Big Head Press Forum

General => Talk Amongst Y'selves => Topic started by: customdesigned on March 24, 2012, 07:11:50 pm

Title: Life imitates art
Post by: customdesigned on March 24, 2012, 07:11:50 pm
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/20/2703918/lawyer-girl-on-phone-with-trayvon.html

I was reminded of Emily shooting a man under mistaken assumptions.  Unfortunately, no Autodoc was around in real life.  The media is trying to make the above story into a "hate" crime (as if murder doesn't always involve hate).  But to me it is clearly manslaughter - with a high, possibly criminal, level of negligence: he was under no immediate threat, and said "they always get away" implying he wasn't going to let this one get away.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: customdesigned on April 02, 2012, 11:11:58 am
Ok, so the left wing press left out important eyewitness accounts (not to mention running old photos so people can't see what the guy actually looked like now), and it looks a lot less like Emily's story.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: dough560 on April 02, 2012, 12:12:01 pm
I had that lesson repeated time and time again, in a large percentage of the crimes I investigated,  The case facts did not match appearances.  Especially in defense situations.

Suggest this post move to Talk Among Ourselves.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 03, 2012, 01:43:11 am
You instigated crimes? :o :o :o
 ;)
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: dough560 on April 04, 2012, 09:53:06 am
Stuff happens, then you get a farm boy like me poking through the results.  Dealing with the Good, Bad and Ugly.  Face to face exposure to our current body of law and the legal system, made me a libertarian.  The screwed up mess we deal with wasn't in any of the founder's worst nightmares.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: dough560 on April 04, 2012, 10:00:24 am
Working thirds for the last two months straight and writing when tired.  Perfect example of "Stuff".  So much for Proof Reading.  Thanks for the catch. 
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: macsnafu on April 04, 2012, 10:24:06 am
Working thirds for the last two months straight and writing when tired.  Perfect example of "Stuff".  So much for Proof Reading.  Thanks for the catch. 

Oh, we're quite ready to believe that you are an instigator, and not an investigator!

 ;D
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 04, 2012, 01:53:42 pm
I don't envy having to clean up the effluvia of modern society...
Talked to an ER doc once... stuff he told me makes a Saw movie sound like a boyscout jamboree.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: wdg3rd on April 04, 2012, 05:33:45 pm
I've been known to instigate a few crimes.  None of those crimes involved violation of the Zero Aggression Principle.  Obviously I lack a certain amount of respect for the governments which declare such activities criminal.  Equally obviously I do not share details on open forums, as there are those who like to prosecute individuals who show such lack of respect.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: customdesigned on April 06, 2012, 09:34:34 am
I've been known to instigate a few crimes.  None of those crimes involved violation of the Zero Aggression Principle.  Obviously I lack a certain amount of respect for the governments which declare such activities criminal.  Equally obviously I do not share details on open forums, as there are those who like to prosecute individuals who show such lack of respect.

Every single person in the US has instigated crimes - most without knowing it.  The criminal code has grown like kudzu to cover ever aspect of ordinary life.  If someone wants to put you in jail, it is just a matter of research to discover what "crimes" you have committed, and a bribe for a public prosecutor.  There is a sort of cosmic justice to this, because most of these ill advised laws were written in response to public outrage and demands that Congress "do something" about some flagrant violation of existing laws (e.g. Enron, illegal campaign donations, "hate" crimes).  I keep asking people how adding more criminal laws is going to help enforce existing laws, but I only get the equivalent of "there ought'a be a law" in response.  They just don't get that there already is a law, and surprise, somebody broke it, and even though they got caught and prosecuted, surprise, people got hurt.   

This site tries to educate the public on overcriminalization: http://www.overcriminalized.com/
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: NotDebonair on April 17, 2012, 08:34:28 am
I have spent enough time with police officers to have lost count of the number of times I have heard one say how easy it is to legally stop any car.  They all give a variation of, "It's not possible to drive ten minutes without committing some sort of violation, just follow them and wait."
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Killydd on April 17, 2012, 12:15:17 pm
Fun story with that:  I was driving, and had forgotten to turn on my headlights, or rather the switch had only turned far enough to turn the running lights on and not the headlights.  I couldn't tell because it was so bright out with all of the streetlights.  I was pulled over, my nerves at this were so bad that the cop decided I was under the influence, but not of alcohol, because that he could have tested right there.  Instead he gave me the choice of being hauled into the station for drug testing, or just driving me home.  I was completely sober at the time, of course.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 17, 2012, 06:30:58 pm
There is a sort of cosmic justice to this, because most of these ill advised laws were written in response to public outrage and demands that Congress "do something" about some flagrant violation of existing laws (e.g. Enron, illegal campaign donations, "hate" crimes).

In the Enron case, Enron issued obscure and cryptic, but technically truthful accounts, which supposedly showed that the company was making lots of money.  This enabled the company to buy stuff with promises to pay later, and sell stuff cash in advance.  A lot of people were puzzled.  How was Enron making money?

A bunch of accountancy students went over Enron's accounts with a fine tooth comb, and discovered that Enron was not making money.  It was losing money hand over fist.

Word got around, and people selling stuff to Enron started demanding cash on the barrelhead, which of course Enron could not pay, and people buying stuff from Enron started demanding that they see their stuff before they paid for it, and of course Enron could not show them their stuff.

Pretty soon the paychecks bounced, people stopped turning up for work.  The landlord of their offices tossed their stuff.  Enron ceased to be.  Capitalism 101, everything worked the way it was supposed to, except that their books were cryptic, misleading, and opaque.

So the government passed a law, Sarbannes-Oxley, supposedly banning accounts from being cryptic, misleading, and opaque.

But it was, of course, entirely impossible to comply with Sarbannes-Oxley.  What people had to do instead was hire accountancy firms sufficiently important and well connected that whatever they did was deemed compliance with Sarbannes-Oxley.

The left, starting with Rousseau, have always been fundamentally hostile to civilization, all of it, lock stock and barrel.  Thus with  Sarbannes-Oxley the modern left did to double entry accounting, what the Occupy movement did to poop control.  Sarbannes-Oxley, no less than modern university courses, is part of the left’s war on western civilization and modern technology.

If Enron's accounts were opaque, Sarbannes-Oxley accounts are irrelevant, reflecting official reality without regard to observable reality.

In the present crisis, a lot of strange accounting has come to light, strange accounting often curiously similar to that conducted by Enron – but due in part to Sarbannes-Oxley, only came to light after numerous financial institutions bit the dust, whereas before Sarbannes Oxley, it came to light before Enron bit the dust, and caused Enron to bite the dust.

The way real accounting works is that accountants ask people who actually operate the company where money and valuables are, and what was done with past money and valuables, what happened to the previous years money and valuables, and do some spot checks to make sure that the money and valuables reported to be there actually are there.

Theoretically this also happens in Sarbannes-Oxley but in practice it is is apt to be the other way around.  Instead of listening, the godlike accountants tell people, and rather than the accounts reflecting reality, reality is supposed to be adjusted to reflect the accounts, much as peer review results in the scientific community telling the experimenter what he observed, instead of the experimenter telling the scientific community what he observed.

By examining Enron’s accounts carefully and cynically, people could, and did, discover that Enron was deeply in debt and losing money hand over fist, and was therefore unlikely to be able to pay for goods it had purchased, nor supply goods it had been paid for.  There was no way that someone examining MF Global’s accounts could tell that MF Global had already pissed away its client’s money on European welfare bums.  That is the difference that Sarbannes-Oxley made.

Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 18, 2012, 02:16:09 am
What is Western Civilization defined as, may I ask?
I just a while ago had a conversation with a couple of neonazi apologists trying to sell that arabs invaded Europe first.
Then I pointed them at Rome and Greece.
And then first they tried to claim that Rome wasn't Europe, only the Franks were. Despite that Rome created Europe from flotsam, and the Franks only managed to put it back together again.
I called BS and pointed them at Charlemagne, king of the Franks and EMPEROR OF THE ROMANS.
Then they tried fibbing by saying that Darius I was before that.
I then pointed out that Darius was not an arab, and they tried to make like the Persians were to the middle east what Rome was to Europe, which is entirely ridiculous.

Anyway, after that pile of intellectual dishonesty I am very averse to all mention of "western civilization". It seems the term is being abused in obnoxious ways, and I call BS on the term from now on.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: macsnafu on April 18, 2012, 10:44:22 am
[By examining Enron’s accounts carefully and cynically, people could, and did, discover that Enron was deeply in debt and losing money hand over fist, and was therefore unlikely to be able to pay for goods it had purchased, nor supply goods it had been paid for.  There was no way that someone examining MF Global’s accounts could tell that MF Global had already pissed away its client’s money on European welfare bums.  That is the difference that Sarbannes-Oxley made.

Intentionally or not, government regulations tend to protect the companies, not the public.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Killydd on April 18, 2012, 11:13:09 am
[By examining Enron’s accounts carefully and cynically, people could, and did, discover that Enron was deeply in debt and losing money hand over fist, and was therefore unlikely to be able to pay for goods it had purchased, nor supply goods it had been paid for.  There was no way that someone examining MF Global’s accounts could tell that MF Global had already pissed away its client’s money on European welfare bums.  That is the difference that Sarbannes-Oxley made.

Intentionally or not, government regulations tend to protect the companies, not the public.

Sad but true.  And unfortunately, it tends to be intentional, because the companies have the money to throw around to influence what goes into the actual, obscure text of the laws. 
What is Western Civilization defined as, may I ask?
I just a while ago had a conversation with a couple of neonazi apologists trying to sell that arabs invaded Europe first.
Then I pointed them at Rome and Greece.
And then first they tried to claim that Rome wasn't Europe, only the Franks were. Despite that Rome created Europe from flotsam, and the Franks only managed to put it back together again.
I called BS and pointed them at Charlemagne, king of the Franks and EMPEROR OF THE ROMANS.
Then they tried fibbing by saying that Darius I was before that.
I then pointed out that Darius was not an arab, and they tried to make like the Persians were to the middle east what Rome was to Europe, which is entirely ridiculous.

Anyway, after that pile of intellectual dishonesty I am very averse to all mention of "western civilization". It seems the term is being abused in obnoxious ways, and I call BS on the term from now on.

Culture is fluid, of necessity.  However, I'll attempt to sum up my view of it at least:  Personal freedom, tolerance, and equality of opportunity.  500 years ago these were certainly the opinions of a radical left.  A thousand years ago they were practically unheard of.  I am curious what other people here think that it might be though, where opinions converge and differ.  Also note that this is not saying that other cultures do not espouse these beliefs, but that some might not be shared, and others may be imposed upon them.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 18, 2012, 02:42:35 pm
See, that's what I thought as well. :-\
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Cam on April 19, 2012, 07:05:14 am
On the original topic of the thread: It seems that the media *manufactured* certain "evidence" that made the shooter to be the bad guy and kid to be the good guy.


On the topic of Enron: Enron cooked the books in that they used a loophole in the laws that allowed them to use future expected profits as part of their P&L. It all fell apart when the future profits did not materialise and suddenly, they were far, far, far in the red. However, what they did was *legal*. They got Enron's directors and Arthur Anderson (the accounting firm) on other charges.


On the topic of western civilisation: What happened in the past doesn't really matter. What matters is what it is now. Western civilisation today is used to describe the ideas of personal freedom, democracy and, yes, hard left socialism and downright communism disguised as the greenie movement. Basically, if a nation is predominantly "white" (barring South America, that is) it is part of the western civilisation. So, Europe, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

However, one thing to note about western civilisation is that the values espoused by western civilisation (i.e., democracy and the like) is *not* the best thing for everyone. There are certain cultures that would not be able to accept such freedoms. The islamic nations in Africa and the Middle East, for example. Forcing democracy on them is a very big mistake. They simply do not have the centuries of philosophy behind the ideals of democracy to be able to appreciate the freedoms it brings. The end result is always a strong arm faction rising and dominating the others. That Africa is a mess of warring factions is by no means a coincidence. The Middle East would be too, if it weren't for the meddling of western powers in the region. Even with the meddling, wars are frequent as heck there. There must have been at least 9 wars in the region since 1945, with Israel, the only true democracy in the region, involved in more than half of them, generally in a defensive capacity.

The one true hope, surprisingly, is Iran, and that is because Iran has a population that is far more educated than the rest of the Middle East. There are undercurrents of discontent and a yearning for democracy there that must be giving the Ayatollahs nightmares.

Education is the key to democracy. Unfortunately, as many have noted, the current trend in western education is downwards towards a level of education that is more inclined to indoctrination than actual education. As a result, there has been a corresponding decrease in the freedoms and democracy in western civilisation. We have been giving away our freedoms piece by piece for decades, under the guise of all sorts of global leftwing activism. Eradicating poverty, eradicating hunger, the anti-sweatshop movement, etc. The greenie cause is but the latest in a long line of such insidious advocacy. Don't believe me? Google 0.7% of GDP and the UN. The recent demand from the UN for 0.7% of our GDP for the green cause is not new. That number has been around for decades, each time being knocked back by the member nations.

Be very careful the next time someone asks you to join a cause for the greater good. The results are rarely for the greater good of the people, but rather merely the egos of the individuals involved.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 19, 2012, 03:19:28 pm
What is Western Civilization defined as, may I ask?

The current incarnation of western civilization is Europe and the lands settled by Europeans.  Europe is the lands of the former Holy Roman Empire,  (Which famously, was not holy, not Roman, and not an empire) and lands settled by inhabitants of the former holy Roman Empire.

Europe, and thus today's western civilization, is the lands united and protected against Islam by the institutions of Charles the Hammer and Charles the Great, the institutions that became the Holy Roman Empire.

Islam was in the process of conquering the West, conquering the lands of the Roman empire.  Charles the hammer stopped them.  He subjugated the Church to the state, (hence not holy) and instituted what became feudalism in order to raise a permanent well trained army  (hence not an empire, more a franchise loosely uniting numerous bandits and gangs).  His grandson, Charles the Great, was crowned the first Holy Roman Emperor (despite having no actual connection to Rome, hence not Roman) .

The west originally had a common civilization and culture, that of the Roman Empire, whose culture they inherited from the Greeks that they conquered.  This became corrupt, decadent, collapsed, and was invaded and conquered, Charles the hammer being one of the more vigorous conquerors.

A degree of political and cultural unity was restored by Charles the Hammer and Charles the Great, in the course of defending these lands from Muslims.  Charles and his men stole the land before the Muslims tried to steal it.

Europe was born, became Europe, in collective self defense against Islamic invasion, in the invaders federating under Charles to defend what they had quite recently acquired.  War with Islam continued, and continues to this day.



Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 19, 2012, 03:22:11 pm
You must have been reading some very involved stuff, because I see valid premises and developments in what you say, but your conclusion is on par with that electrical universe stuff, completely opaque.
If you want people to understand what you mean, you may have to explain in greater detail.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 19, 2012, 03:38:56 pm
Enron cooked the books in that they used a loophole in the laws that allowed them to use future expected profits as part of their P&L. It all fell apart when the future profits did not materialise and suddenly, they were far, far, far in the red. However, what they did was *legal*.

Legality is irrelevant.  It is not the job of the state to shut down companies like Enron. What ended Enron was the market:  People stopped buying from them, because they wanted cash in advance, people stopped selling to them, because they did not want to pay immediately, people stopped showing up for work, because the paychecks bounced, and the landlord tossed their stuff.

What Enron did should be legal.  It should, however, not be believed by investors, creditors, and landlords.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 19, 2012, 03:57:55 pm
Culture is fluid, of necessity.  However, I'll attempt to sum up my view of it at least:  Personal freedom, tolerance, and equality of opportunity.  500 years ago these were certainly the opinions of a radical left.

The Puritans were the original left, and the puritans wanted equality of opportunity.  However, just like the modern left, they were entirely opposed to personal freedom and severely intolerant.  Personal freedom and tolerance was introduced in or shortly after the restoration of Charles the Second, when General Monk purged the left (anyone insufficiently royalist, which tended to be anyone excessively puritan) from governmental and quasi governmental institutions.  People celebrated the restoration by celebrating pagan festivals, such as the maypole dance and the pre christian elements of christmas.  Science came out of hiding, as the Invisible College became the Royal Society, and adopted the motto "Take no one's word for it", and women were allowed on stage.

The modern era of tolerance was also the modern era of science, and both began in the royalist restoration, in a right wing purge by a right wing general given legitimacy by a divine right monarch.

The left, from its very beginnings in the Puritan revolution, was intolerant of freedom of expression.  They then wanted to make everyone speak, act, and think puritan, as they today want make everyone speak, act, and think politically correctly.  The themes of the modern left are still largely the themes of the original puritans, from the war on Christmas to hostility to the "exploitation" of women.

Ever since the puritans, the left has been endlessly raising the age of consent, expanding the definition of rape, and removing the rights of those accused of rape.  It is the left, not the right that tells scientists what scientific views are poltiically acceptable.  The Christian right does not prevent evolutionists from publishing, but the left prevents darwinists from publishing.  It is dangerous for your career to doubt that species are well defined or biologically significant, and the closer the species is to human the more dangerous it is to doubt, even though the fluidity and undefinability of species is fundamental to Darwinism.

If species in nature corresponded accurately to scientific species concepts, if one could objectively say that these closely related kinds are two separate but closely related species, and this other two closely related kinds are two races of the same species, then it would be difficult or rare for one species to become two, for a species to change into another species.  If Darwinism is true, then species are continually in the process of change, which means they are continually in the process of one species becoming many, which means it is usually impossible to say whether a group of related kinds are one species of several races, or several closely related species.  But if you write papers from the point of view that species are fluid and inherently ill defined, you are apt to get in big trouble, and the closer the species is to human, the more trouble you will get in.  Foraminifera are OK, sticklebacks are barely OK, if that.  Anything warm blooded, you had better stick to chanting the politically correct hallelujah chorus.

Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Cam on April 20, 2012, 01:45:28 am
Legality is irrelevant.  It is not the job of the state to shut down companies like Enron. What ended Enron was the market:  People stopped buying from them, because they wanted cash in advance, people stopped selling to them, because they did not want to pay immediately, people stopped showing up for work, because the paychecks bounced, and the landlord tossed their stuff.

What Enron did should be legal.  It should, however, not be believed by investors, creditors, and landlords.

What Enron did was legal. However, it was also deceitful. By using future profits to pad the numbers, they are not disclosing real and concrete information. The whole premise of stocks depends on trust and good information. If people start believing that all information is bad, then no one who invest in companies and the whole economy will fall apart.

It should not have been legal, and now, it isn't. The Enron case is used as a classic case to showcase the weakness of a rules based accounting system in favour of a principles based one, where intent is also taken into account. Under a principles based accounting, what the Enron people did would be classified as fraud as they did have the intention to deceive the public. This is the essence behind the Sarbonne-Oxley Act (SOX).

I would never buy the line about legality being irrelevant. We no longer have the right to shoot people we disagree with, and nor should we. If legality is irrelevant, the authors of this webcomic would already be dead from lead poisoning delivered directly to the brain. We all know how violent, vicious, hateful, zealous and aggressive the socialist/commies are. Without the laws to hold them back, the more passive conservatives would be put to the sword before they could blink.

Even on Ceres there are de facto laws in place. The arc with that girl who mistakenly shot the farmer is proof of this. Human societies require boundaries. That is a fact of nature. This is one of the problems that I have alluded to before in another thread. To use a quote from a movie: "A person is smart. People are dumb panicky animals and you know it." Another quote says, "World peace will be achieved when everyone minds their own business." Ceres' society would only work when everyone have learnt to mind their own business. So long as people don't learn that, they will always be the dumb panicky animals that fell out of the trees.

My view is that there will always be a significant proportion of the human race who falls into that dumb fool category. That is why boundaries will always be needed. We call those boundaries "laws".

What we should be doing is to have as few laws as possible. We should not have judges making up legislation on the spot without consulation with the people (as most judges do these days due to something called "common law"). Once prime example is that stupid woman who decided to feed her crotch McDonald's hot coffee and won her lawsuit. That imbecile judge who upheld her case basically created a law on the spot, basically saying that there IS a standard for hot coffee and that all coffee outlets had to adhere to that standard or be punished.

Anything that sets a precedent should be examined closely.

Should Enron's case be above the law? No. There was a clear intent to defraud. In that, the directors of the company are no worse than two bit conmen from Nigeria. Unless you are advocating that the shareholders lynch them, then there needs to be something in place to punish them for their transgression against society's values. That something is the law.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 20, 2012, 03:45:44 am
I think we need to discern the agreements of the upstanding populace on what goes and does not go, i.e. the law, from the bureaucratic babysitting which has come to be called the Government.
I think the people will have to govern* the land, and govern it quite strongly, to avoid continuous skirmishing between various groupings. If there is a perception that "we can have that if we grab it and hold on to it", then there will be grabbing. So there needs to be a clear ruling that "no way will you be allowed to hold on to anything you've grabbed".

Look at Israel, they have the potential to be a good and proper nation, but they also have this idea that they'd like to hold on to stuff they've grabbed, and since they think they'll probably get away with it, they just *can't* help themselves. They will keep building illegal walls and settlements until they are told, very strongly, that they will never be allowed to keep it. They will just keep democratically deciding to do evil, because it is an evil that is not punished and may pay off.

- However: this requirement for governing the land does not entail a requirement for a bureaucratic babysitter organization which will eventually gather more power to itself than it is warranted, since accomplishing the given task is easier with overkill than with minimal necessary power.

I wonder if this is getting too far afield? Maybe it can be bonsai'd to Talk amongst yerselves?

*Look to elsewhere (http://forum.bigheadpress.com/index.php?topic=697.msg18612#msg18612) for my definition of "govern".
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 20, 2012, 04:43:03 am
The Puritans were the original left...

No. The humanist movement that is part and parcel of western civilization and the left, has never been well viewed within the whacko-religious movement. Your trying to tie these together makes your whole thing an obvious spin. Spin goes straight out the window.

...the left has been endlessly raising the age of consent, expanding the definition of rape, and removing the rights of those accused of rape.
And what do you feel is the age at which a person is mentally mature enough to be considered capable of sexual consent? Most places have that as 15, as a strong suggestion that youth wait at least this long. Do you want to date 14 year olds? 13-year olds? 12-year olds? I don't see how this is any kind of relevant, and I have big trouble seeing how this is a major issue of any kind. A person is between 13 and 15 for two years, and can expect to live for an average of 70, so the issue is of concern for only 1,5% of the lifespan. That's not major, and I have to wonder why you bring it up.


. It is the left, not the right that tells scientists what scientific views are poltiically acceptable.  The Christian right does not prevent evolutionists from publishing, but the left prevents darwinists from publishing.  It is dangerous for your career to doubt that species are well defined or biologically significant, and the closer the species is to human the more dangerous it is to doubt, even though the fluidity and undefinability of species is fundamental to Darwinism.
Science has no power to prevent whackos from publishing, and no interest to do so. But our Corporate and Religious Overlords would love nothing better than to dumb everybody down, and the pro-reason movement knows that the Overlords have more money, so of course they combine forces. The whole evolution/creationism debate only exists because the Overlords would like to reintroduce the dark ages, and the majority of the people still capable of rational thought would rather not have that happen. Of course, the overlords are responding by torpedoing public schooling with various ridiculous initiatives from both "left" and "right" (both parties are in their pockets), knowing that if they can just dumb people down in other ways, they'll eventually be too dumb to resist anymore. The Rex Mundi is nothing if not farsighted.

If species in nature corresponded accurately to scientific species concepts, if one could objectively say that these closely related kinds are two separate but closely related species, and this other two closely related kinds are two races of the same species, then it would be difficult or rare for one species to become two, for a species to change into another species.  If Darwinism is true, then species are continually in the process of change, which means they are continually in the process of one species becoming many, which means it is usually impossible to say whether a group of related kinds are one species of several races, or several closely related species.  But if you write papers from the point of view that species are fluid and inherently ill defined, you are apt to get in big trouble, and the closer the species is to human, the more trouble you will get in.  Foraminifera are OK, sticklebacks are barely OK, if that.  Anything warm blooded, you had better stick to chanting the politically correct hallelujah chorus.
That is a very good way to show just why the anti-evolution lobby is completely worthless.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: mellyrn on April 20, 2012, 08:18:10 am
Quote
And what do you feel is the age at which a person is mentally mature enough to be considered capable of sexual consent? Most places have that as 15, as a strong suggestion that youth wait at least this long. Do you want to date 14 year olds? 13-year olds? 12-year olds? I don't see how this is any kind of relevant, and I have big trouble seeing how this is a major issue of any kind. A person is between 13 and 15 for two years, and can expect to live for an average of 70, so the issue is of concern for only 1,5% of the lifespan. That's not major, and I have to wonder why you bring it up.

Don't know what sam wants, but for myself, not wanting to date anyone, I can't help but notice that our culture is, well, not sane about sex.  On the one hand, it's the be-all and end-all, the ultimate goodie that is used to help sell everything from sexy cars to floor wax (nobody uses, say, cars to sell people on sex); on the other, it's something so terrible that, while parents are allowed to decide whether to take their kids to a movie that is two hours of gratuitous torture, death & bloodshed, they are knee-jerk denied similar discretion to show kids a movie that has even one loving, appropriate, consensual f*cking.  That may be normal, but it ain't sane. 

But we are sexual beings all along; it's our nature.  Little kids "play doctor" because they don't have -- are not allowed to have -- accurate labels for how they feel.  Given the sexual insanity of this culture, I'm content to let your opening question stand; I could participate in a discussion of "just how old" -- though, frankly, given the degree of insanity, I don't think anyone is "old" enough.  But I do think that a sexually-sane culture would not even understand the question.

As an alternative, I invite you to wonder how a culture (sexually sane or not) that did not reckon years at all would decide the matter.  Menarche is an obvious time for girls to be received into womanhood via some ritual or another.  For me, that would have been 11.  If whatever the initiation was, was culturally approved, then I would come out the other side feeling like a proper member of my culture, yes?

If I were tasked with sex ed, I'd point out our culture's peculiar ambivalence.  I'd tell the kid to figure out who he wanted to be, what kind of a person, and to figure out for himself (talk to the people you admire, kid) what he thinks sex means and how it fits with that self-image.  I'd also tell him (yes, or her  :P ) that going through the physical gestures of extreme intimacy will help generate emotional feelings of extreme intimacy, which will feel like love, and even if he (or she) can tell the difference, the sexual partner may not -- and you have a responsibility to your partners unless you're a complete jerk.  Get all that sorted out, kid, and go knock yourself out.

How old would a person have to be to understand that (mind you, the full talk would include real learning about the interrelationship of bodily gestures and mental and/or emotional states, of all kinds, so it wouldn't be just this little summary here)?

Yep, probably too far afield.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Cam on April 20, 2012, 11:01:42 am
Don't know what sam wants, but for myself, not wanting to date anyone, I can't help but notice that our culture is, well, not sane about sex.  On the one hand, it's the be-all and end-all, the ultimate goodie that is used to help sell everything from sexy cars to floor wax (nobody uses, say, cars to sell people on sex); on the other, it's something so terrible that, while parents are allowed to decide whether to take their kids to a movie that is two hours of gratuitous torture, death & bloodshed, they are knee-jerk denied similar discretion to show kids a movie that has even one loving, appropriate, consensual f*cking.  That may be normal, but it ain't sane. 

But we are sexual beings all along; it's our nature.  Little kids "play doctor" because they don't have -- are not allowed to have -- accurate labels for how they feel.  Given the sexual insanity of this culture, I'm content to let your opening question stand; I could participate in a discussion of "just how old" -- though, frankly, given the degree of insanity, I don't think anyone is "old" enough.  But I do think that a sexually-sane culture would not even understand the question.

As an alternative, I invite you to wonder how a culture (sexually sane or not) that did not reckon years at all would decide the matter.  Menarche is an obvious time for girls to be received into womanhood via some ritual or another.  For me, that would have been 11.  If whatever the initiation was, was culturally approved, then I would come out the other side feeling like a proper member of my culture, yes?

If I were tasked with sex ed, I'd point out our culture's peculiar ambivalence.  I'd tell the kid to figure out who he wanted to be, what kind of a person, and to figure out for himself (talk to the people you admire, kid) what he thinks sex means and how it fits with that self-image.  I'd also tell him (yes, or her  :P ) that going through the physical gestures of extreme intimacy will help generate emotional feelings of extreme intimacy, which will feel like love, and even if he (or she) can tell the difference, the sexual partner may not -- and you have a responsibility to your partners unless you're a complete jerk.  Get all that sorted out, kid, and go knock yourself out.

How old would a person have to be to understand that (mind you, the full talk would include real learning about the interrelationship of bodily gestures and mental and/or emotional states, of all kinds, so it wouldn't be just this little summary here)?

Yep, probably too far afield.

I think you will find that a lot of this (for western civilisation, at least) can be laid at the feet of the wave of puritanism that swept through Europe back in the medieval period. Sex became a dirty thing, and it still prevades our thought processes. I believe that the ancient Greeks and Romans didn't have many of those hang-ups.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 20, 2012, 03:45:53 pm
I think you will find that a lot of this (for western civilisation, at least) can be laid at the feet of the wave of puritanism that swept through Europe back in the medieval period. Sex became a dirty thing, and it still prevades our thought processes. I believe that the ancient Greeks and Romans didn't have many of those hang-ups.
True. The Greeks didn't know guilt, only shame. And sex certainly wasn't shameful.
As for the Romans, they got there in the end, but if you read the great roman poet Catullus, you'll see that, no, they didn't have many of those hang-ups at all. They also didn't have hang-ups about homosexual relations, as Catullus will testify, although he does go on at length about who buggers who, and how Caesar was the buggerest of the buggers. But all in latin verse. ;D

About when the age of consent is, I think it's important to remember that it's not really the point of it to deal with couples of same or similar age. It's more the point of it to protect against predation by elders who by force of authority or glibness of tongue may persuade young people into relations they may not be mentally equipped to handle. Now it might be that a 15-year old is still at risk for that, but ceteris paribus less than 13-year olds would be. Considering that the limit is also fitted so as to not force too many teens into breaking the law due to natural drives (and consenting partners of like age), 15 seems a good compromise. Younger and the pedophiles are give too free a reign, higher and too natural couplings will be put on the "illegal" side. Of course, this is all also subject to culture. In some cultures shit happens and kids grow up fast. In others, kids might grow up slower.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: dough560 on April 20, 2012, 06:07:14 pm
Then you get incidents like a 14 year old boy and 12 year old girl getting caught having consensual sex.  The boy is being charged with statutory rape.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 21, 2012, 01:12:26 am
What Enron did should be legal.  It should, however, not be believed by investors, creditors, and landlords.

What Enron did was legal. However, it was also deceitful. By using future profits to pad the numbers, they are not disclosing real and concrete information. The whole premise of stocks depends on trust and good information. If people start believing that all information is bad, then no one who invest in companies and the whole economy will fall apart.

It should not have been legal, and now, it isn't.


Really?  Why then are the accountants of MF Global, Bank America, Countrywide Bank, AIG, Washington Mutual, Fannie and Freddie not in jail?

Their accounts were a lot more lies that Enron's were. 

Enron was spinning the truth, which you can never really forbid.  The accounts of MF Global were just plain lies.  The accounts of MF Global were official truth, and Sarbannes-Oxley forbids mere reality from having any potentially inconvenient connection to official truth.

To prevent people from spinning the truth, the state mandated that every one stick to official reality, cutting the connection between accounting and tangible observable reality.

Under a principles based accounting, what the Enron people did would be classified as fraud as they did have the intention to deceive the public. This is the essence behind the Sarbonne-Oxley Act (SOX).

MF Global.  MF Global.  MF Global.  MF Global.

Why is what MF Global and the rest of them did now legal?  It would certainly have been entirely illegal back in Enron days.

Should Enron's case be above the law? No. There was a clear intent to defraud.

The directors of Enron were spinning the truth in their favor, not lying outright. They published all the necessary information to discover the real truth in their accounts, in obscure and obfuscated form, in the fine print.

In contrast, MF Global, Washington Mutual, and the rest totally lied about their financial condition, and completely withheld the necessary information needed to discover what was actually happening, and this behavior was completely legal, indeed mandatory, under Sarbannes-Oxley, which commands lies and forbids truth.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 21, 2012, 01:49:27 am
The Puritans were the original left...

No. The humanist movement that is part and parcel of western civilization and the left, has never been well viewed within the whacko-religious movement.

Until 1940 or thereabouts, leftists were apt to call themselves Evangelicals, protestants, and so forth.  Google "Exeter Hall" (https://www.google.com/search?q="exeter+hall"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t) or "super protestant" (https://www.google.com/search?q="super+protestant"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t).  Before 1940 the English speaking left dressed themselves in religious clothing, and if you go back far enough, before 1830-1860, they were not just dressing themselves in religious clothing, but were plausibly sincere in so doing.  The English speaking left was explicitly protestant, or puritan, or evangelical, or some such, the right cynical, Roman Catholic, pagan, or some such.

The left accepted evolution even before Darwin, but they hated natural selection then, all the way back to 1860, and they hate it now.  They hated Christmas then, all the way back to 1650 , and they hate Christmas now.  They hated men having sexual pleasure then, all the way back to 1650, and they hate men having sexual pleasure now.

...the left has been endlessly raising the age of consent, expanding the definition of rape, and removing the rights of those accused of rape.
And what do you feel is the age at which a person is mentally mature enough to be considered capable of sexual consent?

Your use of the word "person" betrays the puritan viewpoint.  Obviously women are sexually mature at a considerably earlier age than men, blacks at a considerably earlier age than whites, and one individual is apt to mature a lot faster or slower than someone else even of the same sex and race.  The puritans, however, held that the soul was what mattered, and all souls are alike in the eyes of God, hence introduced a fixed, and high, age of consent, without regard to parental authority.

If, however, we instead suppose that sexual activity should be regulated according to biological reality (a position that left has rejected all the way back to 1650) women should have sex and get married when they are biologically capable of conceiving and raising a baby, typically about age fourteen for white women (both today and in 1650 despite claims that the age of puberty has been falling), and men should have sex and get married when they are socioeconomically capable of being a father and supporting a child - socioeconomic adulthood, typically twenty one or so.

However, it is acceptable for boys and girls to engage in recreational sex and play sex at considerably earlier ages, nine or so for girls, and as soon as they can get it up for boys, provided of course that such activities do not subvert parental authority, as they are apt to do.   This should be regulated by patriarchal authority over women, not the state.  Girls of reproductive age, whatever age that might be in the particular case, should be free to marry any man plausibly capable of performing the duties of a husband.  Unmarried girls economically dependent on their parents should be subject to paternal authority in sexual matters, and males of any age should be free to screw any girl that will have them and is permitted to have them, including older women.

Most places have that as 15, as a strong suggestion that youth wait at least this long.

This is due to world left wing dominance - it is a policy that is being imposed world wide on cultures that traditionally have very different customs.  Often they pretend to pass the law, but do not in fact enforce it, as for example France.

. It is the left, not the right that tells scientists what scientific views are poltiically acceptable.  The Christian right does not prevent evolutionists from publishing, but the left prevents darwinists from publishing.  It is dangerous for your career to doubt that species are well defined or biologically significant, and the closer the species is to human the more dangerous it is to doubt, even though the fluidity and undefinability of species is fundamental to Darwinism.
Science has no power to prevent whackos from publishing,

The state dresses itself in the robes of science, and prevents heretics from publishing, as was revealed in the Climategate files.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: ex-Gooserider on April 21, 2012, 03:46:16 am
Actually sources I've heard mentioned claim that typical female age of puberty during the "dark ages", and even including the early American colony days was between 16 and 19, with the major variables being climate and dietary...  This is supposed to be coming from the records of midwives and other medical types, as well as birth records that give the age of the mother.  (And Irish Brehon Law appears to have placed the age of "full adulthood" at around 26)

Most of the sexual maturation hormones are fat soluble, and our ancestors spent much of their lives on a very limited and poor diet, and being half frozen much of the time - Winter heating was marginal at best, and food was limited to what one had been able to put by from the previous years harvests...  Girls in southern Europe (Mediterranean area) matured earlier than their Viking counterparts.  Likewise, the "noble / rich" daughters  that had a better diet matured earlier than the peasant girls...

Another factor is the amount of work required - this burns off body fat.  Even today very athletic girls (i.e. serious gymnasts) mature later than their couch potato friends.  In pre-industrial revolution days, everyone pretty much had to work their asses off just to do the things needed to survive...

Average age of female puberty has fallen since the start of the industrial revolution days, as we have had the spread of labour saving devices, better heating and higher quality (warmer) clothing, and better, more uniformly high quality and high calorie diets, until you have todays situation where at least some girls are hitting menarche in the 8-10 year old range....

As an additional item, while arguably any girl past menarche may be able to engage in sex without gross signs of physical injury, there DOES appear to be a significant correlation between age of first intercourse and the odds of her having serious, life threatening, reproductive health issues later in life (i.e. cervical / uterine cancer, etc.)  Also the younger a girl gets pregnant, the greater the odds of complications in the pregnancy / delivery, and the higher the odds of mental retardation and other birth defects... While the bits may be sort of functional at 12, they don't fully mature until the early 20's...

ex-Gooserider
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 21, 2012, 09:47:18 am
Sam, your idea that weirdo limeys define an idea of "left" that can be used for anything in the context of "western civilization" is a bit far fetched.
You do know that bolsheviks and anarchists were around all over europe from the late 18th century?
Are you perhaps aware that philosophers like Sartre, part of the fundaments of 19th century leftism, were strictly anti-religious?
It seems contrived, that you seek to make "western civilization" function in a narrow anglophone perspective it never really belonged to.
The puritans were at active in the foundation of much of the western USA, having been driven out of England. Are those areas then "leftist"?
They might have been once dominantly Democrat areas, but then, the Dems weren't always the Left.
In fact, the Dems were the pro-genocide party for a long time, something which can't be seen as rather right-winged.
So your whole perspective is skewed, severely - and I don't really think we'll get anywhere from that basis.

Quote
Your use of the word "person" betrays the puritan viewpoint.  Obviously women are sexually mature at a considerably earlier age than men, blacks at a considerably earlier age than whites, and one individual is apt to mature a lot faster or slower than someone else even of the same sex and race.  The puritans, however, held that the soul was what mattered, and all souls are alike in the eyes of God, hence introduced a fixed, and high, age of consent, without regard to parental authority.
"Obviously" WTH?!? Is that your argumentation? Some kind of racist, sexist BS, but with a condescending BS "obviously" tacked onto it? Yeah, we don't get anywhere from a basis that screwed up.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 21, 2012, 06:47:34 pm
Actually sources I've heard mentioned claim that typical female age of puberty during the "dark ages", and even including the early American colony days was between 16 and 19, with the major variables being climate and dietary.

Juliet was thirteen.  Romeo had "no manlike beard" therefore was a teenager.

Fourteen was the standard age of marriage on the American frontier.  The age of consent in England was raised to ten in 1770.  Women in the Roman Republic generally married at twelve.  The Roman wedding ceremony had the bride and the groom embrace, which would suggest that the bride was thought to be old enough to be into that.

This is supposed to be coming from the records of midwives and other medical types, as well as birth records that give the age of the mother. 

Quite possibly, but the left is in power, the left is against men having sex with women, so the left will rewrite history that men having sex with women was evil back in the horrid bad old days before leftists liberated women from horrid men having horrid sex with them.  Whether it is true or not that in the old days women took longer to sexually mature, it is convenient for leftists to believe that in the horrid bad old days women took longer to sexually mature, thereby conveniently demonizing several thousand years of traditional marriage and customary sexuality.

Average age of female puberty has fallen since the start of the industrial revolution days.

As measured by breast development - but anyone of any age and either sex will develop breasts if they eat enough cake.

As measured by age at the earliest pregnancies, white women appear to be having early pregnancies at the same age as ever they did.  The earliest recent such pregnancy was eleven, the earliest colonial era pregnancy was ten.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 21, 2012, 07:00:04 pm
Sam, your idea that weirdo limeys define an idea of "left" that can be used for anything in the context of "western civilization" is a bit far fetched.
You do know that bolsheviks and anarchists were around all over europe from the late 18th century?
Are you perhaps aware that philosophers like Sartre, part of the fundaments of 19th century leftism, were strictly anti-religious?
It seems contrived, that you seek to make "western civilization" function in a narrow anglophone perspective it never really belonged to.

The French left repeatedly dead ended in Bonapartism, and was repeatedly re-created by the English left, much as the Eastern European left dead ended in Stalinism, and is being revived by Soros and the CIA.  Leftism is, in practice, anglophone leftism, all other brands of leftism having self destructed rapidly and catastrophically, while Anglophone leftism rules the world.  Observe, for example, that the Spanish phrase for Gay Pride Day is "Día del Orgullo Gay".

And anglophone leftism, was, until the 1940s, Protestant leftism, puritan leftism, evangelical leftism.

Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 22, 2012, 01:19:05 am
Sam, your idea that weirdo limeys define an idea of "left" that can be used for anything in the context of "western civilization" is a bit far fetched.
You do know that bolsheviks and anarchists were around all over europe from the late 18th century?
Are you perhaps aware that philosophers like Sartre, part of the fundaments of 19th century leftism, were strictly anti-religious?
It seems contrived, that you seek to make "western civilization" function in a narrow anglophone perspective it never really belonged to.

The French left repeatedly dead ended in Bonapartism, and was repeatedly re-created by the English left, much as the Eastern European left dead ended in Stalinism, and is being revived by Soros and the CIA.  Leftism is, in practice, anglophone leftism, all other brands of leftism having self destructed rapidly and catastrophically, while Anglophone leftism rules the world.  Observe, for example, that the Spanish phrase for Gay Pride Day is "Día del Orgullo Gay".

And anglophone leftism, was, until the 1940s, Protestant leftism, puritan leftism, evangelical leftism.


You will have to accept that I do not find your anecdotal evidence convincing, and also, that I see your use of it as sign that further discussion with you is unwarranted.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Oneil on April 23, 2012, 05:42:44 am
.....
Average age of female puberty has fallen since the start of the industrial revolution days, as we have had the spread of labour saving devices, better heating and higher quality (warmer) clothing, and better, more uniformly high quality and high calorie diets, year old range....
......

The puberty debate is really tied to another post industrial revolution problem in children, obesity.

Multiple studies have linked the body fat content in girls as a trigger point for puberty, citing obesity as triggering its onset noticeably earlier than the average.
Ironically obesity has shown to have the opposite on boys, actually delaying the onset of puberty.

Obesity was not enough torment for children without additional issues?   
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 24, 2012, 02:16:05 am
Humans are complex systems... so complex that it is amazing they can keep themselves together for decades, enduring hardships few machines could.
It's hardly surprising that an imbalance will have widespread effects, is it?
But hey, some obesity is great for the elderly, helps prevent osteoporosis and generally keeps them lively. It's all a question of timing   ::)
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 24, 2012, 04:54:29 am
Humans are complex systems... so complex that it is amazing they can keep themselves together for decades, enduring hardships few machines could.
It's hardly surprising that an imbalance will have widespread effects, is it?
But hey, some obesity is great for the elderly, helps prevent osteoporosis and generally keeps them lively. It's all a question of timing   ::)

My grandmother has, so far, lived to the ripe old age of eighty... four? Five? Never was too clear on her exact age, but she has never had a blood pressure problem, or arthritis, or any issue that I'm aware of, that could be linked to her weight. And she's fairly close to the 300 lb mark (roughly 136 kilograms). Again, I don't ask these things of a woman. :)
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 24, 2012, 06:04:36 am
The puberty debate is really tied to another post industrial revolution problem in children, obesity.

Multiple studies have linked the body fat content in girls as a trigger point for puberty, citing obesity as triggering its onset noticeably earlier than the average.

A sufficient amount of fat can induce breasts at any age on either sex, and there is a minimum amount of fat required for fertility - however the minimum fat required for fertility is not a lot, and is seldom the limiting factor.

It is clear that girls are developing breasts earlier than they used to, especially black girls.  It is not apparent that they are becoming fertile earlier.

Menarche is frequently typically nine or so in white women, and a lot of girls start having sex at that age, yet still, most of them don't get pregnant until fourteen, which seems to be the same age as ever.   Sex at nine, pregnancy at fourteen, seems to have been pretty common for centuries.  That most women did not get pregnant until later than this was because most women were forcefully restrained from having sex.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 25, 2012, 03:55:52 am
Dude. Sick!
And I still don't see how this, however unfortunate for pedophiles becomes a major issue.
It is clearly not psychologically sound for preteens to be sexually active, and it is economically unsound for teens to have children.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 25, 2012, 05:19:48 pm
Dude. Sick!
And I still don't see how this, however unfortunate for pedophiles becomes a major issue.
It is clearly not psychologically sound for preteens to be sexually active, and it is economically unsound for teens to have children.
I would say that having multiple sexual partners before family formation is psychologically harmful for any female regardless of age.  Analogy with animals would suggest that the healthiest age for a female to bear the healthiest offspring is a bit before the age of maximum fertility.  Fertility is maximum about six years after menarche, maximum some time around fifteen to twenty one, which would suggest that the optimum age for a female to start a family is  around thirteen to eighteen, typically around sixteen - which, throughout much of history, is the age at which females who could afford it did start a family.  Used to be a middle class twenty year old spinster was seen as left on the shelf, and could pretty much give up hope of a respectable marriage, though with suitable financial inducement, an upwardly mobile working class husband could be purchased for such an elderly middle class spinster.

"Economically unsound" is only the case if we assume that the female is working outside the house while supporting small children, which is harmful at any age.

Our current family formation pattern of late marriage at the age of declining fertility, women with small children working outside the home, low male investment in family, and women having multiple sexual partners before family formation would have been viewed as total social collapse, moral outrage, and vile unnatural self destructive perverse behavior back in the days when the age of consent was seven for females.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 26, 2012, 04:00:59 am
That's just ridiculous. Consentual relations between mature individuals isn't harmful. A person with certain personality disorders might engage in large amounts of relations, but that is the result, not the cause of the malady. And has always happened.
But actually, people with an early sexual debut are also more likely to have such disorders, having replaced personal closeness with sexual gratification in their needs pattern.
And the rest is just sexist idiocy designed to make women dependent on their husbands economically, having to just endure and wait until he finds someone younger. We're over the middle ages.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: mellyrn on April 26, 2012, 06:48:41 am
Quote
I would say that having multiple sexual partners before family formation is psychologically harmful for any female regardless of age.

You would.  Snorg.

No one's ever been able to say why -- i.e., identify the mechanism, the process -- consensual sex is just naturally "psychologically harmful" at all.  Oh, gee, dearie dear, how ever did we evolve from the cave, having to witness all that sex (can't be behind closed doors when there are no doors), and no one knowing how old anything was.

I can tell you why even consensual sex could be harmful for a young person in this day & age:  because this society thinks having sex is worse than torture and murder, so if you a) had sex and b) enjoyed it, you'd know that, if anyone knew, they'd think you were a monster.  Especially if you enjoyed it.  It takes serious strength of character to tell society off.

But early (by prevailing standards) pregnancies do seem to be a health boost.  There was a BEIR (a series of reports on the biological effects of ionizing radiation) study that focused on breast cancer and radiation, and of course in order to look at just radiation-caused breast cancer, they had to factor out other causes.  In a footnote, then (i.e., from people with a completely different agenda), they noted that having a first child before age 18 reduced the overall risk of breast cancer by some 70%. 

That said, ol' sammie here has a personal horizon that does not extend beyond his own eyebrows.  He wants women only as vessels to carry his genetic code into the future; doesn't give a sh*t about the woman's genetic code and its value to the future.  For myself, if I love a guy, I'll gladly love & help raise his kids "from a previous marriage" (or, heck, being who I am, even a contemporaneous one) just because they're his.  I mean, his genetic code is at least part of what makes him this guy I love, so of course I'd like to see more of that in the gene pool!  Sheesh.  Sammie, otoh, obviously doesn't value his females to the point of thinking that their code is worth propagating; a female's genes' only value is, as noted, as a medium for the propagation of the male's.  Well, hang in there, man -- cloning's coming to the rescue!  Then you won't need to adulturate yours with anyone else's.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 26, 2012, 10:15:38 am
That's just ridiculous. Consentual relations between mature individuals isn't harmful.
Every additional person a woman has sex with reduces her ability to commit and increases her propensity to stray, to have sex with random guys who plausibly pretend to be famous or important. This, in turn, reduces male investment in children and family.  Children raised in an unstable family unit grow up feral. 

Collapse of civilization ensues, Oslo and London following the path of Detroit, as white family formation in the 2010s starts to resemble black family formation in the 1980s.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 26, 2012, 10:49:47 am
He wants women only as vessels to carry his genetic code into the future; doesn't give a sh*t about the woman's genetic code and its value to the future.  For myself, if I love a guy, I'll gladly love & help raise his kids "from a previous marriage"

Stepmothers and stepfathers are notorious for the kind of "help" that they provide.

Because these days the mother gets custody, the primary problem is the men who sleep with the mother.  Divorced women with kids who are young enough to still be sexually active notoriously fail to provide a safe environment for their children, but stepmothers are in practice similarly deadly.

Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: mellyrn on April 26, 2012, 12:24:15 pm
Quote
Stepmothers and stepfathers are notorious for the kind of "help" that they provide.

You really don't know how to relate to Universe except through 2D stereotypes, do you?  I know, I know, it's so reassuring, imagining that reality really is that simple.  But what a pathetic waste of cerebral real estate.  What's the point of having a complex brain when you merely use it to pretend the world is as flat as Pac-Man?
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 26, 2012, 12:31:22 pm
For myself, if I love a guy, I'll gladly love & help raise his kids "from a previous marriage"
Divorced women with kids who are young enough to still be sexually active notoriously fail to provide a safe environment for their children, but stepmothers are in practice similarly deadly.

Ahhh, the old "find correlation, infer causation" fallacy.

I'm not sure what, exactly, your agenda is, but it's pretty clear you're banging the "traditional family" drum. The problem is not promiscuity, it is a cultural abandonment of personal responsibility.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Killydd on April 26, 2012, 12:47:29 pm
I've seen the results of divorce.  I've seen many cases where the relationship between step-parent and child is significantly better than between biological parent and child.  My own, anecdotal, evidence is that people ARE capable of loving other people. 
That's just ridiculous. Consentual relations between mature individuals isn't harmful.
Every additional person a woman has sex with reduces her ability to commit and increases her propensity to stray, to have sex with random guys who plausibly pretend to be famous or important. This, in turn, reduces male investment in children and family.  Children raised in an unstable family unit grow up feral. 

Collapse of civilization ensues, Oslo and London following the path of Detroit, as white family formation in the 2010s starts to resemble black family formation in the 1980s.

So women only want to have sex with important people?  They couldn't possibly fuck someone because they enjoy it or care about that other person?  Really? 
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: mellyrn on April 26, 2012, 12:59:33 pm
Quote
This, in turn, reduces male investment in children and family.

Ah, you've caught on to the fact that most males are expendable (a colony of 1 male and 1000 females will last longer than a colony of 1 female and 1000 males), and you're trying to build in an artificial need for yourself, so you don't get "thrown off the island".  Humans are neither geese nor wolves; we don't naturally mate for life, so without an external force like an ideology (in this case, monogamy as a virtue), an unpleasant person is in dire danger of not being able to keep a partner.

Quote
So women only want to have sex with important people?  They couldn't possibly frack someone because they enjoy it or care about that other person?  Really?

If personal liking drives a human's choice of partner, and somebody doesn't get chosen -- well, that can be pretty hard to take.  It's much easier to believe that it's status that drives women's choices and youthful beauty that drives men's, so that we can comfort ourselves when we're passed over.

Quote
The problem is not promiscuity, it is a cultural abandonment of personal responsibility.

I agree, and I think I could make a half-decent case for laying the blame for that at the feet of our educational system.  I suppose someone might argue that it was intentional, but that someone won't be me -- I mean, I can see how one could think that, but I more strongly suspect ye olde Law of Unintended Consequences.



Hmm, I maybe have a poll question:  Folx, would you rather belong with a partner or a community that needed you for some purpose, but maybe didn't particularly like or want you, or to one that had no particular need for you but wanted you to belong with them anyway?
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 26, 2012, 01:46:21 pm
Hmm, I maybe have a poll question:  Folx, would you rather belong with a partner or a community that needed you for some purpose, but maybe didn't particularly like or want you, or to one that had no particular need for you but wanted you to belong with them anyway?

For me, the answers are different. In a community, I would rather be needed (ie, I provide a vital service), don't care if I'm liked (though obviously, it's preferable to being disliked). With an individual, I would rather be desired, rather than needed.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 26, 2012, 04:09:08 pm
I've seen the results of divorce.  I've seen many cases where the relationship between step-parent and child is significantly better than between biological parent and child. 

If true, rather hard to observe.

What is a good deal easier to observe is families where one child is a step child of one of the parents and another child the natural child of that parent.  What is easier to observe, suggests that step parents are at best not in fact parents, and at worst, they are enemies of the children.  And most commonly, it is the worst.

Step parents are natural enemies of step children because the step child is competition for the love, attention, material resources, and fertility of its natural parent.  It is very convenient for the step parent should the step child suffer an unfortunate accident, and surprise surprise, they are apt to suffer unfortunate accidents.

We have a politically correct myth that serial monogamy works just fine, and everyone pretends to believe it, even though it is blatantly false.

I suppose that if we were a polygamous society, we would have a politically correct myth that the chief wife and junior wives just naturally loved each other.  The one myth is as unbelievable as the other, for exactly the same reasons.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 26, 2012, 04:21:40 pm
Quote
This, in turn, reduces male investment in children and family.

Ah, you've caught on to the fact that most males are expendable (a colony of 1 male and 1000 females will last longer than a colony of 1 female and 1000 males), and you're trying to build in an artificial need for yourself, so you don't get "thrown off the island". 

Observe what happens when women raise children solo.

Humans are neither geese nor wolves; we don't naturally mate for life

Serial monogamy, however is an unusual human institution.  Normal cases are actual monogamy, polygyny, and casual sex without fathers playing a significant role in children's lives.  Serial monogamy is apt to wind up approximating the latter, or to be a pious pretence wrapped around the latter.  Societies that predominantly have the latter system are all primitive, or rapidly become so.  Seems that males are required to transmit civilization.

And, as evidence of this, we observe that in today's society the spawn of single mothers are not in fact civilized.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 26, 2012, 04:27:32 pm
I've seen the results of divorce.  I've seen many cases where the relationship between step-parent and child is significantly better than between biological parent and child. 

If true, rather hard to observe.

What is a good deal easier to observe is families where one child is a step child of one of the parents and another child the natural child of that parent.  What is easier to observe, suggests that step parents are at best not in fact parents, and at worst, they are enemies of the children.  And most commonly, it is the worst.

Step parents are natural enemies of step children because the step child is competition for the love, attention, material resources, and fertility of its natural parent.  It is very convenient for the step parent should the step child suffer an unfortunate accident, and surprise surprise, they are apt to suffer unfortunate accidents.

I think you may have the shoe on the wrong foot here. Specifically, in this passage: "It is very convenient for the step parent should the step child suffer an unfortunate accident, and surprise surprise, they are apt to suffer unfortunate accidents." (emphasis mine)

I would say the danger comes not from the step parent, but the other child. Adults are (usually) more rational, and less likely to go hurting kids. Again, you are seeing a correlation, and picking a causation that suits the conclusion you want. That, my friend, is bad science.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: mellyrn on April 26, 2012, 05:24:59 pm
Quote
Every additional person a woman has sex with reduces her ability to commit and increases her propensity to stray

Every additional person (man or woman) a woman has sex with gives her a point of comparison.  Stray?  From a guy who's an idiot in bed?  Well, yeah!  But if she's forced to stay with you, or (bwahaha) if she's been kept ignorant, you don't have to worry about how you measure up, do you?   You don't have to put any effort in giving her a reason to stay.  Sweet deal, like a job where you get paid without actually having to produce.

Bwahaha.

Sheesh.  Give me a guy who knows a meaningful compliment when he hears it; "oh, that was so good" from the girl who's known only you doesn't carry nearly the weight of the same comment from the woman who's known a few.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: mellyrn on April 26, 2012, 05:54:25 pm
Ever notice how proponents of racist/sexist/nationalist/[subgroupsuperiority]ist ideas are never members of any of the "inferior" groups?  How no one ever says, "Race [for example] does matter and I am living proof -- my race had to take the short bus, compared to the magnificence of [them]!"?

It's as if arguments that "X subgroup of humans are superior" were nothing more than thinly-disguised efforts at self-aggrandizement.  I guess if you've got nothing personal to speak for your value, you could try to find at least some in your clan identity.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 26, 2012, 06:03:28 pm
Sheesh.  Give me a guy who knows a meaningful compliment when he hears it; "oh, that was so good" from the girl who's known only you doesn't carry nearly the weight of the same comment from the woman who's known a few.

This.

Honestly, I'd rather a gal who could show me a thing or two over a virgin who has no idea if I even know what I'm doing. Experienced girls are more fun.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 26, 2012, 06:38:31 pm
Quote
Every additional person a woman has sex with reduces her ability to commit and increases her propensity to stray

Every additional person (man or woman) a woman has sex with gives her a point of comparison. 

And yet somehow, strangely, increases the notorious propensity of women to make stupid and self destructive sexual choices.  Looks more like psychological and emotional damage than experience and wisdom.

One might suppose, on your theory, that sluts should wind up with successful marriages, but what we more commonly observe instead is that they delay having children, since they always expect that the gay biker gang leader drug dealer is going to settle down with them once he gets out of jail, or that their boss is going to divorce the mother of his four children, or that one of the musicians in the band ...  until at age forty three or so they give up hoping for a normal family and wind up spending a million dollars on IVF in an unsuccessful effort to spawn fatherless children.

The typical slut progression is to start with the boy next door, and by age thirty six wind up banging the extremely macho gay biker who is out on parole, finding progressively worse prospects progressively more and more sexually desirable.  By and large, the sluttier the woman, the more hurtful and self destructive her preferences in males.  The girl who finds single high socioeconomic status nice guy males with good prospects and no jail time sexually attractive is generally the girl with the low notch count.

For men, sexual experience is wisdom and experience gained.  For women, sexual experience frequently manifests as something that looks more like brain damage.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 26, 2012, 06:58:08 pm
Quote
Every additional person a woman has sex with reduces her ability to commit and increases her propensity to stray

Every additional person (man or woman) a woman has sex with gives her a point of comparison. 

And yet somehow, strangely, increases the notorious propensity of women to make stupid and self destructive sexual choices.  Looks more like psychological and emotional damage than experience and wisdom.

One might suppose, on your theory, that sluts

I stopped reading right here. Pejoratives do not belong in logical discourse. You have revealed fully what previous posts have only hinted at: your astonishingly misogynistic viewpoint.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 26, 2012, 07:32:40 pm
I stopped reading right here. Pejoratives do not belong in logical discourse.
And then, unsurprisingly, you proceed with a string of perjoratives.

Similarly, the earlier use of cries of racist and sexist in this thread did not trouble you in the least, nor did unpleasant speculations and accusations about my personal sex life.

It would seem that only some perjoratives do not belong in rational discourse.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 27, 2012, 05:00:20 am
I believe I was the first to make the racist/sexist call in this instance, and I can't actually say I am sorry. I feel those were entirely factual, relevant evaluations of your arguments. A racist/sexist argument is one based on a racist/sexist fallacy. I did not, however, make an ad hominem attack, so I believe it was within the rules of engagement so to speak.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: mellyrn on April 27, 2012, 06:21:12 am
Quote
The typical slut

As I said, liking sex makes one a monster.  Of one sort or another.

Quote
nor did unpleasant speculations and accusations about my personal sex life.

You started it.  It seems I am a mere female, a heartless, scheming slut, incapable of self-governance, who must be kept on a leash by a "good" person aka a man since it is not possible to "civilize" my kind.  Or did you think that all the posters here are male and that it's OK to talk adversely about people -- women -- behind their backs?  I'm telling you as much to your face as is possible in this format what I infer of you, you personally, from your own writing -- and not, please notice, from an ideology about any category in which you could be placed.  It's not random speculation and accusation.  I also don't think it qualifies as "ad hominem" when it functionally relates to the nature of the discourse.  Speculating adversely on, say, someone's mommy issues when discussing cosmology would likely be an ad hominem attack*; speculating on them when discussing child-rearing practices, however, would certainly be relevant.

Granted, I don't get points for restraint when no one can know all the stuff I'm thinking but am civilly not saying.  Heh.

Quote
And then, unsurprisingly, you proceed with a string of perjoratives. (emphasis added)

The only word (singular) that followed that could possibly be taken as pejorative was "misogynistic", but it's also accurate as well as relevant, and thus belongs in the discussion.  What's that about "heat" and "kitchens"?




*It would be an interesting cosmological discussion in which mommy issues were relevant . . . :)
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 27, 2012, 02:07:38 pm
Quote
nor did unpleasant speculations and accusations about my personal sex life.

You started it.  It seems I am a mere female, a heartless, scheming slut, incapable of self-governance, who must be kept on a leash by a "good" person aka a man since it is not possible to "civilize" my kind.

Make up your mind.  If I am accusing women of being incapable of self governance, I cannot be accusing them of being heartless and scheming.  

Rather, I accuse them of being led by their pussies into bad places.

If women were heartless and scheming, they would marry nice guys, and would marry them at an early age, when their own sexual market value is at its highest, and then stick by them like glue as their own sexual market value declined with children and aging while that of the man they married rose.  Obviously, most of them don't, except in societies where their fathers coerce them to do what is rational and in their own best interest.

If women were making rational choices, they would marry an affluent nice guy when their own sexual market value is near its peak, which rather few of them do.

That woman are incapable of self governance is evident from the sexual choices that most of them make, which, unlike the choices traditionally made when woman's choices were narrowly limited by their parents, or completely ignored, tend to be foolish, frivolous, and self destructive.  Woman are attracted to power, cruelty, and violence.  They will bang the CEO, which superficially appears rational, but are twice as apt to bang him if he is already married with three children, and are four times as apt to bang a gay biker gang leader, a hundred times as apt to bang the guy who is famous for being famous, a thousand times as apt to bang the guy who is famous for mistreating women.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 27, 2012, 02:43:54 pm
They will bang the CEO, which superficially appears rational, but are twice as apt to bang him if he is already married with three children, and are four times as apt to bang a gay biker gang leader, a hundred times as apt to bang the guy who is famous for being famous, a thousand times as apt to bang the guy who is famous for mistreating women.

fun fact: Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Seriously, though... listen to yourself. "four times as apt to bang a gay biker gang leader". Wut?

Not sure if trolling...
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: mellyrn on April 27, 2012, 04:35:20 pm
Quote
If I am accusing women of being incapable of self governance, I cannot be accusing them of being heartless and scheming. 

Rather, I accuse them of being led by their pussies into bad places.  (emphasis added)

And you can't come right out and say, "I am accusing you, mellyrn, of being led by your pussy"?  Maybe you think I'm only claiming to be female for some reason?

Wow.  Just, wow.

"It's been said, Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.  The reason for this, however, is not often appreciated:  refrain from engaging such a one not because the battle is unfair to him, but because it is unfair to you.  For in lacking the means to wage a meaningful battle, he also lacks the means to perceive when he has lost, making him an indefatigable, if inept, opponent."*

As there is apparently nothing potent enough to break through sam's impressive confirmation bias, I retire.  Carry on, sam, by all means, carry on.



*would love to give this correct attribution, but I don't know it

Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: wdg3rd on April 27, 2012, 05:19:23 pm
*It would be an interesting cosmological discussion in which mommy issues were relevant . . . :)

There would have to be religion involved.  Obviously not a religion that claims a masculine deity with no navel.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 27, 2012, 08:50:54 pm
It seems I am a mere female, incapable of self-governance

Some guys pranked the girls in the mall by pretending one of their number was famous http://youtu.be/ES16IHsTQ9M (http://youtu.be/ES16IHsTQ9M).

Do your really think that any of the girls in this video should make decisions about their sex lives without paternal supervision.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 27, 2012, 09:04:46 pm
fun fact: Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Seriously, though... listen to yourself. "four times as apt to bang a gay biker gang leader". Wut?

Well I have not observed a criminal gay gang leader interacting with girls, at least not that I know of, but I have observed criminals, gays, and gang leaders interacting with girls and it is strikingly obvious that that girls markedly prefer criminals, gays, and gang leaders, so I conjecture that a criminal gay gang leader would have to beat them off with a stick.  That is unkind conjecture, but that they prefer criminals, gays, and gang leaders is not. Being out of jail after seven years for manslaughter is an even bigger help in picking up chicks than a wedding ring.

If someone is in prison for rape, murder, and false imprisonment, he gets hot love letters from chicks he has never met.  Doubtless those chicks are from the crazy end of the spectrum, but the unmarried guy who lands the Foster's advertising account does not get hot love letters from chicks he has never met.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 27, 2012, 09:17:55 pm
And you can't come right out and say, "I am accusing you, mellyrn, of being led by your pussy"?  Maybe you think I'm only claiming to be female for some reason?

Obviously there is variation among females, just as there is among males, but, to judge by the prank video (http://youtu.be/ES16IHsTQ9M) http://youtu.be/ES16IHsTQ9M, a fairly large proportion of the girls at the mall are mindlessly led by their pussies, and really should not be allowed unsupervised contact with males.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 27, 2012, 10:41:34 pm
"It's been said, Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.  The reason for this, however, is not often appreciated:  refrain from engaging such a one not because the battle is unfair to him, but because it is unfair to you.  For in lacking the means to wage a meaningful battle, he also lacks the means to perceive when he has lost, making him an indefatigable, if inept, opponent."*

I got nothing. The internet failed me on a quotes search. Excellent quote, but I don't know who said it, either.

If someone is in prison for rape, murder, and false imprisonment, he gets hot love letters from chicks he has never met.  Doubtless those chicks are from the crazy end of the spectrum, but the unmarried guy who lands the Foster's advertising account does not get hot love letters from chicks he has never met.

Again with the correlation/causation problem. Perhaps the difference is that the first man's name and address are a matter of public record, whereas the second man's info is private? If you put your face, name and phone number on a billboard, you'd get calls from all sorts of people, I guarantee.

While we're at it, let me break a few things down for you.

Women hang out with gay men because they are non-threatening.  Women do not "bang" gay men. That's what gay means. That is the literal definition of the word, that women do not have sex with them.

Secondly, not all bikers are criminals, not even all the biker "gangs". They're bikers. that means they ride motorcycles.

Finally, while not all women prefer criminals, those that do obviously seek the leader, because that is the best provider in the group. You can bet the White House mailroom gets some crazy letters. (Again... Name and address a matter of public record...)

Now. I've said my piece, and I doubt it will sink in. I don't have much hope it will, but It is in my character to at least try. Likewise, I doubt I will be motivated to reply to any of your postings in the future. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 28, 2012, 12:18:26 am
It seems Sam believes everything he sees on the Internet (selectively, too, obviously).
Talk about requiring parental supervision!
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 28, 2012, 12:35:34 am
Secondly, not all bikers are criminals, not even all the biker "gangs". They're bikers. that means they ride motorcycles.

But it helps to pick up chicks if you are a biker who plausibly pretends to be a criminal.  Helps even more if you are a biker who firmly denies being a criminal, but has done seven years for manslaughter.

Finally, while not all women prefer criminals, those that do obviously seek the leader, because that is the best provider in the group.

If women went after the best provider in the group, then software engineers would be hot stuff, while powerful men with wives and numerous children would pick up far fewer chicks than they do.  Having a wife or girlfriend would be a handicap.  It is not.  It is more power.

Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 28, 2012, 05:02:36 am
You know, I had a whole response typed up, but I scrapped it, for one simple reason: It wasn't needed.

Any person armed for the aforementioned conflict doesn't need my help seeing the flaws in your logic.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Oneil on April 28, 2012, 08:09:51 am
I have to agree, was away since my last post and was set to counter the reply,,
However, this thread has gone beyond deserving a civil reply....


The Internet has a long, long memory. 
Someday your Daughter, Wife, or Mother might
ask what was meant when you posted that.

Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Corydon on April 28, 2012, 12:08:13 pm
What I love about sam's fantasies is how weirdly specific and fetishized they are.  Single mothers hooking up with gay bikers, forsooth!  It's impressive that he can manage the shift key on something that's so obviously typed one-handed.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Killydd on April 28, 2012, 12:57:55 pm
I suppose to be fair, some of sam's problem might be sampling errors.  Once you start hanging out with a certain crowd, people that fit into that crowd are more likely to be the ones you interact with and see.  Beyond that, the media sensationalizes the people that make incredibly bad decisions.  People watch reality tv and drama not because they are realistic, but because they enjoy watching the crazy train wreck.  But some I'm sure get fooled into thinking that this is reality.  Remember, "people act sane and normal" is not news, outside of an occasional Onion piece. 
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 28, 2012, 08:04:13 pm
People watch reality tv and drama not because they are realistic, but because they enjoy watching the crazy train wreck.  But some I'm sure get fooled into thinking that this is reality.  Remember, "people act sane and normal" is not news, outside of an occasional Onion piece. 

If women acted sane and normal, they would marry an affluent nice guy at the age when their sexual market value was at its maximum, and then stick to him like glue as their sexual market value declined while his continued to rise.

Female sexual market value for marriage is maximum between sixteen and twenty, sexual market value for just plain sex is maximum between eighteen and twenty six.  Male value peaks sometime in the thirties, and unlike female value, has no very sharp peak.

Both my personal observations and statistics that anyone can check demonstrate that female behavior differs wildly from rational behavior, except in societies where fathers make that sort of decision for their daughters.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 28, 2012, 08:52:30 pm

Please, stop talking. You're not improving out opinion of you, or the cause you are championing. With every word you type, you only make yourself look more like something that should be attached to the front of a cart, or rented out to tourists in mountainous regions. (in case you're wondering, I mean an ass.)
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 29, 2012, 12:51:50 am
Please, stop talking. You're not improving out opinion of you, or the cause you are championing. With every word you type, you only make yourself look more like something that should be attached to the front of a cart, or rented out to tourists in mountainous regions. (in case you're wondering, I mean an ass.)

I notice no one has been able to provide evidence that female sexual and marital behavior differs from my description, or defend observed female behavior as sane or rational.  Instead you engage in personal abuse.

In sexual matters, females behave self destructively, because their pussies lead and their brains follow, the preference for bad boys being a notorious and extreme example of this, and late marriage being an equally notorious but less extreme example, and one that is easier to prove than the notorious preference for bad boys.

And the more sexual partners a woman has, the more self destructive her behavior, for example  Germaine Greer, whereas the more sexual partners a man has, the cooler and wiser he becomes.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 30, 2012, 04:43:46 am
the more sexual partners a woman has, the more self destructive her behavior

I don't dispute this fact. What I do dispute is the conclusions you draw from it, and the direction of the causal link.

Women who are prone to self-destructive behavior have more sexual partners, not the other way around.

As for evidence. We need only look at our daily lives to dispute your blatantly sexist claims. You however, have not presented one study to back up your offensive, crudely worded, misogynistic assertions. So before you start calling kettles black, let's see some of your evidence.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: SandySandfort on April 30, 2012, 07:31:35 am
As for evidence. We need only look at our daily lives to dispute your blatantly sexist claims. You however, have not presented one study to back up your offensive, crudely worded, misogynistic assertions. So before you start calling kettles black, let's see some of your evidence.

Exactly. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Corydon on April 30, 2012, 08:47:08 am
Yes, I get the sense that sam thinks he has made an argument, when in actuality he has made assertions, backed up by... not much besides dirty old man fantasies.

To be fair to him, his characterization of women probably does match up with his life experience.  His descriptions of his family suggest that he's surrounded with pretty damaged, dysfunctional people.  And intelligent, accomplished women will be creeped out by him and stay away.  But there's nothing much for others to argue about.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on April 30, 2012, 01:31:44 pm
What I love about sam's fantasies is how weirdly specific and fetishized they are.  Single mothers hooking up with gay bikers, forsooth!  It's impressive that he can manage the shift key on something that's so obviously typed one-handed.

Ack... how the hell can I disinfect the INSIDE of my monitor? Ick! Just... ICK!
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 30, 2012, 06:16:50 pm
As for evidence. We need only look at our daily lives to dispute your blatantly sexist claims.

That a great many, probably most, females prefer to have sex with guys that are unlikely to have a relationship with them is evident http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES16IHsTQ9M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES16IHsTQ9M).  That very few females are attracted to provider types is evident.  That most females marry much later than is optimal for them is not only evident, but demonstrable from statistics.

If a woman's brain could overrule her pussy, she would marry an affluent nice guy at the age when her sexual market value was at its maximum, and then stick to him like glue as her sexual market value declined while his continued to rise.   Instead she usually marries a bad boy when her marital market value is already dropping like a stone,  and frequently then divorces him when her sexual market value is about to expire completely and his is near its maximum http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/28/men-not-rushing-to-kate-gosselin/ (http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/28/men-not-rushing-to-kate-gosselin/).
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on April 30, 2012, 06:36:37 pm
Exactly. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

I have provided evidence:  Videos and statistics, which no one has attempted to rebut.

That nice guys finish last when it comes to girls is so well known from everyone's daily experience that denial suggests that the person denying it is crazy or lying.

In the days when families controlled women's sexual choices, the kind of men that women are attracted to were called "cads" and women were denied access to them.  That female sexual preferences tend to be irrational and self destructive has long been known.

Consider the Kate Gosselin divorce.  My personal observation is that most divorces, all divorces of which I have knowledge, are just like that.  If there are any counter examples, they have not been videoed on reality television.

Every divorce I have knowledge of was like the Kate Gosselin divorce, 100% the woman's fault - infidelity and unpleasant behavior towards her husband, despite unfailingly nice behavior by a husband who, thanks to the passage of time, was now much better looking than his wife, and every divorce that I have knowledge of was, like the Kate Gosselin divorce, a really disastrous idea for the woman.  (And no, I am not divorced, My wife glommed onto me at an early age, and stuck like glue thereafter, despite continual mistreatment.)

What happens in the vast majority of divorces is that the wife screws the guy in the mall video, blames the fact that no relationship ensues on her husband, punishes him for it, as in the Kate Gosselin video, divorces him, then finds that the guy in the mall video won't touch her a second time anyway.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on April 30, 2012, 07:29:49 pm
Exactly. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
I have provided evidence:  Videos and statistics, which no one has attempted to rebut.

Uh... no. You have presented links to Youtube videos (Oh yes, certainly a representative sample, there... ::) ), and you have stated statistics, which, as I pointed out, are easily fabricated out of thin air. I even went back a few months in your post history. No links to studies or any actual evidence.

So do you have any evidence, or just more videos of teens in the mall?
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on May 01, 2012, 01:44:15 am
Consider the Kate Gosselin divorce.  My personal observation is that most divorces, all divorces of which I have knowledge, are just like that.  If there are any counter examples, they have not been videoed on reality television.
(added emphasis)

And the prosecution rests.  :D :D :D (<-laughing at you, not with you, Sam)
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 01, 2012, 07:43:47 am
I have provided evidence:  Videos and statistics, which no one has attempted to rebut.

Uh... no. You have presented links to Youtube videos (Oh yes, certainly a representative sample, there... ::) ),

In the video, a sufficiently large proportion of the fertile age females at the mall behaved like sex crazed morons to disrupt the mall.  That is not a video of one girl behaving badly, selected for Youtube because of unusual idiocy.  That is a video of a substantial proportion of the fertile age females who merely happened to be at the mall behaving badly, hence is a representative sample.  The video is not unusual female idiocy specially selected, but usual female idiocy rendered visible by a simple trick.

and you have stated statistics, which, as I pointed out, are easily fabricated out of thin air.

That is because any idiot can look up those statistics.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2012, 08:47:04 am
So do you have any evidence, or just more videos of teens in the mall?

Yes, to understand the logical fallacy of over generalization from limited, anecdotal evidence, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on May 01, 2012, 10:40:16 am
and you have stated statistics, which, as I pointed out, are easily fabricated out of thin air.
That is because any idiot can look up those statistics.

Apparently, not just any idiot....
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Killydd on May 01, 2012, 12:07:14 pm
We also have the problem that sam's definition of "sane" also appears to be "Desiring of being a Stepford Wife" as opposed to our definition of "capable of being a productive member of society, having friends, and holding down a job" where, gee, marrying early doesn't help, having kids early doesn't help, and wishing to be a one-man prostitute doesn't really help. 

So, let's introduce you to some of those "sluts" you hate.  Yes, these are people who actually enjoy the term.  Do you want to meet the housewife, the retired grandmother, the small business owner, the marketing exec, the mechanic, the vet tech, or the EMT?  Yes, most of those are happily married.

Hm, so you have NEVER heard of a divorce caused by the husband being abusive, or straying without permission?  I've seen a couple, they are not pretty.  Oh, wait, I'm sorry, that's still the woman's fault 100% for being attracted to a bad mate in the first place, being led with her pussy instead of her head. 

Congratulations, you have achieved the troll's dream:  Getting an entire forum of "tolerant" people pissed at you.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Oneil on May 02, 2012, 04:02:33 am
....
That is because any idiot can look up those statistics.

I give you that, a true enough statement.  Sounds almost like another " a Caveman can do it.." joke.
 
What one should point out instead is read all of the given information on Medical Studies and try to avoid the often misleading "Headlines" and "Catch Phrases" used in the media copy. 

But back to that Caveman for a moment, a fine portrayal of one, spouting foul words for what you think is macho effect while brandishing your club in one hand.

BTW,, I don't think so,,, To call this a Troll is to give someone credit for thinking before stepping in this smelly mess...

Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 02, 2012, 04:26:42 am
We also have the problem that sam's definition of "sane" also appears to be "Desiring of being a Stepford Wife" as opposed to our definition of "capable of being a productive member of society, having friends, and holding down a job" where, gee, marrying early doesn't help, having kids early doesn't help, and wishing to be a one-man prostitute doesn't really help.
 

"a one-man prostitute"  This is the epithet that you want people to call women who are not sluts?  I doubt it is going to catch on.

Marrying and having children at an age where fertility and attractiveness is maximal does help.   And no one is likely to be persuaded that not being a slut constitutes being "a one man prostitute"

Slutting around with celebrities who are insufficiently celebrated for you to know what they are celebrated for is self destructive.

Late marriage is self destructive in women.

Attraction to bad boys, (what used to be known as cads when patriarchs filtered their daughters suitors) is self destructive.  Attraction to gays is self destructive.

Being rotten to one's husband and then divorcing him after your looks have hit the wall and his looks have improved is self destructive.

We are seeing a lot of self destructive behavior among women - the differences in behavior between what patriarchs used to make their daughters do, and what "independent" women do today, are all self destructive differences.

For educated women, the number of children that never married women have is less than a tenth of the number that women married at least once have, indicating that educated women assess the task of bringing up children without a father as horrid and likely to produce poor results.

If, indeed bringing up children without a father is horrid and likely to produce poor results, then you need consider either becoming a cat lady, or marrying some guy as fast as possible, sticking to him like glue, and being nice to him as your looks deteriorate while his continue to improve - and of course the major part of being nice to him is having lots of sex with him and no sex with anyone else.

If you don't want to be "a one woman prostitute" you will find that when you reach a certain age, alleged celebrities that you meet in the mall no longer want to screw you, at which age, your choices are reduced to cats and fat lesbians.

Feminists are fond of telling women that they can have it all.  Sorry.  You cannot have it all.  You might want to consider cats.  Also, you might consider switching teams.  I notice that lesbian feminists don't seem to mind older women, unlike men.  But you cannot have a husband and children and also the kind of sex life that very large numbers of women are inclined towards.

Hm, so you have NEVER heard of a divorce caused by the husband being abusive, or straying without permission?  I've seen a couple, they are not pretty. 

Women always claim their husband was abusive.  Kate Gosselin claimed it, but we have videos showing who was abusive.  http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/28/men-not-rushing-to-kate-gosselin/ (http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/28/men-not-rushing-to-kate-gosselin/)

So though I have frequently heard of marriages where the husband was said to be abusive, I have never seen one.  As for husbands straying, that is a male privilege.  It is only abusive he spends excessive amounts of time and money on his girlfriend rather than his family - which is quite rare.  You probably know lots of women who are screwing their boss, who is married with several children.  The boss does not spend much more time with them than is necessary to dump a wad in their hole .  How is that a threat to his wife and children?  The wife, like Hillary Clinton, just sucks it up.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: customdesigned on May 02, 2012, 07:39:28 am
So though I have frequently heard of marriages where the husband was said to be abusive, I have never seen one.  As for husbands straying, that is a male privilege.  It is only abusive he spends excessive amounts of time and money on his girlfriend rather than his family - which is quite rare.  You probably know lots of women who are screwing their boss, who is married with several children.  The boss does not spend much more time with them than is necessary to dump a wad in their hole .  How is that a threat to his wife and children?  The wife, like Hillary Clinton, just sucks it up.
Apart from violating most of the religious moral systems they might share, this is how AIDS spreads to mothers in Africa, where males have bought into your attitude.  This was how a faithful wife contracted syphilis in an earlier century.  This is why Americans take a host of minor STDs for granted, although they are totally preventable.  The word 'slut' applies to males as well as females.

When women divorce their husbands (or are tempted to), it is usually in my experience not because of the literal abuse you are talking about, but "lack of intimacy".  (If you are one of those women, and your husband is otherwise decent, your time and money is better spent on trying to wake him up than on divorce lawyers.)  Intimacy is not sex.  You will never learn it without a stable relationship.  If all you want is sex, maybe you should invest in one of those life sized anatomically correct dolls.

Addictions take over your brain - and this is visible in brain scans.  They commandeer more and more of your neurons and set them the task of rationalizing the addictive behaviour.  When this reaches a critical mass in your brain, you are pretty much helpless, and need outside help to stop the progression and reverse some of the damage.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on May 02, 2012, 12:05:27 pm
So though I have frequently heard of marriages where the husband was said to be abusive, I have never seen one.  As for husbands straying, that is a male privilege.  It is only abusive he spends excessive amounts of time and money on his girlfriend rather than his family - which is quite rare.  You probably know lots of women who are screwing their boss, who is married with several children.  The boss does not spend much more time with them than is necessary to dump a wad in their hole .  How is that a threat to his wife and children?  The wife, like Hillary Clinton, just sucks it up.

Wow. Just wow. You are either ridiculously stupid, or a particularly dedicated troll. Either way, you're not worth speaking to. Have a nice life.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: macsnafu on May 02, 2012, 12:28:29 pm

 As for husbands straying, that is a male privilege.  

Dig the hole a little deeper, sam.  We can still see the top of your head!
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on May 02, 2012, 12:41:25 pm
Corydon called it exactly. One handed typing, indeed.
Don't feed the troll, folks.
Even strychnine is too good for it.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 02, 2012, 06:04:13 pm
As for husbands straying, that is a male privilege.  

Dig the hole a little deeper, sam.  We can still see the top of your head!

The number of guys divorced for not being able to stray far exceeds the number of guys divorced for straying.  (casual observation - there are of course no statistics on this issue now that we have no fault divorce.)

Not only do nice guys finish last, it is generally nice guys that get divorced.

The reason that almost all divorces reflect bad behavior by women is not that men do not behave badly, it is that bad male behavior seldom leads to divorce.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on May 03, 2012, 08:24:09 am
*crickets*
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 03, 2012, 11:55:12 pm
*crickets*

You cannot refute my evidence and arguments, yet insist on having the last word anyway.  If you don't have a substantive reply, let me end this topic.

To recap:  Women are self destructively irrational about sex, in ways that men are not.

This is illustrated by late marriage:  Women play around while their market value is rapidly declining.  When patriarchs organized marriages, women got married when their market value was maximal.

Also illustrated by the propensity to have sex with bad boys and gays.  When patriarchs organized marriages, they protected girls from the temptation.

Also illustrated by the propensity to divorce nice guy husbands, even though the wife's market value is now much lower than when she married, and the husband's higher than when he married.  Patriarchal divorce laws protected women from hurting themselves in this manner.  (Women are markedly less inclined to divorce bad boy husbands)

Also illustrated by the Youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES16IHsTQ9M), where a large proportion of the fertile age women at a shopping mall go crazy for an alleged celebrity, disrupting the shopping mall even though they have no idea who he is or what he is supposedly famous for.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on May 04, 2012, 02:03:05 am
*crickets*
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 04, 2012, 04:57:31 pm
*crickets*

The way you show that you are not speaking to someone is to actually not speak to him.  Announcing that you are not speaking to him acknowledges that his arguments bug you, but that you cannot refute them.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Oneil on May 05, 2012, 04:53:08 am
*crickets*

You cannot refute my evidence and arguments, yet insist on having the last word anyway.  If you don't have a substantive reply, let me end this topic.

To recap:  Women are self destructively irrational about sex, in ways that men are not.

.......

Your evidence and arguments are very slanted, everyone has gone to great lengths to point this out to you, yet you stick to this argument based on mere observations and personal bias only. 

However no one should continue to argue the "Sky is Red.." "The Earth is Flat.." "The Moon is Made of Cheese.." long after they are shown serious flaws in these claims.

There is no victory to claim merely as a result of boring everyone with arguing...

If you still wish the last word, have it, do what ever your compelled to do... 

I for one will just agree to disagree and stop now.

Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: mellyrn on May 05, 2012, 07:08:07 am
OK, guys, I confess.  I am "sam" (heh, sam I am).  "sam" is my sock puppet, my evil feminist scheme to make these views as ridiculous as possible in order to draw scorn upon anyone who voices them.

But I'm only going to announce it this once.  In all future "sam" posts, I'll either ignore it or deny it, depending on my mood.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: customdesigned on May 05, 2012, 11:35:09 am
The reason that almost all divorces reflect bad behavior by women is not that men do not behave badly, it is that bad male behavior seldom leads to divorce.
Stockholm syndrome: a form of "traumatic bonding".
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on May 05, 2012, 01:33:36 pm
OK, guys, I confess.  I am "sam" (heh, sam I am).  "sam" is my sock puppet, my evil feminist scheme to make these views as ridiculous as possible in order to draw scorn upon anyone who voices them.

But I'm only going to announce it this once.  In all future "sam" posts, I'll either ignore it or deny it, depending on my mood.

Ah, an agent provocateur... of course, that's the only way it makes any sense!!!
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 05, 2012, 07:36:48 pm
You cannot refute my evidence and arguments, yet insist on having the last word anyway.  If you don't have a substantive reply, let me end this topic.

To recap:  Women are self destructively irrational about sex, in ways that men are not. .......

Your evidence and arguments are very slanted, everyone has gone to great lengths to point this out to you,

You assert my evidence and arguments are slanted, but fail to provide any coherent evidence or argument that they are slanted, or explanation as to in what way they are slanted.  Instead, personal attacks, and endlessly repeated assertions without explanation or justification.

Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 05, 2012, 07:47:51 pm
There is no victory to claim merely as a result of boring everyone with arguing...

There is victory to claim when I produce evidence and arguments, and you lot respond  with mere abuse.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on May 05, 2012, 07:55:21 pm
There is no victory to claim merely as a result of boring everyone with arguing...

There is victory to claim when I produce evidence and arguments, and you lot respond  with mere abuse.


You produce statements and anecdotes. Go find another bridge.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: mellyrn on May 05, 2012, 08:17:45 pm
Hey, guys?  For some sorry people, bad attention is better than no attention.  Y'know?
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Oneil on May 06, 2012, 03:06:15 am
You cannot refute my evidence and arguments, yet insist on having the last word anyway.  If you don't have a substantive reply, let me end this topic.

To recap:  Women are self destructively irrational about sex, in ways that men are not. .......

Your evidence and arguments are very slanted, everyone has gone to great lengths to point this out to you,

You assert my evidence and arguments are slanted, but fail to provide any coherent evidence or argument that they are slanted, or explanation as to in what way they are slanted.  Instead, personal attacks, and endlessly repeated assertions without explanation or justification.




Told you I was done, you can continue to argue with your reflection now  ;D

(http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2009/09/funny-pictures-cat-sees-himself-in-mirror.jpg) (http://icanhascheezburger.com/2009/09/26/funny-pictures-why-is-that-obnoxious-cat/?utm_source=embed&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=sharewidget)
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Corydon on May 06, 2012, 07:16:45 am
Also, I have found evidence supporting that documentary about how apes are rising against humans- you know that one, "Planet of the Apes?"  This Youtube video PROVES it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPGUIpv-JxI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPGUIpv-JxI)

Nobody can refute that evidence and argument!
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 06, 2012, 04:17:06 pm
There is no victory to claim merely as a result of boring everyone with arguing...

There is victory to claim when I produce evidence and arguments, and you lot respond  with mere abuse.

You produce statements and anecdotes.

Female preference for bad boys and for men who mistreat them is obvious and notorious, and anyone who denies it is lying or crazy, even though it is impossible to produce statistics on the topic.

That may be a mere statement, but no one here has attempted to deny it, because if they did, they would look nuts.

This preference was also notorious in the days of patriarchy, (pre 1830) and protecting women against this urge was a major issue and problem for patriarchs.  The Victorian answer to this problem was to deny that women were sexual beings, and to indoctrinate men to be nice, which did not really work.  The twentieth century answer to this problem was to double down on indoctrinating men to be nice, and on coercing them to be nice, which is conspicuously failing even worse than the Victorian solution.

The average age of first marriage in the USA is 26, in Europe 30, for which we do have statistics, which means that the average women marries when her market value is noticeably declining, and fifty percent marry after it has declined alarmingly.  The typical age of marriage under patriarchy was when a woman's market value was at its highest.  In 2012 the typical women marries not only after she is running out of eggs, but after she is running out of suitors who are willing to learn her name before banging her.  As 30 approaches, a woman takes her lengthy list of requirements for a male suitor and turns it upside down, realizing that anyone who meets her requirements is unlikely to be interested in a long term relationship with her.

That is not a "statement", but a statistic and an undeniable inference from that statistic.  No one has disputed the statistic, nor attempted to rebut the inference.

The Youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES16IHsTQ9M) illustrates the crazy self destructive behavior of women following their pussies that patriarchy protected women against.  Observe that is not just one woman acting crazy, but a sufficiently large proportion of the women at the mall to disrupt the mall, thus, a representative sample of fertile age females going hormone crazy.

No one has denied that this is a representative sample, or attempted to rationalize the female misbehavior on display.

Female control over their own sex lives is not working out for women, for pretty much all the reasons that the patriarchs said it would not work out.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on May 06, 2012, 09:15:31 pm
See, now, you're making sh*t up about the rest of the thread.

You're clearly lost in your own little world. I do hope it's nice there.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: customdesigned on May 06, 2012, 10:15:04 pm
Female preference for bad boys and for men who mistreat them is obvious and notorious, and anyone who denies it is lying or crazy, even though it is impossible to produce statistics on the topic.

That may be a mere statement, but no one here has attempted to deny it, because if they did, they would look nuts.
I'm game.  In my experience, young females want excitement, adventure, and
romance.  When there is a shortage of young men with that spirit of
adventure, a "bad boy" can seem like the next best thing to the young
and naive.  And having known some that fell for that trap, yes 20 years later
they are older and wiser, in most cases settling for a boring but stable
and supportive partner, with dreams of adventure and romance but a dim longing.
I would say the problem is more one of emasculated men, than irrational
females.

(Note that what constitutes "excitement" and "adventure" can vary with the
individual, ranging from mathematics to exploration.)
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Oneil on May 07, 2012, 05:13:26 am
Also, I have found evidence supporting that documentary about how apes are rising against humans- you know that one, "Planet of the Apes?"  This Youtube video PROVES it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPGUIpv-JxI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPGUIpv-JxI)

Nobody can refute that evidence and argument!

Wow,, it's so scary that a totally scientific, irrefutable study has proven that primates will rise up and rule the world.. LoL  ;D ;D

Oh, here is a link to a documentary study that proves just how intelligent average humans have become..   People sign "I am a moron" petition without reading headline  (http://youtu.be/LIvea_QWF4g)  A rather boring study, but I felt it safe as it avoided any potential Darwin Award (http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/) recipients in the thousands of other idiot human studies on youtube.

BTW In real news,, did anyone notice the Supermoon of 2012? (http://www.space.com/15561-supermoon-2012-photos-full-moon-images.html)

Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Killydd on May 07, 2012, 10:54:20 am
You mean the moon that was a whole 1% larger than last month's or next month's?  so notable, oh yes. 
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 07, 2012, 04:41:38 pm
Female preference for bad boys and for men who mistreat them is obvious and notorious, and anyone who denies it is lying or crazy, even though it is impossible to produce statistics on the topic.
I would say the problem is more one of emasculated men, than irrational females.

The problem was just as serious back in the eighteenth century, when men were extremely manly, and gentlemen generally carried swords and got training in using them in order to prove it.

In the renaissance, men were remarkably manly by modern standards, but Machiavelli remarks in passing on the character of women:

Quote
fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.

Obviousy women prefer manly men.  Big surprise.  But their comprehension of what is manly tends to be primitive and childlike.  Patriarchs had a better conception off manliness.

As a woman gets older, the force of her hormones diminishes, and she reluctantly settles for a guy who does not mistreat her, always regretting the man who mistreated her and left her - regretting that he left her.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on May 07, 2012, 05:13:37 pm
BTW In real news,, did anyone notice the Supermoon of 2012? (http://www.space.com/15561-supermoon-2012-photos-full-moon-images.html)

It didn't really show up on my radar. I did learn that the moon actually does appear larger or smaller some nights. I thought that was just atmospheric effects. Pretty cool, really.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: customdesigned on May 07, 2012, 07:59:26 pm
In the renaissance, men were remarkably manly by modern standards, but Machiavelli remarks in passing on the character of women:

Quote
fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.

Obviousy women prefer manly men.  Big surprise.  But their comprehension of what is manly tends to be primitive and childlike.  Patriarchs had a better conception off manliness.
My reading of your Machiavelli quote agrees with my statement.  :-)  He says, "mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly."  I.e., it is not mistreatment she is after, but the excitement and adventure.  She is not attracted to a cold criminal, but will tolerate mistreatment at the hands of an adventurous man.  Even better is an adventurous and virile gentleman who bids her follow him to the ends of the earth.

If we want to get into what men look for, I see the tension between the "human" and "angelic" woman as describe in "Fascinating Womanhood".  The "human" is vulnerable and her need of protection supports a young man's self esteem.  The "angelic" is capable, intelligent, and powerful - Wonder Woman, business leader, or scientist.  Older men tire of the "protector" role, and have a much greater appreciation for the "angelic". 

If fortune/Deity smiles upon a couple, the woman becomes more angelic with experience and the winding down of child bearing and rearing - just about the time that her husband begins to appreciate that more.  If I could give advice to my younger self, it would be to go for the angelic from the get-go.  I probably wouldn't listen.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 08, 2012, 04:55:15 am
In the renaissance, men were remarkably manly by modern standards, but Machiavelli remarks in passing on the character of women:

Quote
fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.

Obviousy women prefer manly men.  Big surprise.  But their comprehension of what is manly tends to be primitive and childlike.  Patriarchs had a better conception off manliness.
My reading of your Machiavelli quote agrees with my statement.  :-)  He says, "mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly."  I.e., it is not mistreatment she is after, but the excitement and adventure.

"Beat and ill use her"

Obviously women are not after mistreatment, indeed they resist it most forcefully and obstreperously.  Women don't want to be mistreated - but they want the guy who mistreats them.  Because their resistance to mistreatment is so firm, it is hard to mistreat them - but nonetheless rewarding.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on May 08, 2012, 06:38:14 am
What do you think you will achieve with your antics, Customdesigned?
I will say this only once: You will receive no accolades for beating up a masochist, only a soiled stick.
This is not "the place for sam to get himself off", so PLEASE, stop helping him get himself off, here!  >:(
In other words, back off or get a room.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Killydd on May 09, 2012, 10:05:05 am
I can't believe even more of these people exist:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPyTYuKsOcw&feature=share
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on May 09, 2012, 02:43:11 pm
I can't believe even more of these people exist:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPyTYuKsOcw&feature=share
You know how it is with cockroaches... if you see one...
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 09, 2012, 09:12:12 pm
I can't believe even more of these people exist:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPyTYuKsOcw&feature=share

I notice you cannot refute us either.

Emancipation of women was a big mistake.  Most women are not capable of handling those kind of choices, and choose alarmingly badly, whereas before emancipation, their parents and husbands wisely guided their choices.

We had this debate back in the days when emancipation was a hot issue.  The Victorian propaganda that women were sexless innocents ravaged by lecherous men was the politically correct reply to the anti emancipationist argument that women were hot to trot and down to fuck, and would be led by their pussies into making bad choices. 

Observe what has in fact happened.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: macsnafu on May 10, 2012, 09:32:09 am
I can't believe even more of these people exist:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPyTYuKsOcw&feature=share

I notice you cannot refute us either.

Emancipation of women was a big mistake.  Most women are not capable of handling those kind of choices, and choose alarmingly badly, whereas before emancipation, their parents and husbands wisely guided their choices.

We had this debate back in the days when emancipation was a hot issue.  The Victorian propaganda that women were sexless innocents ravaged by lecherous men was the politically correct reply to the anti emancipationist argument that women were hot to trot and down to frack, and would be led by their pussies into making bad choices. 

Observe what has in fact happened.

Emancipating men was a big mistake.  Most men are not capable of handling the choices of modern society, and choose alarmingly badly.   They are led by their dicks into making bad choices. 
The evidence is overwhelming--look at all the criminals, bums, drunks, addicts, politicians, and others.  Men make bad choices--is it not obvious?

Or is this really a case of the particular circumstances men and women find themselves in?  That today's society creates certain incentives for doing bad things, and that people are merely responding to those incentives?  Expect someone to be immature and irresponsible, and unsurprisingly, most people will act immature and irresponsible.  Going against the grain of peer pressure and societal expectations is hard and uncommon.  Homeowners generally take better care of their homes than renters do.  Give politicians power and, again unsurprisingly, they have a strong tendency to abuse that power.

Thus, women behave badly precisely because YOU and many others in society expect them to.  I hate to quote Michael Jackson, but solving the problem really does start with the person in the mirror first.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 10, 2012, 06:32:23 pm
The evidence is overwhelming--look at all the criminals, bums, drunks, addicts, politicians, and others.  Men make bad choices--is it not obvious?

A small minority of men are criminals, bums, etc.  A large majority of women make alarmingly poor choices in whom they sleep with, and when they sleep with them - a large majority of women do the kind of stupid stuff that patriarchy was justified as preventing them from doing.

Thus, women behave badly precisely because YOU and many others in society expect them to.

I really did not expect treating women badly to appeal to them, and it took me a long time to learn to do so.

Indeed, that is why nerds do so badly with women.  Nerds operate on reason, rather than instinct, and foolishly expect women to do the same.  Nerds are equipped with healthy and appropriate instincts on how to treat women, but foolishly and timorously overrule those instincts and instead treat women as if women were rational beings.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: fliegelmaus on May 10, 2012, 07:50:07 pm
"As if" women were rational beings? Duuude -- how would this guy know?
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 11, 2012, 04:17:32 am
"As if" women were rational beings?

If women were rational beings, they would be more apt to choose nice single guys in high income professions, and would seek marriage when their own market value is highest, instead of when it is rapidly vanishing - in short, they would marry the way they did back in the days when their sexual choices were guided or made by their parents.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: myrkul999 on May 11, 2012, 05:33:50 am
"As if" women were rational beings?
If women were rational beings...

If you were a rational being, you would realize that your toxic ideas are getting exactly zero traction, and stop spewing them.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: macsnafu on May 11, 2012, 09:58:25 am
The evidence is overwhelming--look at all the criminals, bums, drunks, addicts, politicians, and others.  Men make bad choices--is it not obvious?

A small minority of men are criminals, bums, etc.  A large majority of women make alarmingly poor choices in whom they sleep with, and when they sleep with them - a large majority of women do the kind of stupid stuff that patriarchy was justified as preventing them from doing.
Still no solid statistics, just assertion and anecdotes.  What statistics DO show is that more men are in jail than women.  Obviously, some women make bad choices, but I've seen plenty of women who have made good choices--several of my coworkers are female, and are married, have kids, and have a stable family life steady jobs, and a  decent income and lifestyles.
I've lived in a bad neighborhood where I encountered prostitutes and drug addicts.  I've also lived in better neighborhoods where such things were nonexistent.  The better neighborhoods outnumber the bad neighborhoods in my city.

Quote
Indeed, that is why nerds do so badly with women.  Nerds operate on reason, rather than instinct, and foolishly expect women to do the same.  Nerds are equipped with healthy and appropriate instincts on how to treat women, but foolishly and timorously overrule those instincts and instead treat women as if women were rational beings.
Nerds tend to do badly with women because they tend to be introverts, and don't work so hard on developing their social skills as other people do.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: sam on May 12, 2012, 01:17:36 am
Still no solid statistics, just assertion and anecdotes. 

The average age of marriage is a statistic.  The anecdotes cannot be seriously denied, and I don't see anyone attempting to deny them.  We all know how women behave.  And some of those anecdotes, for example the video of fake celebrity at the mall, necessarily involve a representative sample of females.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: macsnafu on May 13, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
Still no solid statistics, just assertion and anecdotes. 

The average age of marriage is a statistic.  The anecdotes cannot be seriously denied, and I don't see anyone attempting to deny them.  We all know how women behave.  And some of those anecdotes, for example the video of fake celebrity at the mall, necessarily involve a representative sample of females.

Of course the anecdotes cannot be seriously denied, but they can still be statistically insignificant!
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Andreas on May 13, 2012, 04:18:28 pm
Srsly, can't you guys hear the *fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*, every time you rise to his bait?
It does seem like shunning is going to be a rather ineffective justice device.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: quadibloc on May 14, 2012, 03:57:15 pm
If women were rational beings, they would be more apt to choose nice single guys in high income professions, and would seek marriage when their own market value is highest, instead of when it is rapidly vanishing - in short, they would marry the way they did back in the days when their sexual choices were guided or made by their parents.
This depends on how you define "rational".

It is, though, perhaps more obvious that women's sexual choices are not made for the reasons that would seem rational to an external party. After all, it's understandable why men go after what they go after - a healthier, more youthful woman will do a better job of propagating his genes. Not that being an interesting companion to talk to, or a good cook, aren't also valuable.

But women! We can understand that marrying a handsome man may be just as important to them as marrying a rich man. And we might also recognize that like men, they may be hesitant to commit.

But it is true that a lot of women seem to find "macho" men attractive, and too many of those end up abusing their wives. And a lot of these men are becoming more and more obsolete in a world where machines do the heavy lifting, and the pressing need is for computer experts.

I don't think this is, however, an indication that women are more irrational than other people. (Their menstrual cycle, and the shifting moods that result from it, make them more obviously irrational than men, but getting caught does not equal being guilty.)

Women are hardwired by biology to find the alpha male, who can protect them from others, sexy. Because that represents how our ancestors - our ape ancestors, and our monkey ancestors before them - were organized. And if a man doesn't "do" something for a woman at a deep, subconscious level, the chemistry of attraction doesn't get started.

Since a sexual relationship has to be emotionally satisfying to be useful to a woman - more so now, that women can earn a living on their own - this isn't all that irrational, even though it may be distressing.

I happen to think that the former Soviet Union was a very bad place, but I can see that if I were more politically naive, it would tempt me. A country where the thoughtful leaders might do such things as putting the future ballet dancers in the same high school as the future physicists. A country where the authorities clamp down firmly on those who would try to disrupt the nation's scientific progress by harassing bright students in school or attacking the wives of scientists. Probably the academics even have separate bars to go to!
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Killydd on May 16, 2012, 02:26:12 am
It's more complicated than that for what attracts people.  There are actually two radically opposed reproductive strategies at play for women.  In the first, a man that is successful at impressing women and spreading his genes far and wide by any means will have many children, and thus if some of them are yours and act this way, that spreads your genes further.  The opposing strategy is to ensure that your children survive in a quiet way and thus produce more children that actually reach breeding age.  Of course, the even better strategy turns out to be combining the two:  use the man from the first example to generate children, and the one from the second to settle with and raise the children, giving the higher chance of reaching adulthood, and the higher chance of breeding from the genes of the first.  Hey, that sounds suspiciously like the "irrational" behavior mentioned.  Breed with a man that can convince a lot of women to sleep with him, then settle down afterward with a nice guy.  Or settle with the nice guy and cheat on him with the sociopath. It just happens to be worse for the guy who can never be sure which kids actually carry his genes to propagate, so he wants to get his nice little harem of virgins that will only fuck him. 
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: mellyrn on May 16, 2012, 02:07:02 pm
Quote
It just happens to be worse for the guy who can never be sure which kids actually carry his genes to propagate

Yet people are not solitaries, and a neighbor near enough to "cheat" with may also be kin near enough to "count".  Ref. the Biblical story of Onan, commanded to give children to his brother's wife -- and killed by his god for "wickedness" when he did not.  It's true that the brother was dead at the time and incapable of doing this himself, yet raising your brother's children is almost as good as raising your own -- from the gene's perspective.

I 'spect that a lot of what we proudly consider "voluntary" action is not as much our own as we'd really like.  ;)
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Killydd on May 17, 2012, 12:20:37 am
Yes, which is why some people REALLY hate "The Selfish Gene."  It's humbling to consider that we are just horribly complicated methods of propagating information to another generation.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: quadibloc on May 17, 2012, 01:03:31 pm
Yes, which is why some people REALLY hate "The Selfish Gene."  It's humbling to consider that we are just horribly complicated methods of propagating information to another generation.
Just that and nothing more?

If that were the claim of Dawkins' book, it would simply be wrong, and one would not need to hate it, but simply refute it.

It is annoying to have to recognize that from the perspective of evolution we are just a way to propagate genes, but that's a statement of how evolution works, not a statement of the value, meaning, and ultimate purpose of human life.

That evolution accidentally produced creatures capable of true greatness and meaning... is just gravy. But gravy we should enjoy to the fullest.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: Killydd on May 17, 2012, 01:31:26 pm
Yes, which is why some people REALLY hate "The Selfish Gene."  It's humbling to consider that we are just horribly complicated methods of propagating information to another generation.
Just that and nothing more?

If that were the claim of Dawkins' book, it would simply be wrong, and one would not need to hate it, but simply refute it.

It is annoying to have to recognize that from the perspective of evolution we are just a way to propagate genes, but that's a statement of how evolution works, not a statement of the value, meaning, and ultimate purpose of human life.

That evolution accidentally produced creatures capable of true greatness and meaning... is just gravy. But gravy we should enjoy to the fullest.
Well, maybe I should amend that to be the purpose of what we are.  We're like art hanging on a wall, someone asks "what's that for?" and we're forced to answer "It just hangs there."  I'm not saying that I don't enjoy parts of that gravy immensely, just that some people don't like not being the center and reason for the universe.  Well, unless there is some REALLY subtle creator out there that decided on a very complicated way of making us, and It didn't have some further creation along the line that is the intended result.  Or further up the line:  maybe we'd be an unintended result of the perfect dinosaur.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: dough560 on May 26, 2012, 01:12:41 pm
My wife has repeatedly said they day I don't appreciate the view going by, is the day I get planted.  Consequently the day I touch something else is also the day I get planted.
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: wdg3rd on May 28, 2012, 08:31:40 pm
My wife has repeatedly said they day I don't appreciate the view going by, is the day I get planted.  Consequently the day I touch something else is also the day I get planted.

Ah, exclusive monogamy.  Never understood the concept and it has never been part of any marriage contract I signed. 
Title: Re: Life imitates art
Post by: dough560 on May 29, 2012, 01:16:55 am
I've known a couple of triples over the years. Good friends.  Good people to have at your back.  The wife doesn't admit what their situation / arrangement is.