Slavery

Void · 2022-11-09 12:53:54

I think it is time to catch this problem early on.

My view is that the international community is straying back into it. The notion for reparations for past actions of people who seem to be like or descendance from suggested historical offenders, and now the notion that climate issues may allow the demand of tribute, should be dammed from the start.

Similarly, the notion that some non-doers can demand tribute for the works of doers in space is wrong.

The nature of this slavery is that it is not industrial/technical in nature. It really is the typical white collar with thuggish helpers' arrangement.

The pattern is people with greater than normal verbal skills forming a hive mind and bringing creatures of brute violence into their "Tribe", to do their bidding.

It is a parasitic activity, at least in this era.

Granted, there is room for some effort to bring fairness, but that must not come at the loss of the gains of the producing classes.

An example of the above is where would be members of the ruling classes, want other people to pay off their educational loans.

It is immoral.

Done.

Calliban · 2022-11-09 18:04:21

Slavery declined in importance in industrial nations because industrialisation allowed artificial energy to be applied to manufacturing. We use machines powered by fossil fuels to perform the work that slaves once did. When human labour is leveraged by artificial energy through machines, productivity is magnified enormously. In such a situation, society can afford to pay wages and slavery becomes pointless. Industrialisation also changes the nature of work. To reap the full benefits requires a skilled workforce capable of operating machines. It is also important to realise that slavery was never free labour. Slaves still need food, clothing, accomodation, basic medicine and tools. In terms of kWh work produced, slaves were an expensive form of work. If a mechanical digger powered by cheap liquid fuel can do the same work as a hundred slaves, then the digger will be cheaper even if the slaves are only paid with food.

The entire industrial enterprise is built upon the leveraging of labour with artificial energy through use of mechanical tools. That artificial energy is almost entirely fossil fuel based. We have built an unprecedented industrial empire on the back of the compressed remains of carboniferous plants and rotten dinosaur juice. That enormous surge in per capita energy utilisation has allowed a billion people to live like kings of old, and even the less well off to enjoy advantages that were beyond the dreams of their ancestors.

The concern is that those fossil fuel resources are gradually declining in quality as we burn through the best stuff first. Political idealism is also making it more difficult to invest in new production capacity even as resource quality is gradually declining due to depletion. To make matters worse, the systems that we have built require a high surplus energy to function. So low EROI energy from renewables or low grade fossil fuels produces insufficient wealth to keep the industrial economic system functional. If the industrial system becomes unprofitable and unworkable due to declining surplus energy, slavery may not be the thing of the past that we all assume it to be. And a world without the sort of surplus energy allowed by fossil fuels will support but a fraction of the 8 billion people now living on it.

All of the good things that we have accomplished in the past two centuries have been achieved through the conversion of stored fossil energy into useful work. Through depletion and deliberate suppression, this fossil energy is going away. Thjs heralds bad things for humanity's collective future. When energy becomes expensive, life becomes cheap. When the land can no longer support population because there is not enough fertiliser or diesel or pesticides, then human life becomes cheap. We won't be worth keeping even as slaves. This is why restrictions on fossil fuel energy production is a really bad idea. Whilst we cannot reverse fossil fuel depletion, we can avoid the own goals that would result from deliberately restricting fossil fuel production. The great hope of the early atomic age was that nuclear power would replace fossil energy before depletion had opportunity to return hunger to human kind. But this path was not taken. Nuclear energy was repressed and its growth stunted. Now we must watch the slow motion horror show that fossil fuel depletion will visit upon industrial civilisation. We face declining fossil fuel production without any commensurate alternative energy source to replace the high EROI energy that is lost. This is going to result in previously unimaginable human suffering as human population endures forced decline as depletion reduces the carrying capacity of the planet. Something to look forward to.

Most people will not understand why the hungers and horrors are happening to them. They will blame the Russians, or the banks, or capitalism or something equally pointless. At no point will they understand why that they are dying, for the same reason that bacteria do not understand why they die when they exhaust the agar in the petri dish. Maybe a few will understand what is happening to them. But given that none of them will be able to build nuclear reactors in disfunctional and collapsing societies, they will be powerless to do much about it.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-11-09 18:19:32)

Void · 2022-11-09 20:01:27

I did not notice anything false in what was said.

I think that things are playing out differently in various places. Our problem here as I see it is that those who are of verbal skills rather than technological or industrial skills tend to be of a more religious nature. This is not at all to put down a religion, but rather people who will turn in tight circles, rather than to seek to get from point 'A' to 'B'.

The circular motion is when you go to books and do not go out and look at what has emerged recently and what is about to emerge. Adaptation is inhibited that way.

Perhaps I could change that. Let's say that there are people who read books, and sometimes people who write books. Then we can include people who claim to not be religious and be less insulting the useful religious activity.

There are those who do what the priests tell them, (People who read books), and people who might want to evaluate that, look around and see if there is more.

In my country, the notion to cripple the oil industry was wrong and also evil.

Many understand that we do have to go beyond fossil fuels, and some do feel that the climate also needs protection. But to damage the engines that would get you from 'A' to 'B' is wasteful and very stupid.

I hear claims that wind and solar are less costly than fossil fuels. Well, to be truthful, I believe that that could occur, but I don't think it is real yet. But North American light oil and natural gas would be how we reduce the Carbon going to the atmosphere, and how you build the wind and solar equipment by producing less Carbon. If we can sell it to Europe and Asian, then they as well can reduce Carbon emissions.

As a business factor, as soon as wind and solar are cheaper than Hydrocarbons, then we can expect Hydrocarbons to become outdated over time.

A quite a lot of all this is about maintaining a petty upper class, that is read oriented, as they are possible to manipulate. Then the next thing is to make sure you have a few thugs for them to direct. Then you can suppress the Technological and Industrial peoples.

There is definitely an energy concern, where we need more energy. We, being if more people can be lifted out of being direly poor. Also, better climate practices seem sensible and responsible.

But I am very afraid that a great deal of this climate concern, is about killing the industrial capacity, and going back to the good old days of surfs and lords. I really believe that that is true, and it is becoming more obvious.

Geothermal may be real. It is always hard to know for sure. But it would work well as a compliment to wind and solar.

I agree that Fission could be done much better than it has been done, and it should be done, if it is done by comparatively responsible entities.

I also think we are on the edge of Space Solar power.

To get from 'A' to 'B' you do not punch holes in your ship and destroy the motors. Rather, you do it, as fast as is practical.

These other clowns only want to rule. They do not care about the welfare of other people. In fact, if we are not poor, then they find it hard to feel superior. So, there is no reason they would do the right things for us. Very much the opposite.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-09 20:23:42)

kbd512 · 2022-11-09 23:26:14

Void,

In my world, "better climate practices" doesn't mean, let's use fear-mongering / threats / coercion / intimidation from the wealthy to create lots more desperately poor people for those thugs to rape / rob / pillage. For whatever reason, I actually care about other people at least as much as myself, so mass-murdering a bunch of them through energy poverty and the horror show that brings with it is one great big "no bueno" in my book. In other words, results matter and feelings don't. Feeling a certain way is a personal choice within your realm of control- the only person you actually can and do control. Results, on the other hand, are immutable facts that will never care about anyone's feelings.

Example / "Exhibit A":

It's an immutable fact that a gallon of gasoline contains more than 134X more energy, per unit weight, as compared to the best rechargeable batteries on the planet. No amount of wishful thinking can overcome that fact. That's hard mathematical reality, and 100% of humanity's feelings about it are utterly irrelevant. In this universe, where power is required to move weight, the consequences of that fact are batteries being utterly impractical to transport billions of tons of people and cargo, until energy input from something with fusion's efficiency is so cheap and readily available that it doesn't really matter how horridly inefficient the entire process of minerals / metals extraction to produce batteries happens to be.

Until that "new fusion reality" materializes, we need hydrocarbon fuels derived from nuclear thermal or solar thermal sources, to close the recycling loop on combustion waste products. That is the only way that hundreds of millions to low billions of poor people aren't driven back into poverty or outright murdered through inexcusably poor choices, as it relates to energy resources management.

Wind turbines, photovoltaics, and batteries have all been tried and found wanting. They do not come anywhere close to replacing hydrocarbon fuels, and the triple-threat combination of technology limitations / mining energy and raw material depletion / mineral scarcity will virtually assure that they never do.

The math doesn't add up. I get that AGW / climate change is a real problem which becomes worse over time, but the only way it kills people is if they're too mentally retarded to pick their feet up and move to higher ground, or if our political and industrial leadership is too mentally retarded to understand that eventually natural resources become depleted, so recycling is not optional. In a world run by half-way intelligent people, we would start building ships or floating cities, we would start recycling CO2, and we would stop putting energy-hungry computers into toaster ovens and door handles, in recognition of the fact that doing something merely because you can is not typically a solution to any specific problem.

We need CO2 recycling, period. Every industrialized nation on this planet should have their own CO2 recycling and hydrocarbon reprocessing / storage facilities using CO2 taken back out of the atmosphere or oceans after we put it there. America should have its own "oil lakes".

If we want to have less CO2 to have to recycle the second or third time we put it back into the atmosphere, then we should switch to lighter hydrocarbons like Methane and Propane. Propane is storable as a liquid at room temperature, under pressure, which is why I'm partial to it. We could also synthesize some Ammonia for CO2-free backup power at power plants, but ideally we'd only create Ammonia for fertilizer or industrial chemical processes. I'm agnostic on workable solutions. I also know what unworkable solutions look like- a benefit of having encountered enough of them in my lifetime. Resolving those issues requires having enough wisdom (a tiny bit goes a long way) to accept when something doesn't work the way you wish it would, and to stop doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result.

Hope and change is a campaign slogan or wish list, not an action plan. Action requires real managers and people who get things done. That doesn't describe "options" people or "deep thinkers", which is virtually everyone on the left, and why no meaningful progress has been made towards their stated goals. That's where people on the right come in, because they're process / procedural type people. If they know what the end goal is, then they work backwards to arrive at a workable solution, and change the plan if the plan is unworkable.

For example, it's physically impossible for one person to build an aircraft carrier in one day (an example of an infeasible end goal derived from an unworkable plan based upon nothing related to real-world thinking), and while someone on the right would recognize that, someone on the left would dream up some cockamamie "we'll use an army of AI welding robots" so-called "plan", which is still not the same thing as one person building an entire aircraft carrier in one day. One of those terrible / evil "right-wingers" would instead concoct a dastardly plan to hand out beers to a few thousand local welders by hiring them to do the necessary work, using ye olde capitalist carrot versus stick to incentivize rather than compel them to all work together for mutual benefit, and thus they'd hammer out the details of all the steel bending / cutting / welding into something approximating an aircraft carrier. Bit-by-bit, over a more reasonable time frame and with a more reasonable workforce head count, about three years later you'd end up with a floating warship the size of a sky scraper.

The notion of using an army of AI-enabled welding robots to build a giant ship in a day sounds super-cool / fun / exciting, because it is, but it's also grossly impractical. In all probability, you would spend near-infinite time tweaking the code and the robots instead of cutting and welding metal. When you do something like that often enough, then years later after you've been conquered because you have no Navy, the leftist who came up with that plan is still muttering to himself about how great his ideas are, if only the rest of humanity was "as smart as he is".

Well... Loosing the war by messing about with something that might work well one day, but presently doesn't work at all, is a terrible "action plan", and not very smart if one of your life goals is to remain your own master and commander. It's more of a "recipe for disaster" than a series of highly repeatable and therefore proven successful methods to get on with the less super-cool task of building ships to defend your nation from your enemies and would-be conquerors.

Void · 2022-11-10 11:20:16

I do believe that you have good things to say.

I believe that you have a significant military influence. That is likely not a bad thing.

Where you mention Aircraft Carriers, I am aware that they are hard to change course for. At least I think that is true relative to a rowboat.

That is not unlike a society, if I or you were to attempt to change a course because we think the navigation and purpose is not good.

One thing I have some experience with is process control. I sometimes feel that our societies are like a very stupid process control, where the toy will only turn after it has bumped into a wall. So, for me, watching that can be frustrating. Until the people who tend to take control hit a wall, they don't have to run on reality at all, except to keep some wheels turning.

But if you beach your Aircraft Carrier, then that is not a benefit, except for to a competitor, perhaps.
Like the jungle as well, if you don't have a reasonable amount of assets for survival, you become either a victim, either of another creature or your own lack of survival skills, such as falling off a cliff while being irresponsible.

I will take a chance. I had a bad dream last night of being a person on the run. There were those who helped me, but words can get a person in real trouble, if they are irresponsible, or sometimes if they appear not "Normal".

We really are fortunate here on this continent, relative to many other places, but there is lots of evidence that that can be screwed up by people lacking consciousness, or morals.

The pure truth is that Fracked oil and natural gas is a lower carbon Hydrocarbon energy source than perhaps many other sources. A long time ago, Peter Zeihan indicated that our refineries had been crafted to handle sour oil, and he indicated that we would have to change our refineries over to sweet crude. As I it appears now that has not happened and so must be under some kind of resistance. If we did want to keep using sour in the mix, then a sensible source would be Canada. But that does not appear to be desired at all. That conclusion comes from just watching what is going on.

I think that I recall some persons indicating that it might be possible to put additives into fuels, maybe even some Ammonia?
I wonder just how light a fuel can become without becoming like Natural Gas? How light can a Hydrocarbon fuel be and still be a liquid?
How much Hydrogen could be synthesized, (With climate issues in mind), and still have a liquid. It might even be something that would evaporate at room temperatures. It would not be that hard to cool and/or pressurize something like that. I am not a chemist so, I don't know.

So, if you can use Nuclear and/or solar of some kind to produce Hydrogen, how much of that can you stuff into a crude oil as the host, to create a high Hydrogen product? This query: "High hydrogen liquid fuels", has suggested perhaps only Propane. Maybe something like that. Certainly, using Hydrogen to bump things like tar sands up might makes sense.

I have no rabbit to pull out of my hat on that. I do know that most or even perhaps almost all Environmentalists would hate that as they would see it as prolonging the use of fossil fuels, so then we go political, and start deciding who is to be poor and not poor, and who is to be more likely to die, to eliminate the burden of human consumptions of "The Planet".

Some people can make more money importing oil to this country. Middlemen, but let's be fair middle Women (Men with wombs), and let's allow it, them, and they, and Larry, Moe, and Curley. This becomes truer for costal area peoples. They are less benefited from frack oil, and for a very long time those types made a lot of money by importing foreign oil, and perhaps even gouging the public, so that they could make money with tricky and shady business deals. This could actually be a good strategy, if the goal was to conserve resources, but it does not really fit, as we have already, I think decided that we want to drift away from geological Hydrocarbons.

If I am to believe Peter Zeihan, the anti-fracking league was mostly stimulated by Russia. All the problems that were cited to sponsor social actions, have proven to not be showstoppers. The oil is better than other Hydrocarbons, and with responsible behaviors will not severely damage the environment. We had to work through all of that frustration. And it is very possible that there were corporate entities that were on the side of the Russians goals, those who make money off of imported oils. Guess who some of those might be

I have certainly gotten long here.

A process I will venture to speak of as concerns process control of reality, includes the monetization of the mating process. This can involve the accidental or intentional damage to the populations by hypnotizing them to act against their own individual and collective wellbeing.

A thing that I have feared is the manipulation of the feminine and the masculine, for purposes of power and perhaps sadism, if you are dealing with psychopaths in positions of influence. To hypnotize humans to be "Leaky". That is repetitive suggestions to do harm to your own interests and yet think you are doing the right thing. In doing this they then make a more compliant servant population, be even more may be involve in a subtle form of genocide.

There are many things I could and may say, but the idea that a Feminist is pure feminine, and no masculine is false as are other constructions about a possible Masculinist. In fact, I think that they have simply become a great deal "Bigots".

Well, that is perfect: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bigot&for … 4b4f20906f
Quote:

big·ot
[ˈbiɡət]
NOUN
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city" · [more]
synonyms:
dogmatist · partisan · sectarian · prejudiced person · racist · racialist · sexist · homophobe · chauvinist · jingoist · anti-Semite

The party in question escapes from being called a racist, because a gender is not properly a race.

But the party in question is very capable of "Hate Speach", but they generally get a free pass on that.

Divide and conquer, (You know those people), has worked very well for those who benefit from it. In the case of creating gender clash, to disrupt life cycles makes cripples, and then you can sell products to satisfy their frustration. But like all fixers, you don't really want to satisfy them but keep the addiction going. Lots of profit in that, for the selfish, but not particularly good for the human race and its major subdivisions.

I am going to walk into a greater mine field now, so careful is hoped for. I have a fear of a time constant that is produced by the excessive replication of violent individuals. I believe that this is possibly driven by allowing those entities that are traditionally called Woman, (Men with wombs). It results by giving too much mating power to that presumed gender. The selection of Males is preferential to regressions to stone age capabilities. The time constant I am worried about is things like repetition of world war level conflicts. Those are sort of mass stone age behaviors, I feel.

If this time constant is real, then for a period of "Peace" the Males are selectively mated with to become more Stone Age in nature.
Then there will be an ignition of violence, and the killings of those who can be killed. For American the kills have generally been relatively low in numbers. In these wars, in the actual warfare, "Fit" men are often sent to slaughter each other. Also, socially sometimes "Inferiors" are institutionally genocides.

A brother of mine said to me one time that our father was who you would want in a foxhole with you. And I agree. But he was ultimately of good qualities other than that. He had faults, but then don't most of us???

So, in the end if you don't want outside stone age people to come and get your stuff from you in violence, you want those types who are the ones you might want in a foxhole with you. This is simply sensible.

However, after all the Superior Arians (Which I think is a mis-label), were killed off in two world wars, intervals of peace could occur, but only because of a larger desire over the planet to be like that. The dry underbrush had been burned off, and the former bodies of those dry tinder people were in large decomposing somewhere and could no longer be as much of a threat.

So, then there is a balance. 5000 years ago, the people of Europe or there-abouts, would likely have been unmanageable, as being suitable for the stone age. The development of productivity, which likely comes from a fitness, of both body and mind made those types obsolete, but society keeps trying to breed back to them, as they are quite useful to fight wars with, especially if you can dispose of them by hypnotizing them to go get killed and do kill. When they are dead then you get their stuff, and they cannot hurt you.

Neoteny is an outdated term. At least that is what I have read. But here it is on the web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny
Quote:

Neoteny
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
For the topic of soil formation, see Pedogenesis.
Neoteny (/niˈɒtəni/),[1][2][3][4] also called juvenilization,[5] is the delaying or slowing of the physiological, or somatic, development of an organism, typically an animal. Neoteny is found in modern humans compared to other primates.[6] In progenesis or paedogenesis, sexual development is accelerated.[7]
Both neoteny and progenesis result in paedomorphism[8] (as having the form typical of children) or paedomorphosis[9] (changing towards forms typical of children), a type of heterochrony.[10] It is the retention in adults of traits previously seen only in the young. Such retention is important in evolutionary biology, domestication and evolutionary developmental biology. Some authors define paedomorphism as the retention of larval traits, as seen in salamanders.[11][12][13]

So, if it is true that females tend to select for the "Bad Boys", then that does offer a path to some sort of greater fitness in the offspring,
and also helps in a stone age setting to get material goods, as her "Bad Boy" can murder the neighbors and take their stuff. Kill their children as well, which gives her a genetic perpetuation advantage.

We could call this the "Anti-Domestication" of the human population. But don't get me wrong, I am for human fitness. But non domesticated populations may be too dangerous to the process of civilization/Industrialization/Technology. It does not matter if you a male, (Or a female), who is good at behaviors, and intelligent, if their bad boys can kill you, it is genetically "Game over".

In the case of the Male, a balance of primary and secondary structural attributes is dominant. Tags that suggest intelligence, and also the ability to bear children. Those tend to be considered beauty, but the balance is changeable. If you live in hard times as a male, you might think a stout woman who can give real material assistance today is the greatest.

Attributes like fitness. In the USA, men have tended to be obsessed by breasts. In a certain way that would be very practical in the stone age, as how do the babies get fed? That is not a juvenile like feature.

In general, though to the degree that reproduction is facilitated, then secondary features such as breasts need favoring. Perhaps not so much now, but in previous times, and we don't know, perhaps in times to come.

Otherwise Neotenous features might be a factor. And in order to have a properly peaceful and intelligent population, it is necessary to have males have more power in the mating process.

Having said that, that should not give large permissions to predatory behaviors. There is a distinction between being a predator and having a focus on Neoteny. Our society seems to really have a problem grasping this. It is probably a large source of trouble.

I do think I understand process control to some extent, and that is how I read this.

I guess we are having a words competition. You like long posts as well.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-10 12:52:04)

Void · 2022-11-10 21:52:31

I enjoyed listening to this. I consider his opinion having more weight than mine. Still, I reserve the right to reconsider over time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX9K5SqZxxw

Human Psychology will of course be very important as to if we the common people will be exploited for wicked things or even worse for useless things that ultimately waste our time and energy, for no gain.

He indicates that humans cannot smell to discover who they are related to and should then protect. your "US" sort of. I recall though that tests done with females to smell male's t-shirts, they will thing a brother smells bad, so that is protection from incest births. But that does not work for half siblings apparently.

He mentions the Bonobo. I have had prior interest in that. They are formulated with females as the insiders, as opposed to Chimpanzees where the male brotherhoods tend to be the insiders. Humans have both.

Chimpanzees are very violent. Bonobos are very sexual, and not so violent. Even though the Bonobo males are stronger, it is still the females that form the core of their groups.

Bonobo's do everything sexual with each other, or an equivalent substitution in the case of male sodomy. If they were citizens, they would go to jail as they do lots of things that we have needed to prohibit. Chimpanzees are one thing Bonobo's are another, and Humans another.

While I am interested in each, I would not want to be doing sex with all the males and females before eating dinner. Quite a disgusting notion to me. But I don't look down on the Bonobo's.

But, if humans were promiscuous, like that we would suffer horrible pandemics, as there are too few barriers to the transmission of microbes. I believe that I have read that after things like Syphilis showed up people had to develop severe custom modifications, towards a puritanical behavior. At least that is what I understand to be true.

Bonobo's get away with it as generally I believe that like most primates and probably humans. It is young females that wander from their birth tribe to hope to be adopted into another tribe. So, other than that, unlike for humans, there is not a wide open 8 billion people interconnections.

And because humans have had to be concerned with pandemics, are we then more violent and less co-operative, because we don't use sexual behaviors to bond across groups as much.

Bonobo's apparently can use tools and sort of understand them, but Chimpanzees seem to be more likely to do it in the wild. At least that is what I have come to understand.

So, I wonder if pandemics, lead to violence, and that then leads to technology. If so, then it is what we are stuck with, because if you are going to have 8 billion people swapping germs, you have to use hygienic methods and customs to battle the pandemics.

A thing that could be of some benefit in space is that communities could be isolated from each other as per pandemics. It should be more practical, at least intermittently during pandemics. But later on, if people are spread around part of the galaxy, it is likely that they would be very highly isolated from each other concerning pathogens.

But again, having more of an understanding, may give us greater hope that we can avoid being wasted on power class agendas.

I guess our notion of representative government, is against the idea that some power class would think it is OK for them to rule us like farm animals.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-10 22:16:11)

kbd512 · 2022-11-10 23:18:40

Void,

I write a lot because I like to express as-complete thoughts as I know how to express, at the time that I attempt to convey them. I'm a programmer, so typing is not an issue for me. It's not a competition for more or less words, but what's the point of communicating to others if you're not expressive and detail-oriented in your thoughts? I type on computers most days, and I've had one to type on since age 3 or so. I mostly don't know how I come across to others unless they tell me and are honest about their feelings. I'm intelligent enough to understand extreme emotion expressed through speech or written words, such as anger / frustration / etc, but beyond that I spent most of my childhood communicating with people in person, not virtually across the internet, so the way I write is more or less stream-of-consciousness. In other words, this was foreign to me before about the age of 24 or so (after I left the Navy). All of my friends were in-person. We didn't text each other across the internet or even use phones (Mom or Dad would yell at you to quit running up their phone bill, so it was rare to spend more than a few moments to say, "see you at the mall", or see you in the park and bring your football or baseball, ride your bike there, or whatever), and we saw each other every day. Ditto for the Navy, despite being a Radioman / IT.

I used the aircraft carrier example as a proxy for a monumental undertaking, and that someone who comes along and says, "I can do that in a day, just throw money at me", is almost certainly lying or deluded or ignorant or some combination thereof. The same would apply to someone claiming we can replace the greatest portion of energy supplies in 5 or 10 years by throwing money at the problem, especially with ignorance-based unworkable plans, if you like that example better. I was in the military, and yes, what I saw and did there colors my thinking. It's not all I think about or even the most important parts, but defense of person / community / country / humanity is very important to me, because if it's not defended then only bad outcomes are in store for us, personally and collectively. There's always someone or some thing ready and waiting to take advantage of any weakness, real or perceived. I view colonizing other planets as the same multi-level self-preservation line of thought, not simply about self but about humanity.

As to this whole "men vs women, and we're better than the opposite sex" idiocy, that's all that is to me- pure idiocy. Any man who claims he doesn't need a woman is a liar, and any woman who claims she doesn't need a man is also a liar. There are vanishingly few people that doesn't apply to. For people who are not mentally damaged / traumatized or profoundly anti-social, we need each other as much as we need air / food / water. All assertions to the contrary are absurdities. All the silly protests to the contrary are emotional outbursts with no constructive outlet.

The underlying issue is that both parties in a relationship need to respect behavioral limits and be able to tell when the other person is not serious about being in a committed relationship. That takes character evaluation, which is both very difficult and never an entirely sure thing. Maybe there's something I would say or do that would cause my wife to leave me tomorrow, for example. At this point, that seems unlikely, but there's always a non-zero chance that your partner will stop behaving like your partner.

Modern western women, much like modern leftists, exhibit nonsense or narcissistic behavior. In the past, if you wanted a woman then you had to provide value as a man, to the point that said woman was willing to sleep with you, bear your children, and become a dutiful wife and mother. That's what marriage was and still is about- duty, not happiness, not money or wealth, nor sunshine and rainbows. There are no fairy tale marriages. It takes real work and it's not easy to do. These days our young men and women behave like spoiled children because nobody ever told them "no" and most of them never matured into adults who understand that there is no autonomy or authority without responsibility and accountability.

Men gave women what they said they wanted, but that's not what they actually want and all the scientific data shows it. They're more unhappy now than they've ever been in the past. I've seen very few people who get what they actually, want who are also unhappy. Women want the privileges of being a man without the associated responsibility and accountability. I see this as a serious problem for society and humanity, because I see so many young men and women, who should be in stable relationships by their mid-20s, well into the process of creating children (the continuance of humanity) with each other, who are instead still acting like children. Nowadays they're not mature enough to have kids until they're far too old to start that long and arduous process.

Women are not flocking in droves to become brick layers or garbage collectors or sewage treatment plant engineers, but society doesn't function without builders and garbage men and engineers who literally bathe in filth to make civilized society function. No woman who is not delusional wants to engage in close combat with someone who is actively trying to kill them. Agreeing to military service was a requirement for voting, but women didn't want voting rights until that requirement was dropped. The requirements, or standards, never should have been dropped. Men realize it's necessary to do those things from time to time, which is why we do them, but it's our duty and not about "what we want" or making ourselves happy.

I worked for several small business owners, all men, and to a person they said what keeps them up at night is making payroll, making sure their people are taken care of, and ensuring their business firing on all cylinders, even after their own death. The money / wealth generated was a bonus / benefit / incentive, but they fixated on doing the work, not the perks that come from putting in the work. As has often been stated, women "hang out" at the finish line and marry the winners. They don't care about your struggles to get across that finish line as a man, nor should they. That's life. Men understand that, even if women don't. However, that also means women can't tell men how to be men, or how to be successful, they're not going to change men's hearts (that comes from within), and any of their delusions about turning a triple axe murderer or womanizer into their husband is an insanely bad idea. Some of the same traits they find attractive (such as the ability to commit acts of extreme violence on their behalf) are also the same ones that can be hazardous to their health.

At the same time, men are well within their right to demand that women who they provide for are good companions to have around and behave like good mothers, and therefore add value by doing things that are still very important but don't require absolute accountability and responsibility. My wife tells me, and has told me more than once over time (from her 20s to now both of us in our 40s), that it's my responsibility to make sure her car is working, and that she only wants the benefit / privilege of driving. I can show her how to put air in the tires, but she's not interested (and never knew that much until I showed her one time). She's willing to pump her own gas, but prefers that I do it. Fair enough, but why should she have that driving privilege without the responsibility of maintaining the car? So, is it truly unreasonable that I expect her to cook our meals and clean up around the house? Is it unreasonable that she expects me to cut the grass, fix the house and cars, etc? I don't think so, and apparently she doesn't either, which is why she does it. Ditto for using power tools and using weapons to defend her. That's my responsibility to her, according to her. That said, responsibility is not a one-way street. She cooks, cleans, and does laundry. If the toilet breaks, she's not messing with that, but I will (and have taken them apart, cleaned them, and put them back together- all the fittings and parts, from the floor up), about a dozen times or so. Why would I do that? It's a mechanical device, however simple, and therefore interesting to me. It's in my nature to make the machines work, in the same way that it's in my wife's nature to spend time with her children and cook meals.

Are there exceptions where the reverse is true? Sure, but that doesn't change the general applicability of the rule at all. Women want relationships with other people, and you can't have relationships with machines. Men are fascinated with machines, because they do some useful thing better / faster / cheaper / easier. I didn't plan it that way, but it is so and it's plainly evident.

As far as who has control in a relationship, both parties exhibit control, but in different ways. I was unaware of that "Pedogenesis" term. I've always called what we're doing now "infantilization" or "patronizing" people- basically treating adults like children or accepting child-like behavior from them. I think it stems from evil people intellectually and now physically disabling adolescents and now very small children who would otherwise become high-functioning adults, which includes relationships and sex and children- the only hope for our future, for evil agendas. I've spared no ink expressing my opinions about those people (the ones wrecking society).

Void · 2022-11-11 18:00:45

My goodness kdb512. I had not thought that it is wrong for you to have long post. It is certainly fine.

As for Neoteny childlike behaviors, yes indeed, as per capability to be responsible, we don't want to leave that out.
Excessive childish behaviors in a person where they should be responsible are not desirable.

Childlike in the positive case is playful, (Of course when it is appropriate). Sharks are not particularly playful that I can recognize, but what we might consider the "Higher Mammals" do exhibit it and it seems to go along with intelligence, and the rehearsal of things one might hope to do better as a skill.

I have read that intelligent men obsess about a womans face. Most American men have been focused on the breasts, which is a secondary sexual indicator of fertility. The French focus on something else.

The size of the head in proportion to the body, also being childlike can be attractive to some men, and that then could be an indicator of intelligence as well.

It is obvious that most men would not be particularly attracted to a man's voice coming out of a female. Their voices are generally higher than that of men, and that is more child like.

So, then in a healthy society, the average female may seek out physical competence, the probability of a winner in that aspect. That can be more important than her ability to control him to her purposes. Of the two, my guess is most women are willing to tolerate a bit less control. The formula coming from that direction then is to breed more robustness into the population.

On the other hand, to get gracile aspects, I am inclined to think that the majority of men focus on the gracile aspects that may be found in the female along with the fertility signals that secondary sexual features represent. A balanced male probably looks for a balance of both of those, (Usually, or often).

As for what some people have thought are behavioral deviants, that is very likely the result of imprinting done improperly. But that is an opinion.

In a way, it is helpful to cripple the average masses so that they can be easier to exploit, or slowly exterminate. (Probably both).

Therefore, if you are such a nasty person as to have such intentions as a person of power, causing what were once called deviancy, you might very well encourage such in the culture.

A milder example of that in the business world, is that the managers might wish to discourage mating associations. If you can turn otherwise healthy adults into worker bee drones, then you can feed your business off of their energies, and they will not divert their energies to procreation.

The Frensh used to have a method of population control. You either owned and estate and could mate and have children or you ended up as a servant, who in many cases could not afford to marry.

Not a very pretty thing. But it is what worked then at that time.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-11 18:18:13)

kbd512 · 2022-11-11 23:12:26

Void,

I find women who look and act like traditional women to be attractive. When they look or act like men, I find that to be a turn-off. I normally find something to my liking in pretty much every woman I meet, but I won't tolerate obnoxious or rude or combative behavior from them. I get enough combative and rude behavior from other men. In the past, women were also a civilizing influence over men. Now many of them seem to want to behave like men, and society is less civilized as a result. There are positive aspects to behaving like men in business and in combat, but the overwhelming majority of men aren't interested in marrying another man. If they were, then they'd simply marry a man, not a woman acting like a man whenever it suited her purpose.

As far as deviant behavior is concerned, I categorize it based upon what would happen to sociey or humanity if we all did it.

If we were all lesbian / gay or sexually mutilated ourselves to the point where we could no longer procreate, then I consider that to be "deviant behavior". I don't think being lesbian or gay should carry any stigma with it, but it does. Then again, I don't waste my time looking down my nose at others because I have some quibble over how they choose to live their lives. To the extent that I don't really care what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and think our government has no place whatsoever invading their private lives, nor telling people who they may love or marry, which is none of any government's business, I'm happy to look the other way. That said, it is not normative behavior and is self-destructive in some ways that do matter to the overall health of a society. It's tolerable for society and humanity when only a minor percentage of the population does it.

I will neither attack nor support anyone mutilating themselves to appear to be member of the opposite sex. If doing that truly makes them happy, then I'm happy for them, but the track record of success in pursuing such a course of action, and subsequently leading to some greater measure of personal happiness and body / self-acceptance, is abysmal. My general policy about knives is that anyone who comes near me or someone else with a knife had better be a fully qualified surgeon and the alternative option to "going under the knife", is death.

I will never support or abide any delusions of someone claiming that they're a cat / dog / attack helicopter / space alien / "multiple genders", because it's either a psychosis-driven mental issue if sincerely believed, or it's a thinly disguised attempt to compel people to speak and act a certain way around them that is unnatural because it's at odds with observable reality. People who claim they want respect from others should reciprocate that respect by not compelling others to imbibe in insanity or theatrics (whereby they're compelled to "play along" as someone pretends to be a cat or an attack helicopter). Nobody claiming to be a "cat gender" is actually a cat, which is also not human. Words have meanings. If we can't agree that a cat is not human, then one of us is either mentally unwell or playing a game that others may not wish to partake in while trying to go about our daily lives.

I'm opposed to the entire concept of a "servant class" that's not allowed to procreate, simply because they're poor. Some of the most successful men in the world came from nothing. Carnegie Steel, and the jobs and industries it created, was far more important than some aristocratic notion that only rich people should have children. The class warfare brain barf is less interesting to me than watching paint dry.

Void · 2022-11-12 08:58:27

It seems reasonable.

In general, I do not seek to regulate other people. However, like most people, I could easily be in a situation where I am uncomfortable from the behaviors of others. As for instance in a locker room. It is not very often, but at times it has appeared that someone might be displaying themselves. The reason for my dislike, is that I did not give consent to participate in that sort of behavior. I like most Americans like personal space. If I were to go to a nudist colony, sort of a situation, then I would have given consent by being there. Where I am going with this is that if people share space, it is natural that they may not have the same tolerance levels for things, so, in the public space it is politeness to not display a behavior that is based on selfishness. Other than that, I do not care to take my time trying to persuade people to behave to suit my own comfort patterns.

Tom, Boys are a very interesting subject where I think there is some evidence of cause and effects, and how society may have pressed them in a direction.

The beginning at least of this article suggests that it is a decision-based thing not tied to actual inheritance. In this case inheritance is more than just genetic and epigenetic sources, but a real inheritance from the womb, which could possibly be considered almost a nurture sort of thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomboy

My understanding is that if a female fetus, or a fetus which will have an inboard motor rather than an outboard motor, is exposed to male hormones at a certain point in gestation, the resulting individual with an inboard motor will never-the-less tend to exhibit a boy like interest in the manipulation of objects more than "Normal" for a "Female". Perhaps they, as well will be more like boys as per so called feminine skills.

Historically, society, including matrons, will compel them to adhere to a restrictive pattern assigned to females. This is because if you did not have people to send to war, or to work in factories, some other international entity would likely exploit the situation to the disadvantage of your group, however that would be identified. So, at that time that was regarded as a necessary imposition upon those individuals.

For the moment, we are still in the babies don't matter mindset, even a kill them mindset. It is getting apparent however that this could be a problem for some societies.

As for myself, I feel that a so called "Tomboy" probably should exist as a portion of the population of individuals with inboard motors. I am sure that some of them can reasonably function as wives for men, if they are in a mind to do so. Probably they can be reasonable, but unusual mothers.

Permission to be what they want, may possibly reduce their numbers over time, if they are not inclined to procreate. A society which compels all women to participate in procreations will increase the number of mal-adapted females for the female role. It is feedback. So, we may have an inheritance of mal-adaptive females from the past. However, I do not regard Tomboys as mal-adaptive. Maladaptive is more like a hateful bigoted nature, which could be to some extent inherited, and some extent learned.

Tomboys could in fact be a good match for certain types of Men, should that bonding process be possible.

I once read a book "The evolution of human sexuality", which has shaped my thinking: https://sites.psu.edu/evolutionofhumansexuality/

I would not trust a query on that phrase, as I expect that some "Woke-Like" people have already carpet bombed that arena with conflicting wordage.

As I do not want the reader to think that I have originated much of the things I base my thinking on, as coming directly from me, I mention that. And so, I will risk trouble of some magnitude by continuing. As I have pointed out, these ideas did not emerge out of my mind or life experiences, for the most part.

I prefer to replace the word sexuality with "Contaxuality", which is not currently legitimate, as for the policing of words. It does involve sex as we recognize it, but also expands to human contact between an individual and other persons. Hugging is contaxuality for instance or perhaps shaking hands. The touch, and to some extent also, the eye. Verbal issues perhaps as well, such as verbal intercourse.

A thing which will not be easily accepted is that even babies get erections. Both genders. Keep in mind that erectile tissue involves not just what you are likely thinking of but also nipples and the lips of the mouth. Like any other physical structure, the sensory and response organs are connected to mind structure as well. For this situation urination is sort of involved, rather than some type of adult orgasm.

So, then this might be a situation where the imprinting of a child emerges early on. The settings of a situation, during these "Practice Runs", may matter as per imprinting. This is not a problem for me, execept that I have to interact with the results of odd imprinting of people. Odd from my point of view.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=IMprintin … 7cac00c662

So, knowing that, or thinking that may be true, is it wise to overly expose a baby/child to odd imprinting? (Whatever that may be defined as).

You see, it is possible that we are generating individuals that are "Allergic" to the other gender. This was perhaps less likely in a farm/homestead, but more likely in the current situation of isolation from needed experiences. I am not a parent, and not likely to become one, so, rather than prescribing a solution, I leave it at a sort of diagnosis

So, then we can tie this back to the enslavement of the population.

I will define ruling classes as those who govern out situations of life.

An idiot or a person governed by malice towards others, may seek to exploit, this potential to render individuals into useful meat robots. Or if they are very sadistic, they might just do it for fun, just the feeling of power.

The concept of the mutilation of individuals in order to make them more useful to a recipient of their productivity, is ancient.

Arabs discovered that if they put a small stone into the reproductive organ of female camels, they would not get pregnant. That was and perhaps is important so that the camel would not be pregnant during a trip though the desert.

We know what a Eunuch is: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Eunuch&qs … cc=0&ghpl=

We might also consider genital mutilation. I am not slamming a particular religion. It has been practiced in the Middle East by various religions. It works well, as to impose procreation onto females as their service. The enslaved individual is purposely altered, in part to make the contaxuality process unpleasant. It does not matter, as the female in question is put into a situation of reproductive enslavement by the society she may live in. She does not have to like or not like contaxuality with men. She is there to provide children to men and to also do work in most cases.

The above is relatively against the concept of individual personal development. You will be used, if you are useful. This is rather Unamerican, as I understand that sort of thing. But bad notions about individual liberties are leaking into our culture to some extent from old and very old-world cultures.

Now, we know that it is possible to turn individuals into a servant by physical mutilation, then it may be possible to alter the nature of populations with poisons. Such as lead in the gas.

But even worse it should be possible to mutilate people's minds, to make them useful servants to the governing classes for the benefits of the governing classes.

So, I think I walked through the mine field and got the flow back to the topic, without giving the enemy bullets to harm me with. I hope so.

So, I have something else to do, but should you reply, I will seek to respond later.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-12 10:01:25)

kbd512 · 2022-11-12 15:32:25

Void,

My take is that it's fine for women to share some interests with men, and vice versa, but expecting them to be interchangeable is kinda dumb. They're not and it's blatantly obvious that they're not. We're just different and that's all there is to it. It's not a statement of "good" or "bad". Men and women are both one half of a complete solution to life's problems. You don't want my wife working on your car and you don't want me preparing your next meal. I can at least tell you that much.

As far as relating this back to slavery, nobody should be enslaved to anyone. We are obligated to each other to behave in an adult manner, which in large part is setting boundaries for acceptable personal behavior that allows us to peacefully coexist, rather than any form of enslavement, and when one side or the other of any contentious issue refuses to behave like adults, that's when sparks fly.

Void · 2022-11-15 09:55:11

This person "Jordan Peterson" has some interesting things to say.

This query however has not turned up the latest thing I viewed involving him.

"Johnny Bigger, It's Been Their Plan All Along!!! "You Won't Believe it" | Jordan Peterson"

Anyway, I reserve the right to disagree with him at some possible point in the future, but don't currently have a discomfort with his presentations.

One aspect of fighting slavery, is to try to discover what may be false about the existing patterns which might help to enslave a person. Having a look at other peoples materials might help free a person or maybe help to keep them enslaved.

I don't think that this guy is a big risk for deceptions.

Done.

Void · 2022-11-15 09:58:09

Some risky territory I want to comment on, involves materials from a book, "The Evolution of Human Sexuality", that I read a long time ago. It disagrees in part with current/woke notions about gender identification and sexuality in people who are young. I define the top end of young as 26, for this comment.

I a believe that I have a special interpretation for what the book said. They identified patterns of adolescent behaviors, and I think I enclosed that in a notion of why it exists, and its value.

1) In the first place, as I recall, they indicated that they felt that children not yet involved in puberty, are heterosexual.

2) During Puberty children are more homosexual.

3) Upon emergence from puberty, the persons become heterosexual again.

Perhaps to increase the comfort level of some people we can reword that.

1) In the first place, as I recall, they indicated that they felt that children not yet involved in puberty, are heteroassociative.

2) During Puberty children are more homoassociative.

3) Upon emergence from puberty, the persons become heteroassociative again.

Or perhaps this version:

1) In the first place, as I recall, they indicated that they felt that children not yet involved in puberty, are heterocontaxual.

2) During Puberty children are more homocontaxual.

3) Upon emergence from puberty, the persons become heterocontaxual again.

As I recall, they claimed that approximately 1/3 of boys actually experimented with some sort of sexual activity with their own gender, during adolescence. Girls had no notation of this kind. However, I feel that because of the difference in the sexual nervous systems of the genders, it may well be that girls do somethings that we typically do not consider sexual, in some cases, Those would be contaxual though.

The above, if true is a valuable thing.

At stage #1, girls cannot get pregnant, so the association of the two reproductive genders is less dangerous. The possibility of sexually transmissible diseases is reduced, as these are young people less likely to have accumulated that sort of disease that is types that seem to have the tendency to linger in a host.

At stage #2, of course very dangerous pregnancies could be initiated, so it is a good thing that at that time boys tend to associate with boys, and girls tend to associate with girls. I suppose also since at this stage it becomes more likely that intergenerational crossover of diseases is more possible the two genders will not pass a disease between their gender group.

At stage #3, then a successful pregnancy is possible, and in many cases a binary coupling, would reduce the transmission of diseases.

So, since I don't consider a person to be a full-fledged adult until 26, I feel it is extremely immoral to administer hormones or plastic surgery onto any such individual, as they very likely cannot know what they are destined to be when they grow up.

I am guessing that it is likely that the current trend to meddle with the young, will be regarded as highly immoral in the future, and similar to experiments that the Fascists did in Europe.

I have already commented about how I feel that mutilation is related to slavery. The individual so damaged then becomes a worker drone at best for the hive collectives, and at worst, may not be reasonably functional.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-15 10:39:54)

kbd512 · 2022-11-15 13:21:24

Void,

Adulthood starts at age 18. If you're implying that people who are 18 years old are not yet fully mature adults, then military service, voting, imprisonment with other adults, and the death penalty should not be permissible until adulthood. Would you rather have a draft? Delay military service until age 26 and that's exactly what you'll get- a bunch of poorly-trained and disciplined conscripts, remarkably similar to what Russia's military has to work with. That seems like a bad idea, but YMWV. The age group who had the most difficulty with boot camp were typically 25+. I have some experience with this since I was there, albeit many moons ago.

I think some of us are acting as if full grown men and women are not adults because they don't meet our own arbitrary standards of adult behavior, as we define it in our heads, or from a sample size of 1 (ourselves), and what's normative has a lot more to do with parenting and societal values and norms than anything else. Regardless of how you feel about young people, they have a right to significant autonomy when they turn 18 in many nations across the world, especially the industrialized ones.

Making mistakes is part of learning and maturing, so if you start delaying real consequences to the point where they are fully mature by your definition, then all you're going to get is more bad behavior. In other words, enough pain at a young age teaches people not to do things when the consequences are even more severe. I learned about "hot" by touching a lawn mower muffler when I was 3. I suffered an instant and severe burn, but I learned the meaning of that word at age 3, rather than at age 23, when I probably wouldn't have been able to work for a couple of months and possibly been unable to feed myself as a result. Infantilizing young adults is a more profound mistake in my estimation. Society keeps lowering expectations, and what we get from that practice should surprise no one.

Helicopter parenting and delaying adulthood is not conducive to creating a more mature, more capable, less overly-sensitive, more well-adjusted, and better able to adapt-and-overcome type of society. The gender charade is an attempt by ill-intentioned adults to treat grammar school children as if they're adults, even though everyone knows it that they're not.

Terraformer · 2022-11-15 13:34:28

How'd this topic go from slavery to talking about gender dysphoria...?

Anyway.

. You don't want my wife working on your car and you don't want me preparing your next meal.

IME men have been no worse at cooking than women. The example you're giving here are cultural gender hangups rather than anything to do with innate inclination or ability. Maybe not when it comes to tendency to get into car mechanicing, though I don't think a majority of men are interested in that either? But I get enough gender discourse on twitter... best you can do is paint in broadstrokes whilst accepting there is a *lot* of overlap, and few people are 100% manly men or womenly women. People who try to become this with hormones (steroids) and surgery (e.g. breast augmentation) end up as caricatures. We call them male-to-male and female-to-female transsexuals.

Void · 2022-11-15 13:40:37

Nice to "Tangle" with you Terraformer. it has been a long time.

I will give a quick answer. My thinking is that to a large degree slavery is in the mind. If you allow people to mess with your head, you are more likely to stay in the restraints/cages they fashion for you. My suspicion is that the population in general is being offered foolish example and advice, in order to damage them and to make them more susceptible to control, and exploitation.

kdb512, your arguments have merit. But I would say that a 26 year old not doing well to be introduced to the military, demonstrates that they are done growing up, and are less in need of supervision. My understanding of military life is that it is very supervised. The exceptions would be unusual persons identified as responsible and capable I would presume. I would not think that most high-ranking military people are very young.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-15 13:43:37)

kbd512 · 2022-11-15 13:43:06

Void,

After you have children, all of this metaphysical woo-woo silliness is of little interest, unless you're also mentally ill and can't separate ugly reality from the fantasy world some wish to inhabit. The idea that someone should be allowed to poison my child's mind with their gender screed is a non-starter.

Biology is real. In the real world, you can only be male or female. You can be a girl that plays with GI Joes or a boy that plays with Barbie Dolls, but none of that changes what's between your legs and the rest of society shouldn't have to play a "game of pretend" with you with regard to what clothes you choose to wear or how you identify yourself. Pretending to behave like a dog still doesn't make you a dog.

If men want to dress and act the way women do, or vice versa, other men and women are not automatically obligated to treat them as if they're something that they're clearly not. Games of pretend or "make-believe" are for entertainment purposes only, and participation in someone else's personal entertainment should never be mandatory.

Male and female are "made by nature", in a biological sense, and that's a "state-of-being" that can't be undone unless and until you can completely re-write your DNA. No amount of superficial outward physical changes can ever redefine "what's on the inside", which was determined long before birth. Mutilating your body used to be a sign of mental illness, but then we started normalizing insanity instead of attempting to treat it.

Terraformer · 2022-11-15 13:45:52

Tangle? My fave is Elsa, not Rapunzel

The population is always being offered foolish example and advice to make them easier to control. The guild of psychopaths is always active. As Screwtape might say, it doesn't matter which way someone goes on a culture war issue, provided they go all in on it and become hostile to anyone attempting to have a discussion with them.

Void · 2022-11-15 13:46:25

I can be fairly comfortable with that. Hermaphrodites do exist though, and all that can be done is to accommodate them in some way. They are a very small part of the population. A "Tomboy" is a girl musicalized in the womb by male hormones. They tend to have interests more like males.

As for the value of early maturation vs prolonged childhood, it comes down to what society can afford, and length of life.

When people died much younger, it made sense for girls to have children at a very young age, even though it was dangerous. Also, if you could put someone to a useful task before childhood was over, it was done. It likely was often a learning experience anyway.

Done.

% Hermaphrodite:
https://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Questio … population.
An Opinion Quoted:

About 1%
She estimates the frequency of all sexually mosaic conditions (hermaphrodites and pseudohermaphrodites) in humans to be about 1% of the population.

That is a lot more than I expected. I think many of these can operate as one of the genders. I don't obsess about it.

Done

Last edited by Void (2022-11-15 13:53:47)

Void · 2022-11-15 14:03:36

I regard that like junk food, people are being offered notions that will make the weaker. Poisons in the Kool-Aid.

I see it as possibly once again someone again trying to breed a superman.

The test is simple. Drink the Kool-Aid, and get a Darwin Award.

It is evil, and cruel.

It is a NAZI thing, to put the population into a constant killing situation, it presumes that the surviving result will be superior.

I would measure "Superior" in other ways. I think that the result will be missing vital parts, and the survivors will be "Dummied Down" in the sense that it will not allow the human race to evolve new traits, because the unusual that is not suited to Stone Age activities will be weeded out.

If I speak of it there is a chance that a few persons will check their reality.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-15 14:08:39)

Terraformer · 2022-11-15 14:23:25

She estimates the frequency of all sexually mosaic conditions (hermaphrodites and pseudohermaphrodites) in humans to be about 1% of the population.

If you include microchimerism, possibly a majority of the population are (cells can be transferred between mothers and fetuses, leading to males having a tiny bit of XX cell lineage and women who have borne sons having a tiny bit of XY lineage). But in most cases people can accept mild imperfections in their model. OTOH, gender related issues are one of the few areas where many demand absolute perfection in their definitions It's all so tiresome.

Void · 2022-11-15 14:31:49

That seems like the correct attitude to me Terraformer.

But if someone is trying to create a superman again, who are these people who think culling the weaklings is a worthy activity? They may or may not exist?

I will be out of the discussion, as I am going visiting.

Done

Last edited by Void (2022-11-15 14:35:09)

kbd512 · 2022-11-15 14:32:38

Terraformer wrote:

How'd this topic go from slavery to talking about gender dysphoria...?
Anyway.
. You don't want my wife working on your car and you don't want me preparing your next meal.
IME men have been no worse at cooking than women. The example you're giving here are cultural gender hangups rather than anything to do with innate inclination or ability. Maybe not when it comes to tendency to get into car mechanicing, though I don't think a majority of men are interested in that either? But I get enough gender discourse on twitter... best you can do is paint in broadstrokes whilst accepting there is a *lot* of overlap, and few people are 100% manly men or womenly women. People who try to become this with hormones (steroids) and surgery (e.g. breast augmentation) end up as caricatures. We call them male-to-male and female-to-female transsexuals.

Terraformer,

Evil people convince others they have gender dysphoria in order to extract money from them for "gender affirming care". Everything that radicals can weaponize against well-functioning societies, is weaponized. Their contrived mental illness is then used to enslave them.

If I don't chop my balls off, then I can never be a "real woman", so I must have "gender affirming care" that leaves me unable to create the next generation of society. I need to work hard and never have a meaningful relationship with another real human being as a result of my contrived mental illness (that some evil cretin convinced me to believe), so that I can get the "one thing" that produces an 80%+ suicide rate (and then my company doesn't have to pay for my eventual retirement, either).

That thar be Grade A, unadulterated "evil" in my book.

It's the same with advertising endless superficial nonsense to women. "Lulu Lemon" was founded by a guy who liked looking at women's butts, so he made a pair of yoga pants that made out-of-shape women appear to be something they're not, for his own personal pleasure and profit. Now Lulu Lemon is an "it girl" lifestyle / woo-woo nonsense that smells like a "200 cow dairy farm"- another even sillier advert to women for something they don't actually need. Turds stink. That's why we flush them. You don't need to spray chemicals into the air because turds stink. Do what all normal people used to do and go get some fresh air. If other people are overly-offended by normal bodily functions that they also have, then maybe they need to get over themselves? Just a thought.

IME, we both have different experiences. Wow. Imagine that. One man, one woman, two entirely different experiences. Gee whiz.

I type all day on computers, yet I still like wrenching on cars and cutting lumber. My wife is the only one who complains about what my hands look like- I simply don't care, never did, and never will. "You're hands are so rough. Why don't you wear gloves when you lift weights?" Well, if I did that, then when no gloves are available my hands would be bleeding.

If you line up 100 women, 99 of them won't want to touch a filthy car or truck. Line up 100 guys and at least 50 of them might actually fight you to gain control over said wrench so he can work on the car "his way".

Over here, it is or at least used to be fairly normative that women prepared meals or watched the kids while men went outside to build or fix things. That's how the modern world was built, and it was not built that way because of oppression or other similar nonsense. This is not conjecture on my part, it's what I've personally witnessed thousands of men and women in different states and entirely different countries doing, for basically my entire life. Whenever someone tells me that was all a great big cosmic coincidence or mistake, I tend to question the wisdom of that.

Broad strokes, as you say, women and men are more similar than different, but I don't see why being different is such a bad thing. I don't want to be more like my wife and my wife doesn't want to be more like me. I don't see any problem there.

I never heard of that "male-to-male" / "female-to-female" bit. I've always thought of them as people who mutilated their bodies over a personal obsession or phobia or inability to view themselves in a positive way.

Terraformer · 2022-11-15 14:37:48

Evil people convince others they have gender dysphoria in order to extract money from them for "gender affirming care".

No-one convinced me, though several have tried to convince me I don't. This is why I don't tend to engage in gender discourse. It's very tiring to be told red and green aren't different colours by people who are colourblind.

kbd512 · 2022-11-15 15:46:08

Terraformer,

It's not a value statement about you. The world involves more than just you. If you are happy with whatever choices you've made, then more power to you. I obviously cannot know how you rationalize things, but I'll wager it's from your own limited perspective, in the same way that I rationalize things from my own limited perspective.

It's equally tiring to be told that generalizations don't apply. Yeah, everybody's "different", but I can't recall the last person who did very well without any oxygen.

The one person I personally know and have spent significant time with (a friend of my wife, a network engineer, and a fellow Navy man), who "identifies as a woman in a man's body" constantly talks about killing himself in front of his own child. Wonder of all wonders, the daughter actually did try to kill herself (and was awfully close to being successful, according to her doctor). That's what I have an issue with. Maybe you can't understand that, but that's what I would like to prevent.

If 80% of the people who identify as the opposite gender subsequently attempt to kill themselves after receiving what they claim they want more than anything else, then I can't help but wonder about the wisdom of doing it. If I'm going to permanently change someone's body without doing so to address a life-threatening emergency, and after I do that there's a 3 out of 4 chance they try to take their own life, then if I was a surgeon, I don't think I could claim that I was caring for them at that point.

I know significantly more gay and lesbian people. I've never heard one of them talk about killing themselves. So, between being gay or lesbian or them deciding that they absolutely must become a member of the opposite sex, maybe possible with DNA re-encoding technology that we don't seem to have perfected yet, one seems a lot more benign than the other. This is from my own limited perspective, obviously, and is quite unlike a family friend calmly going over the different ways he could kill himself, in front of his child and my children.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2022-11-09 12:53:54

Slavery

#2 2022-11-09 18:04:21

Re: Slavery

#3 2022-11-09 20:01:27

Re: Slavery

#4 2022-11-09 23:26:14

Re: Slavery

#5 2022-11-10 11:20:16

Re: Slavery

#6 2022-11-10 21:52:31

Re: Slavery

#7 2022-11-10 23:18:40

Re: Slavery

#8 2022-11-11 18:00:45

Re: Slavery

#9 2022-11-11 23:12:26

Re: Slavery

#10 2022-11-12 08:58:27

Re: Slavery

#11 2022-11-12 15:32:25

Re: Slavery

#12 2022-11-15 09:55:11

Re: Slavery

#13 2022-11-15 09:58:09

Re: Slavery

#14 2022-11-15 13:21:24

Re: Slavery

#15 2022-11-15 13:34:28

Re: Slavery

#16 2022-11-15 13:40:37

Re: Slavery

#17 2022-11-15 13:43:06

Re: Slavery

#18 2022-11-15 13:45:52

Re: Slavery

#19 2022-11-15 13:46:25

Re: Slavery

#20 2022-11-15 14:03:36

Re: Slavery

#21 2022-11-15 14:23:25

Re: Slavery

#22 2022-11-15 14:31:49

Re: Slavery

#23 2022-11-15 14:32:38

Re: Slavery

#24 2022-11-15 14:37:48

Re: Slavery

#25 2022-11-15 15:46:08

Re: Slavery

Board footer