women's faces so it was more personal and less anonymous. But men needed the sexual stimulus of seeing women's buttocks so they could have sex, and by developing big breasts women provided the appearance of big buttocks even while facing men.

I am not kidding. I don't remember the name associated with this but it may have been Jared Diamond, or Robert Ardrey. And the idea might have been lifted from Freud.

There have been a large variety of later JustSo stories about why women have breasts. Here is the one I like best:

In life-threatening emergencies, sometimes rescuers have to decide who to help. Sometimes it makes sense to just help whoever is closest, but sometimes there's room to choose. I expect that modern firemen instinctively follow the same priorities that I imagine ancient or even prehumans did. First priority, pregnant women who are most burdened and least able to help themselves. Second, very small children whose mothers aren't available to help them. Third, women with very small children, who are burdened with the small children. Fourth, women who are lactating, whose children will need them. Fifth, older children. Sixth, adult women who can take care of themselves. Seventh, men.

Of course you rescue whoever you can, but when you have to choose, that's a pretty good approach. It's best for the tribe. Unless your tribe is too big and you need some people to die so it can get back down to the right size, you are better off if more people survive than less. If you are a man, the ones who matter least to you are other men who both are best able to survive and who are your direct competitors for your role in the tribe. But you rescue people if you can, whoever they are. And the ones who need the most help are pregnant women whether or not you are the father. It isn't just about saving your own unborn children, or being more attractive to multiple women. It's about saving your tribe.

And when there's an emergency pretty often it's in poor lighting.

By keeping breasts when they are not pregnant or nursing, women went from sixth place to somewhere between first and fourth place. It makes them more likely to be rescued. And of course it isn't like this was a conscious decision on their part, it would be a genetic change that perhaps got selected. Though during population bottlenecks any little oddity might get established by accident.

As far as I know, none of the theories about this have the slightest shred of data supporting them. It's all JustSo stories and nothing but JustSo stories. But it isn't completely universal among human women. Native women in the Amazon jungle are reputed to have deflatable breasts like the rest of the mammals. It's extremely unlikely that they spread to there before this trait developed in everybody else. More likely there is something about the Amazon which makes large breasts impractical. If someone were to find out what's different about that place and those people than the others, it might shed some sort of light on the question. It might at least be real data as opposed to what we have now.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: spudit on May 04, 2011, 08:31:17 am
Damned close, J Thomas, right bunch and era.

It was Desmond Morris in The Naked Ape.

Two more definite facts.

Tits are just plain great, big, small, even droopy, love em all and yes, I yam still a pig.

Oink!
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: SandySandfort on May 04, 2011, 09:17:14 am
[But men needed the sexual stimulus of seeing women's buttocks so they could have sex, and by developing big breasts women provided the appearance of big buttocks even while facing men.

I am not kidding. I don't remember the name associated with this but it may have been Jared Diamond, or Robert Ardrey. And the idea might have been lifted from Freud.

The Naked Ape, by zoologist, Desmond Morris
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 09:18:48 am
Quote
But it isn't completely universal among human women. Native women in the Amazon jungle are reputed to have deflatable breasts like the rest of the mammals. It's extremely unlikely that they spread to there before this trait developed in everybody else. More likely there is something about the Amazon which makes large breasts impractical. If someone were to find out what's different about that place and those people than the others, it might shed some sort of light on the question. It might at least be real data as opposed to what we have now.

I showed this to my wife. She said I was just channeling some sort of sexist anthropologist. "No, it's real." "Maybe they just aren't getting enough to eat. It isn't real. It's just sexist europeans who care about breast size. Everybody's breasts get bigger and smaller, it doesn't mean anything. You're just being racist."

I thought about it. Maybe it was just racist european anthropologists? They don't say that about women anywhere else. I looked at google photos. Among a gigantic pile of porn there were lots of photos of women from the amazon. A whole lot of them had normal breasts. Were they lactating? There were some adolescent girls and older women with just nipples, often standing beside women with full breasts and old women with very thin saggy breasts. I couldn't get it resolved. Was it only some amazon tribes, anyway?

I imagined anthropologists going back today to settle the issue. "We're here to study women's breast size." And they find the women are all Baptists now....

I'd accepted that story uncritically, probably because I saw it in World Book when I was a kid and they had a few photographs. Now I'm not completely sure.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on May 04, 2011, 11:00:42 am
I don't think that blind obedience to traditional values is productive. However, I think the past is a gold mine of sociological knowledge.

It's also not a goddam straitjacket.

Straw man. Nobody said it was.

Not goddam hardly any sort of "straw man" fallacy at all.  Robust among the social/traditionalist political "conservative" infestation is the tendency to evoke some sort of "Good Old Days" in aid of restoring conditions ante-whatever-in-hell-they-hate (whether or not they have objectively demonstrable good or sufficient reason for hating said whatever-in-hell might be sticking in their craw).

There's nothing wrong with seeking knowledge of past events as a guide to future action.  There's something profoundly wrong with forcing other people - by way of government fiat - into conditions which the nostalgia buff decides will restore some kind of Golden Age.  

We aren't so genetically different from those who lived in the Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia or Egypt.

Not altogether true. Those of us who directly descend from those ancient Dead White Guys are a helluva lot more resistant to a lot of infectious diseases than they were, chiefly because those among the populations of Europe in the "Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia [and] Egypt" who were genetically susceptible to such pathogens died or were otherwise rendered incapable of passing along their genes.  

Just to avoid "eurocentrism," didja ever consider the survival benefits of sickle trait?

We aren't so genetically different means we have some genetic differences. Obviously, I was speaking about genetic differences that have sociological meaning. Straw man again. I swear, you just like to throw up things to attack other people with, don't you?

Again, bullpuckey on your "straw man" yammer.  Should I have written, "for example," or didn't you catch the drift?  Genetic resistance to quickly-killing infectious diseases is a characteristic which can become prevalent in human populations fairly rapidly.  Note the European rebounds from epidemic infections with Yersina pestis and Treponema pallidum.  Response to selection pressures can and does change the prevailing genetic make-up of a population within a century or two.  

Add to that the effects of hybridization by way of exogamy, and speaking of us not being "so genetically different from those who lived in the Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia or Egypt" as to be incapable of being socioculturally (let alone praxeologically) way to hellangone different from those ancient Dead White Guys is at the same time an attempt to argue on the basis of genetic determinism and a denial of the fact that genetic drift renders the premise (not "so genetically different") damned tenuous.  

Fallacy of the single cause, too.  

Might as well argue that because our ancestors who lived in the ancient Roman Empire were genetically inclined to douse their food with fermented fish sauce - garum - we ought to be doing the same.

It can be instructive to compare societies. What worked, and why? Which societies were happiest, and which were strong and enduring? Which societies disintegrated through weakness and were held together under tyranny? And it can get PC perilous: what roles make men and women happiest?

The authoritarian assignment of "roles" to suit somebody else's ideas of what's supposed to make the assigned human being "happiest" is idiocy.  It might be well-meaning idiocy, but it's still pretty goddam dumb, don'tcha think?

Why don't you just say: "When I have the power to assign other people to the roles for which I think them best suited, I'm happy," and be done with it?
I speak of what the experience of the past might teach us about ourselves, and you try to twist that innocent message, the heart and soul of the science of Anthropology, into some sort of ... who knows ... a sociological attack? if it weren't so sad it'd be laughable.

The rest of your uttering contains much of the same irrational drivel. I weary of repeating myself, so I'll stop my analysis here.

What is this with you and the word "conservative" that has you raging mad? Why this dripping condescension in nearly every phrase, when I'm just trying to have a reasonable discussion? Is it possible for you to simply disagree and state your case without hurling insults about one's intelligence?

The coercive drive of the social/traditionalist "conservative" mindset tends reliably not only to be opposed to both individual rights (and the exercise thereof) as well as the discovery and exploitation of new resources and methods of doing things but also to a historical short-sightedness when it comes to defining whatever "Good Old Days" condition the particular "conservative" wishes to re-impose upon his fellow human beings.  

Do I need to pull from Hayek?  Well, might could be.  From "Why I Am Not a Conservative" (1960):  

"Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it – or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs."

Heck, your invocation of "Anthropology" as if the discipline was a hard science, and the findings and conclusions of the anthropologists were rigorously reasoned, without the errors of prejudice, and the perfect support for an enforced rigidity of human action is itself the very essence of irrationality.

It reads as an effort on the part of the neophobe to foreclose change.  The sine qua non of the traditionalist "conservative" mindset.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Rorschach on May 04, 2011, 12:08:41 pm
The discussion regarding breasts several years ago went like this:
In most species, breasts indicate nursing
Nursing females are not fertile nor do they pursue mate selection (unless they are on welfare and have problems with their car. Jokes aside, this is about the norm for most species.)
Human males interested in nursing human females must provide more resources for the nursing female
Human females who attracted provider human males had higher survival rates for themselves and their children.
The duration of breasts after pregnancy increased, then became automatic.
Provider males became normal

Now that's not my argument, but some anthropologist was pretty proud of himself for coming up with it. Personally I think that since women can breastfeed w/o pregnancy it is probable that women retained breasts for survival of the species and not necessarily part of the mate selection process. On the other hand, permanent breasts among human females is #1 universal #2 abnormal #3 probably due to a combination of factors.

In Denmark women are free to pursue men without social stigma, and in France the typical coy/shy  routine of US/UK isn't done. Again, separate cultural arguments from biological.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on May 04, 2011, 12:31:21 pm
But it isn't completely universal among human women. Native women in the Amazon jungle are reputed to have deflatable breasts like the rest of the mammals. It's extremely unlikely that they spread to there before this trait developed in everybody else. More likely there is something about the Amazon which makes large breasts impractical. If someone were to find out what's different about that place and those people than the others, it might shed some sort of light on the question. It might at least be real data as opposed to what we have now.

I showed this to my wife. She said I was just channeling some sort of sexist anthropologist. "No, it's real." "Maybe they just aren't getting enough to eat. It isn't real. It's just sexist europeans who care about breast size. Everybody's breasts get bigger and smaller, it doesn't mean anything. You're just being racist."

I thought about it. Maybe it was just racist european anthropologists? They don't say that about women anywhere else. I looked at google photos. Among a gigantic pile of porn there were lots of photos of women from the amazon. A whole lot of them had normal breasts. Were they lactating? There were some adolescent girls and older women with just nipples, often standing beside women with full breasts and old women with very thin saggy breasts. I couldn't get it resolved. Was it only some amazon tribes, anyway?

I recall discussing the prevalence of steatopygia (the excessive accumulation of fat in the buttocks, not uncommonly creating an almost flat "shelf" configuration) among Black females with an anatomist, who reminded me that there are strong selection pressures imposed by climate among human populations.  

In tropical and semitropical climates, ambient temperatures are such that the central adiposity commonly seen among northern Europeans (and other folk living up near the Arctic Circle) is a damned bad way to store reserve calories.  The extra insulation provided by epiploic (omental) peritoneal fat deposits as well as subcutaneous adipose tissue around the torso works to the benefit of the individual in cold climates.  In parts of the world where ambient temperatures are high all year 'round?  Not hardly.  

The human breasts are by mass mostly fatty stromal tissue.  The actual parenchymal ("working") glandular mass isn't such of a much even when a woman is lactating.  Carried outside the chest, the breasts don't impose much heat retention effect, and as they expand, there's also expansion of radiative surface area.  

The same can be said for subcutaneous fat over the buttocks.  Remember, the human body generates heat as a byproduct of metabolism, and that heat has to be shed even in cold climates.  When toasting ourselves before a roaring fire on a winter day, we're still disposing of body heat; we're just using the fire to moderate the rate at which we're doing it.

In climates where the ambient temperatures range consistently well above that of the human body, and especially in conditions of relative humidity which makes the evaporation of perspiration just about useless as a heat-shedding mechanism, a predisposition to central adiposity can be a death sentence enforced by heat prostration.  

The normal condition of species Homo sapiens through most of its history is poverty and starvation.  Neither as hunter-gatherers nor as subsistence farmers have human beings ever been sure of access to nutrition at all times.  Food storage has always been iffy, particularly in those warm climates where there's no winter freezes to knock down insect populations.  

(As a counterpoint to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, I strongly recommend David Landes' 1998 book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor.)

Storing food energy as adipose tissue has been a survival strategy in the Animal Kingdom for millions of years.  But where to put it in order to optimize the secondary benefits and mitigate the disadvantages of body fat?

In hot climates, the buttocks (and in females, the breasts) work well as reservoir sites.  Buttock adiposity - steatopygea - keeps the weight close to the center of gravity, and as with the breasts, increase in the physical bulk of subcutaneous connective tissue in the buttocks is accompanied by increase in radiative skin surface area.  

The resorption of fat cell mass from the breasts in healthy adolescent and young adult females documented so vividly by photographs taken among the Amazon populations results in the "deflatable breasts" mentioned above.  This should be surprising?  There's a physiologic cost associated with keeping that mass when it's not needed.  The adipocytes remain, but their lipid contents are depleted, ready for replenishment as circumstances dictate.  

In other human populations, where access to calories is consistently above starvation level, the physiological response to intake is to build that adipose bulk and keep it up.  

The "lesson" of a million-plus years of human existence, after all, is that starvation is always right around the corner.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: mellyrn on May 04, 2011, 12:48:32 pm
Quote
The resorption of fat cell mass from the breasts in healthy adolescent and young adult females documented so vividly by photographs taken among the Amazon populations results in the "deflatable breasts" mentioned above.

Had a friend years ago who was a personal trainer and bodybuilder.  She always said that her breasts were the first fat to be lost when she was prepping for a competition -- much to the dismay of her husband who would (semi-jokingly) complain, "Bring them back!  They're mine!"
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 02:50:44 pm

I recall discussing the prevalence of steatopygia (the excessive accumulation of fat in the buttocks, not uncommonly creating an almost flat "shelf" configuration) among Black females with an anatomist, who reminded me that there are strong selection pressures imposed by climate among human populations.  

<snip quite reasonable physiological speculation>

Everything you say makes sense to me. It all fits together reasonably. I'm not at all clear that amazonian tribeswomen often had or have trouble getting enough calories, but the only first-person account I've read about that was from a woman who lived with the Yanomamo, who are supposed to be atypical. They worked hard planting, and then they'd get attacked and scattered and they'd go somewhere else and work hard planting. They seemed to have plenty of food, maybe partly because the population stayed small.

It makes sense and the pieces mostly fit together, and yet the important parts are inferred from the parts that have some data. If somebody wanted to deny it, they could easily use the strategies that get used to deny global warming etc.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: Tucci78 on May 04, 2011, 03:13:21 pm
We ("Whaddaya mean 'we,' Kemo Sabe?") are not "wholly rational creatures" on the subject of human sexuality right now, sure.  But does this mean that we're always gonna have to be bloody irrational damned fools about this aspect of our lives?

That is the way to bet.  Women are 100% irrational about love and sex and all of that, and men not much better.

Interesting absolutely ghormlessly and cement-headedly unsupported assertion, that.  Not that I'm inclined to hold that "love and sex and all of that" are so drop-dead important that there's any real sense in the investment of much reasoned thought in one's limerences. 

The marriage contract, now, is another matter altogether.  Allocations of real and intellectual property rights, implicit and explicit powers of attorney, designation of responsibility and authority in the care of incompetent dependents - lotsa stuff there requiring forethought and lucid determinations before, during, and after the relationship exists. 

Sex?  Particularly when sexual contact is not necessarily generative of offspring (and such can be - and is - reliably prevented), sex is no more worthy of rational reflection than is a session in the sauna followed by a nice vigorous rub-down. 

More "conservative" cement-headed shortsightedness.  If the history of western civilization in particular seems to show anything, it's that radical departures from the time-tested verities are not only possible but - because such changes have produced improvements in people's material condition - they've become something of an expectation built into our (and I mean "our," no joke) sociocultural system.

The current departure from the time tested verities seems to be producing massive failure to reproduce and near fifty percent fatherlessness, which is pretty much what it produced when tried by previous civilizations.

It is also disgenic, since intelligent far sighted single women get pregnant and abort, and stupid short sighted single women get pregnant, and have kids.

The voluntary termination of pregnancy - by one practice or another - has been undertaken by human beings at least since the beginning of recorded history.  Some ways have worked better (and with less risk of injury to the woman involved) than have others, but the sentiment - "I do not want to bear this baby!" - has prevailed, almost certainly since the first human female realized that it was possible to electively rid herself of an undesired conceptus. 

Whether it's "dysgenic" or not is a matter for argument.  In conditions of material abundance - courtesy of our industrial civilization - "stupid short sighted single women" can get away with baking babies without ample familial support because the relative material prosperity produced by market facilitation of the division-of-labor economy provides them access to survival assets they wouldn't have in the more marginal conditions prevailing through most of the human species' history. 

Those "intelligent far sighted single women" of whom you speak - who don't seem to have been "intelligent" enough or "far sighted" enough to have avoided getting themselves enciente in the first place - will seek out the safest and least painful ways of dumping the contents of their uteri if abortion suits them.

With the ability to make that kind of choice unimpaired by violent aggressors meddling with them, a woman might well make the decision to expel an unwanted pregnancy for purely selfish reasons. 

Why not?  It's her body, her life.  She's the one who has to live with the consequences.  The "stupid short sighted single women" have very much the same option in most American states.  Why do they choose to bear their pregnancies to term in percentage terms greater than do the "intelligent far sighted single women" you'd like to use as human brood mares, sam?

Could it be that something other than the relative intelligence of the women involved is figuring into this "dysgenic" fixation of yours?  The way I see it, there's more of political economics coloring the decisions of these "single women" to seek abortion or to bring their pregnancies to term. 

Given government support - through all the mechanisms of socialist intervention under the guise of eleemosynary intent - the "stupid short sighted" single woman will more reliably tend to be satisfied with the curtailed opportunities of the "welfare mother" condition imposed by the politicians and the bureaucrats than will the "intelligent far sighted" female.

But what happens when the economy in which these women exist is not impaired by government action, as would be the case in the AnCap society depicted in Escape From Terra

Without either the secondary gain provided by "welfare mother" status in a socialist polity or the crippling predations of a government that imposes taxes, regulations, and other costs which deprive the individual of seven-eighths of the value of his/her productive effort (see http://tinyurl.com/3c34hh2), the "single women" with whom you concern yourself would have both less disincentive and greater ability to bear the costs of raising children themselves.

Each would make the decision for herself, and ceteris paribus it'd be those "intelligent far sighted single women" who would be most likely to engage in reproduction.  They'd have the greatest personal resources with which to make that choice. 

If a woman has sex with lots of different people, then when someone is considering marrying her, he faces the problem that she will probably feel dissatisfied, since the best male who is willing to bang her is apt to be considerably more attractive than the best male willing to stick around, hence he will be reluctant to expose his assets to her potential lawyers, reluctant to have children with her, and so forth.

Er, WTF? You might be susceptible to such insecurities, sam, but I'm not.  Neither are a helluva lot of other men who marry widows and divorcees. 

Projecting your neuroses on other folks, sam?

The massive increase in fatherlessness and massive decrease in marriage indicates men are refusing to get married, that males are in large part on strike.  It is rational for a man to marry a virgin, and a lot more rational when divorce laws favor women.  Thus a virgin shortage contributes to a husband and father shortage.

Tsk. And to what do you attribute the massive decrease in the percentage of households keeping milch cows, sam?

You observe that family law in these United States and most other Western polities penalize men for being men.  I've heard joking reference to the offense of "BWM" - "breathing while male" - but as with so many other jokes, it's got grounds in reality.  You're correct in stating that "divorce laws favor women" to the extent that they routinely impose terrible penalties upon men, not only as regards alimony but also in child custody and monetary support. 

But how the hell do "divorce laws" necessarily or preponderantly or even to any significant extent diminish the incentive to engage in the marriage contract among modern American males? 

What's that joke about how the incidence of second marriages among divorced men proves that while America is "the land of the free," it's still "the home of the brave"? 

Most American men do not engage themselves to or marry women who have had no sexual partners before encountering the males to whom they become espoused, and that's the kind of factual reality the denial of which I find so consistently among the social/traditionalist "conservative" crowd of bloody idiots. 

That female virginity before marriage should be prized as a kind of value - whether because it's a supposed guarantee that there's not a cuckoo in the nest or that the wife will be bereft of prior experience of partners the memories of whose swiving techniques impose an erection-wilting sense of inadequacy upon hubby - is neurotic in the extreme.

I'd say that the "conservative" suffers from mentally crippling unreasoned fears of personal inadequacy were it not for the fact that, upon reflection, the social/traditionalist "conservative" really is inadequate. 

He's so inadequate, in fact, that he can't figure out either the extent of his inadequacies or the reasons why he's a buncha bricks shy of the proverbial load.  All he's got is his perpetual sense of dread, and his desperate search for some irrelevancy upon which to focus his anxieties. 
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 04, 2011, 03:37:20 pm
There's nothing wrong with seeking knowledge of past events as a guide to future action.  There's something profoundly wrong with forcing other people - by way of government fiat - into conditions which the nostalgia buff decides will restore some kind of Golden Age.

The most patriarchal of them all was the early Roman Republic, and the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century in England,  before 1830, was strikingly patriarchal.  There was no noticeable government fiat interfering with people's sex lives in either of those periods.  The rule in the early Roman Republic was that the husband could execute his wife or children, not that the state would execute them for him.

Patriarchy is what you get when fathers can use violence in family matters.  Our current system is what you get when the state uses violence to interfere in family matters, as, for example, a husband getting thrown out of his home by the state at the wife's request.  When the British government started legislating on sexual matters in the Victorian period, its big concern was to prevent husbands from oppressing wives. The ideology was pretty much the same stuff as today's campus feminists obsessing about rape on campus and date rape, a pro woman position somehow manifesting as something that looked very like an anti sex position, except that there was actual patriarchy to repeal, rather than imaginary patriarchy, except that the reforms were more plausibly reforms, the guilty were more plausibly guilty.  Today's feminists, from about 1890 on, make a big effort to be pro woman and pro sex at the same time, but in practice, they are frequently anti sex.  Before 1890, they were unembarrassed about being anti sex and suposedly pro woman.  When twentieth century feminists repealed antisex laws, they were repealing the first wave of feminist anti patriarchy legislation - and replacing it with new and supposedly improved feminist anti patriarchy legislation.

Before 1830 or so, the British theory was that only a female virgin could get married.  Divorcees were fallen women and could never remarry.  Men, however, could, and did, sleep with lots of fallen women.  Since a non virgin without a husband could not have a permanent relationship, a fallen woman would necessarily sleep with a great many men over time.   The Victorians tried to substitute the rule that both bride and groom should be virgins, and post victorian feminists with the rule that neither should be virgins.  Both systems, however, Victorian and post Victorian, were efforts by the state to roll back patriarchy, interventions by the state in people's sex lives and family lives.

Where the state really did not interfere in sexual activities nor the family, we frequently got extreme patriarchy.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 03:57:48 pm

Those "intelligent far sighted single women" of whom you speak - who don't seem to have been "intelligent" enough or "far sighted" enough to have avoided getting themselves enciente in the first place - will seek out the safest and least painful ways of dumping the contents of their uteri if abortion suits them.

I hope you don't mind be breaking into this dreary discussion with another behavioral genetics JustSo story.

I remember reading a variety of arguments about how it was that human females do not visibly go into heat but have hidden fertile periods.

The arguments were all variations on the same old theme. Women (or prehuman-ancestor women) could have sex with a variety of men for material gain, and still carefully pick the best genes to actually get pregnant by. There were lots of variations on that theme, but that was the central point of all of them.

But then a female behavioral genetics speculator got involved, after all the others had been male. She asked the question, why was it that usually women couldn't themselves tell when they were fertile. After all, it does no good toward picking just the right man for the fertile time, when she doesn't know the right time herself.

And her conclusion was that in the old days, this kept women from reliably using the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy. She could have sex thinking she wouldn't get pregnant, and then after awhile she'd get pregnant after all.

And the reason for this was that evolution designed women to maximise their number of surviving grandchildren, and not to be happy. Women, given the chance, would have the number of children they preferred and then quit. They would live lives of satisfaction and fulfillment, occasionally resting and recuperating. But in reality, women would have more children than they would want to, and would utterly wear themselves out taking care of their children, working much harder than they would prefer if they had the choice. They would go right on having children until they were so busy taking care of children that they had no time for sex and had to quit getting pregnant.

I find this argument more convincing than the others, although as you point out women have had ways to do abortion for longer than we've had history and have presumably done infanticide when it was really needed for even longer.

And of course all the stories depend for their survival on the delight they produce since they are utterly without data.
Title: Re: The Pedo Bear strike
Post by: sam on May 04, 2011, 05:26:10 pm
The current departure from the time tested verities seems to be producing massive failure to reproduce and near fifty percent fatherlessness, which is pretty much what it produced when tried by previous civilizations.

It is also dysgenic, since intelligent far sighted single women get pregnant and abort, and stupid short sighted single women get pregnant, and have kids.

The voluntary termination of pregnancy - by one practice or another - has been undertaken by human beings at least since the beginning of recorded history.

In patriarchal periods, the vast majority of women could, and did, get married, and stay married.  Thus intelligent women were less apt to abort.  It was the less intelligent women, with less foresight and self control, that became “lewd women”, who could rarely get married, and so generally aborted their offspring.  (“Lewd woman” is the pre victorian term for fallen women, “Fallen woman” was in its time a politically correct euphemism, a first step towards normalizing female lack of virginity)  Thus patriarchy is eugenic, our current system dysgenic.

Whether it's "dysgenic" or not is a matter for argument.

It is question of fact.  Under our current system, intelligent women are markedly less likely to reproduce.  Just look around you!  Under the patriarchal system, stupid women were markedly less likely to reproduce.

In conditions of material abundance - courtesy of our industrial civilization - "stupid short sighted single women" can get away with baking babies without ample familial support

The pattern we see indicates that whether or not paternal investment remains critical, we are still acting as if paternal investment was critical.  Without paternal investment, fewer children.   It is a tough row to hoe, and tougher for the kids.

Those "intelligent far sighted single women" of whom you speak - who don't seem to have been "intelligent" enough or "far sighted" enough to have avoided getting themselves enciente in the first place

Every woman thinks she is not going to get pregnant and does not need to take the pill because she is going to make the guy wear condoms, but they seldom do if the guy does not want the condom.  It is like dieting.  You think you are going to diet, but you don't.  You think you are following a diet, but you are not.  And women think they make men wear condoms but they don't.

If a woman has sex with lots of different people, then when someone is considering marrying her, he faces the problem that she will probably feel dissatisfied, since the best male who is willing to bang her is apt to be considerably more attractive than the best male willing to stick around, hence he will be reluctant to expose his assets to her potential lawyers, reluctant to have children with her, and so forth.

Er, WTF? You might be susceptible to such insecurities, sam, but I'm not.  Neither are a helluva lot of other men who marry widows and divorcees.  

Projecting your neuroses on other folks, sam?

The massive increase in fatherlessness and massive decrease in marriage indicates men are refusing to get married, that males are in large part on strike.  It is rational for a man to marry a virgin, and a lot more rational when divorce laws favor women.  Thus a virgin shortage contributes to a husband and father shortage.