History So let's also talk history. As I said before, men and women lived equally for the overwhelming majority of human history. Patriarchy only came around during the last six thousand or so years, and even that evolved over millennia. And even now, patriarchy is starting to lose its power as the dogma and chauvinism of male superiority is challenged at greater and greater levels. How long have men and women been equal? 200,000 years. How long have men dominated women? 6,000.
Since the 1960s science and popular culture has been plagued with a stereotype of prehistoric men being tough and brave hunters while women meekly gathered close to home. The truth tells a different story.
The patriarchal family didn't exist. What we had instead were small and tightly knit but interconnected communities with members that often swapped places. So what that means is women (and men) both traveled great distances away from home, and as prehistoric humans were promiscuous and raised each other's children, women and men "slutted it out" and "cucked" each other on a regular basis. They did fine with it [1][2]. It was not uncommon for female Neanderthals to do dangerous work such as hunting as their skeletons have major bone fractures [3]. Homo sapiens women also involved themselves in hunting as gender roles were flexible to adapt to different situations [4]. Prehistoric dads nurtured and protected children as well [5].
Addendum Even in physical strength things are not so straightforward. Yes, men are bigger and stronger than women but women have several advantages. They have fewer genetic defects, especially those based on the X chromosomes, as females must have two defective X chromosomes for the disease to manifest [1]. Women have a stronger immunity from illnesses as women have more white blood cells and their immunity responds to invasion faster [2]. Women survive lower temperatures than men as they have more more fat under the skin and less heat is put on the surface of the skin. And women generally live longer.
Do men have other advantages over women? Yes. For instance, men have less chronic pain and other such diseases than women do [4] and men are twice as less likely to become blind and less likely to be depressed or addicted [5]. My point is even something as “obvious” as physical difference isn’t so obvious when you look deeply into it. The Devil is in the details.
And I also must discuss our sexual dimorphism in comparison to other apes. Some apes, such as gorillas and chimpanzees, have great sexual dimorphism with males weighing many pounds more than females. Other apes, such as bonobos, do not. We humans have small sexual dimorphism. Human males are bigger and heavier than females, though not by much. Human males lack sagittal crests on their skulls as gorillas do and do not have large canines either. As hominids evolved, including us, sexual dimorphism decreased, which also decreased petty male rivalries, allowing humans to work better as a group.
1. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 2. Glucksman A (1981). Sexual Dimorphism in Human and Mammalian Biology and Pathology. Academic Press. pp. 66–75 3. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 4. McMahon SB, M Koltzenburg, A Holdcroft, and K Beckley. Wall and Melzack’s textbook of pain. Churchill Livingstone. 2005. (pp. 1181-1197) 5. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Black Jew Witch
Gender : Posts : 40 Join date : 2017-07-23 Age : 32 Location : New Orleans
Now I will address Satyr's claim that rape is based on lust, as his friend told him. He is right... partly. While evolutionary pressures are certainly possibilities, many others exist as well. There are customs and laws that shape how people even view the idea of rape and whether it is an acceptable action to take. A lot also depends on the desire to do violence, using sex as a means not an end, meaning anger, power fantasies, and sadism also play a role.
Usually, a rapist will not be a random man lurking in a dark alleyway, as we believe in pop culture. You are more likely to be raped by someone close to you, including a partner or spouse, who usually has no problem getting sex, so I doubt the poor person was too horny to keep it in their pants. Usually a rapist feels entitled to a woman's body and attention, holds rage that is expressed in a misogynistic way, and he tends to dehumanize a woman before the act of raping her. [1][2][3][4]
Rape may have some evolutionary start, but it doesn't rule out all the factors I mentioned above. A rapist (man or woman) can't be excused for just being horny or following their biology. Even convicted rapists get off more on consensual sex [5].
In humanism, differences are "accidents" and "we all need love". Moderns are not responsible for differences, can't account for why and how differences occur, or ignore these differences when they do manifest. Some differences are harder to ignore though, like crime rates and statistics, where 'black' and 'male' dominate the majority. Humanists tend to shy away from such facts.
I have yet to see a progressive who outright ignores crime statistics regarding black people. It is important to understand the context in which studies and statistics are made. Regarding black crime statistics here are some important things to keep in mind.
Most black people arrested are for minor and drug-related offenses, and yet are sentences to greater time in prison than whites for the same crime [1]. Blacks are poorer, which means they can't pay for bail or get a good lawyer to defend themselves in court [2]. This is important as jail disrupt job and family time, making poverty even worse, and prison itself makes it harder for convicts to return to a relatively normal life; many either become homeless or go back to prison. So it's not easy to see how that cycle repeats itself.
America designed a government to criminalize black people ever since slavery ended. A black man under Jim Crow laws, for instance, could be convicted of rape by just looking at a white woman, and then be lynched. Jim Crow is long gone but replaced with similar demons.
The War on Drugs: Nixon created it to break up leftist and black communities, as he knew both were a serious threat to the system, so associated pot with hippies and heroin with blacks. By declaring drugs illegal and vilifying them, Nixon could use the police to destroy his enemies. His very advisor, John Ehrlichman, admitted The War on Drugs is a giant lie [3].
The Prison Industrial Complex: Prisons are partly privately owned, and partly government owned. The point of all this is prisons make a profit out of keeping people locked up which, combined with the War on Drugs, means prisons have an interest in keeping as many blacks and Latinos behind bars as long as they can [4].
And there is the whole issue of who cops arrest and why. If black life is so criminalized, it means the cops will spend more time in inner cities where black people live, which means they will arrest more black people. Also keep in mind what is considered a crime in America and what isn't. Black people with weed are arrested and imprisoned, but a white collar criminals who bomb innocent people for their country's oil and destroy planet earth for profit are not. If you freed every black man who sold weed and locked up every crooked CEO and Senator, the crime stats would look very different.
1.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html 2. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 3. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 4. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Black Jew Witch
Gender : Posts : 40 Join date : 2017-07-23 Age : 32 Location : New Orleans
"Civil conversation" ultimately resulting in the adoption of some or all of your idea(l)s. You will not find such a thing here. We may share the same periphery but unlike you, the ideas that currently dominate the modern world aren't watered down versions of our ideals.
I'm here for myself, not for you. I wanted to challenge myself, to see how well I could talk to someone whose political views are so opposite my own. I doubt I will change anyone's mind and I am fine with that.
Impulso Oscuro wrote:
There still was money, and ownership by the Natives, Spain, and subsequently the U.S. which provided defense from foreign invasion.
The institution might not have been developed in the micro level but the abstract claim over the land had already been made and established itself in the macro level.
Most "wild western" denizens came from the domesticated east and already had some institutional framework to work with and could conceivably fall back to in case it was truly wild.
Foreign invasion from whom? The Natives were the foreign invasion (or if you look at things correctly the settlers were the foreign invasion, the Natives the original owners). Spain and the U.S. owned the wild west, sure, but that didn't make it civilized or cultivated by default. America bought a huge patch of the continent from Napoleon in 1803, yet just because America owned it did not mean the land was civilized or there was an institutional framework. (Forgetting, for the moment, that the Indians cultivated the land and had their own societies for tens of thousands of years, but none of this was a Borg-like institution madams would serve.)
And what would the wild west look like if it was "truly wild"? Would there be no town at all? Would it be an anarchy? What fallback institution existed back then? Because if the wild west was not enough for you, consider how so many travelers on the Oregon Trail were families, in other words with women and children. There wasn't even a society to be in most of time they traveled.
Impulso Oscuro wrote:
"Human decency" has a price, I know it can be hard for your sheltered feminine mind to even conceive of that fact when you don't currently pay that price.
So what is that price for human decency? If you believe men earned their rights by braving wars and getting the black lung in coal mines, and have thus earned their decency in that way, then I must ask you this. Did you ever fight in a war or work in a coal mine or work in construction? If you haven't, then you haven't earned human decency by that definition, you just expect it for being a man.
And I have the impression that I, as a woman, would never earn your decency no matter what I did. If I worked a full-time job, I am whore dependent on the welfare state. If I spend my entire life at home and pop babies, I am a whore leeching off a man. If I study long and hard to get educated, to get a degree, to get professional training, I am brainwashed into following political correctness. If I do not cultivate my mind, I am a silly and frivolous woman anyway. You will judge me to have fault no matter what I do, which renders judgment meaningless.
Furthermore, that is not how working men or women earned their human decency in history. In the past, working men and women were expendable. No amount of hard work, no amount of blood they shed, no amount of black lung the men got in the mines, no amount of torn limbs women got in the textile mills earned them any shred of decency from their masters. You know what did? Protests, unions, and political subversion. That is how men and women have earned their decency.
And furthermore, if human decency must be earned, it must go both ways. What have you done to earn my decency? All you did was insult my intelligence and make a few half-baked arguments. Not a good start. If you wanted my respect but didn't bother to earn yours it would reveal a hypocrisy in your character.
Impulso Oscuro wrote:
Equality is only something the weak, ugly, and lazy want because instead of working hard, remaining disciplined, making sacrifices even if it takes several generations is inconceivable to such a mind, they want gratification in their own lifetime and will come up with endless justifications as to why they wont begin the long hard road upwards. (Why should i do it and not them?) (They wont let me.) (My ancestors already did.) Etc. Always blaming the other.
That opinion would only hold true if the world truly rewarded people based on merit, but it doesn't. If it did, every Mexican laborer and African farmer would be a millionaire. Families around the world work like dogs and make sacrifices we probably can't truly understand, but they still remain dirt poor. Many of those "weak, ugly, and lazy" people I just mentioned want equality, really badly. They elect socialist or communist leaders, they want better work hours and pay, they want American troops to go away and stop destroying their homes and ruining their lives.
Most wealthy people, such as the businessmen and politicians who make the nations' decisions for us, didn't work hard to earn their wealth at all. They merely inherited it and take their obscene privileges completely for granted.
Last edited by Black Jew Witch on Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Black Jew Witch
Gender : Posts : 40 Join date : 2017-07-23 Age : 32 Location : New Orleans
In the u.s. particularly each newer generation, duped by lofty and impossible ideals of "freedom", struggle for these false ideas of independence and individuality. When people are average, mundane, boring, bored, and with excess time on their hands, they act-out in such ways as to proclaim "here I am, see how different I am, pay attention!" But these are compensations and almost always empty, and imitations of somebody or something else. The modern 'transexual' and homosexual movements are obvious examples.
Because a modern person cannot be anything but normal and average, must do something like homosexuality, and then proclaim how proud they are of it publicly.
Because if this or that person had not done so, then perhaps they would never be noticed by others at all. Complete nobodies in a way and quickly forgotten by the (human) world.
People struggle for attention, notoriety, fame in such ways, and this is a dominant theme of modern 'western' (pop) culture. "Pay attention to me!" is the goal.
I know that this, at least, is not true for millennials. Millennials are usually called narcissistic, lazy, and entitled, but that goes against the evidence. There are now twice as many chess grandmasters thanks to millennials. Millennials are great performers of classical music, playing music once considered impossible. There are now 8 Major-League Baseball pitchers who throw over 100mph.
Millennials, if anything, are massive overachievers. Not exactly the mediocre, lazy decadent. And since we love Adam so much, I'll let him speak for me.
Impulso Oscuro
Gender : Posts : 796 Join date : 2013-12-10 Age : 33 Location : Praxis
My egalitarian premise is justified. Most scientific research proves that men and women are generally equal. There is debate over whether men and women have the same general intelligence (often referred to as "g") or if men have higher IQ by 3-5 points. Even the most dogmatic chauvinists can only say so much with any honesty.
"Generally Equal" is not equal. Men have higher IQs not only on average but on the right end of the bell curve, where it matters most.
Black Jew Witch wrote:
It certainly does not justify denying women any rank, profession, education, or recognition simply because they are women.
Black Jew Witch wrote:
So let's also talk history. As I said before, men and women lived equally for the overwhelming majority of human history.
You just made me remember what triggered my metapolitical decent into the right wing...I believe Slaughtz touched upon this a few posts back.
Don't take this as representative of KTS and its members, this is personal for me.
I was rejected by a liberal dimwit of a woman who espoused the same egalitarian ideals you did, she was the first woman whom i could hold an "intelligent" conversation with, wasn't the most attractive woman but she was a feisty opinionated one. Long story short she chose tall dark and handsome instead of me, it drove me to depression for 2 years. Ironically she chose the "medusa" avatar as her username on social media.
Where was the equality there? She taught me more with what she did than any of your arguments or sources ever will. Call me a bitter idiot and ridicule me if you desire, but i will not be fooled again.
You say there was equality, so there was nothing selected for? We were just randomly fucking eachother in an orgy with no direction at all, until suddenly patriarchy came from the void and ruined the party? The sexual organs developed randomly and have no predictive power on the attitude towards existence that one will have. The differences in brain size are just a long randomly socially constructed effect of patriarchy. Of course here is the part where you give me some mental gymnastics as to how there was "choice" but not enough to be significant. Where the sexual organs have some predictive power but are not everything. How despite a controlled environment the female and male brain difference can still be explained by the infinite amount of environmental variables.
This is a very common behavior i see in you...
Yes i admit x, but since x is not absolute that means x is irrelevant and insignificant.
"Yes i admit there is a difference in average intelligence, but since its only about 5 points, it shouldn't really matter.
_________________ Once more, with knowing.
The meek shall inherit the Earth, but the Noble shall take it.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I'm back. I spent the week researching so as to make my arguments stronger with evidence, and just doing my other work. I will respond to three main points and later other comments that catch my attention.
My egalitarian premise is justified. Most scientific research proves that men and women are generally equal. There is debate over whether men and women have the same general intelligence (often referred to as "g") or if men have higher IQ by 3-5 points. Even the most dogmatic chauvinists can only say so much with any honesty. It certainly does not justify denying women any rank, profession, education, or recognition simply because they are women.
1-Once more you expose your prejudices. Equality is not a "general" description of parity. A chimpanzee and a human are "generally" the same....only differing genetically about 3%-5%. A wolf and a dog are generally alike. A grizzly and a polar bear are "generally" the same. The word "generally" is a word being used to cover over, and sweep aside differences, and promote the illusion of equality...and this depends on how large or small a percentage you want to generalize away. Generally means approximately. All is approximately the same, dear, when you generalize, and approximately different when you become detailed, more precise. Twins are generally alike, but not absolutely so. Clones would be generally alike, but never completely so. You are not the same as you were last week, or last night, dear. Change is Flux...all is Flux.
Women and men are generally, the same height and strength, as well. But it is where they differ that they are distinct. A desperate egalitarian may even go so far as say that generally a chimpanzee and a human are equal. It's a matter of how much you wish to ignore and make an approximation.
2- Of course most experts would promote equality, dear. They are human, and their careers and well-being depends on belonging to the group. Experts and the masses have believed in all kinds of absurdities throughout history. Experts believed the earth was the center of existence....experts believes in witches and recommended burning them, experts believed the world was 6,000 years old and that a God created it....experts in all ages represent the shared knowledge and errors of their age - they are always Modern. Using the allusion to some vague popularity, is not an argument. Even if it is so. Popularity is into an argument, dim-wit. What is accepted as doctrine is not an argument. What is believed by a majority is not an argument. It's an excuse.
3- Racial and sexual divergence is about potentials. In the case of race, inherited genetic potentials, and in the case of females the allocation of potentials, exhibiting physical AND mental differences. Men had to evolve a more challenging, abstracting mind, relative to a female who had to focus her mental and physical energies towards belonging, evaluating her social status, ensuring her harmonious coexistence within a group she would find herself dependent upon to fulfill her reproductive role.
4- How the world IS and how it OUGHT to be do not necessarily coincide...especially not in the minds of Nihilists, like you. you speak of how things ought to be, and I speak of how things are.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Now I will address Satyr's claim that rape is based on lust, as his friend told him. He is right... partly. While evolutionary pressures are certainly possibilities, many others exist as well. There are customs and laws that shape how people even view the idea of rape and whether it is an acceptable action to take. A lot also depends on the desire to do violence, using sex as a means not an end, meaning anger, power fantasies, and sadism also play a role.
Usually, a rapist will not be a random man lurking in a dark alleyway, as we believe in pop culture. You are more likely to be raped by someone close to you, including a partner or spouse, who usually has no problem getting sex, so I doubt the poor person was too horny to keep it in their pants. Usually a rapist feels entitled to a woman's body and attention, holds rage that is expressed in a misogynistic way, and he tends to dehumanize a woman before the act of raping her. [1][2][3][4]
Rape may have some evolutionary start, but it doesn't rule out all the factors I mentioned above. A rapist (man or woman) can't be excused for just being horny or following their biology. Even convicted rapists get off more on consensual sex [5].
Moron...read the book I posted a quote from. They deal with all your post-modern crap.
Customs, society, memes, shape what has already evolved genetically. We are not born as blank slates, dear. Genetics are integrates into memes. Human nature is integrated into social and cultural environments. Humans evolved over hundreds of thousands of years....culture has been around 5-6 thousand years. Memes are extensions of genes, dear...this is why all cultures have common grounds. Rape evolved, and was then integrated or prohibited into group, social, structures.
Moron....I know how distressful rape is for females, and why it is so. I also know that your distress wants to prohibit it, to maintain your sexual options, and the basis of female sexual power, but that is not what I am debating, pathetic woman. I am telling you what the roots of rape are. I am not condoning rape, dear...I am explaining to a dumb-ass, like you, why despite rules and laws prohibiting it, it persists.
Rape, despite what your Marxist training teaches, is not about power, or social status. It is about lust, and getting away with gratifying a sexual need with minimal costs, and risks. This is why rape occurs in intimate setting, with a male the female knows, and sometimes trusts. This is why 80% of rapes occur against young females in the prime of their fertility, and rapists only settle for alternatives, like old females, due to the factor of risk, and potential costs. Some desperate males rape animals...is this also about power, you idiot? Why would a male fuck an animal, if not because of access, ease, and a need to unload his ball-sack?
Rape is a well-known behavior across species. In humans it evolves in response to feminine choosiness, leaving our of the gene pool 90% of males. Monogamy is what prevents rape. It's another reason female promote social law and order, and evolved the psychology of submission to a dominant masculine figure....now the institution. This is why females tend to be more social.
Rape is the by-product of feminization, because we are now returning to primordial sexual practices, amplified with technologies like abortion clinics, and contraceptive pills, that minimize the risks and costs of promiscuity for females. What this means, and it is is already occurring, is that the vast majority of inferior males will be left out of the gene-pool, making them free-radicals. Muslims deal with thir free radicals by converting them to jihadists, a practice the Christians also used in the past. The reason marriage and monogamy is a necessary technology, for the development of sophisticated civilizations, is that it integrates males and makes them investors in the group's well-being. This requires a strict control over male AND female sexuality.
This is breaking apart...and so families are becoming a thing of the past, or being reinvented to include everything from same sex couples, to animals. The exclusion of males will inevitably result in the civilization's downfall.
But I am content that you, at least, admitted that rape is part of evolution. I do not give a shit about how you wish the world ought to be to accommodate your insecurities. That is ideology. Politics. Psychology. Memetics.
I'm more interested in how things are - genetics....from which I launch towards memetics. Because if we cannot even agree on the basics about race and sex, then what's the point of wasting my, and your, time on fantasies and discussing theoretical scenarios. Mental masturbation might be fun, but it is unproductive, in the end. It's hedonistic...pleasure for the sake of pleasure.
Next time highlight what you consider "arguments", because in the mess you post it's hard to figure out what a degenerate considered an "argument" and a "point" worth responding to. Declarative statements, and deferrals to authority, are not arguments.
As a side-note... How did intelligence evolve, if it is evenly and fairly distributed within a population? How would it be naturally selected? Explain how environment affects body but leaves mind untouched, and uniform - is change superficial? Explain the process that would produce a species, for us, if all are born clean slates,are a product of upbringing, and traits are equally and evenly distributed. How, and why, would there be species, if all is a social product, and a product of how one is raised? Can we do away with transexuality and homosexuality, as well as rape, and violence, with a proper upbringing? Are you for social engineering, or against it? I remind you that the dreaded evil Hitler was for it. I suspect that you lie to yourself, and think you are against it, while at the same time you speak alluding an agreement....like how rape uoght to be eradicated with proper training.
Rape is neither moral or immoral...it just is a behavioral option. Rape is not a social construct, as it evolves as a behavior in multiple other species, without the benefit of our human societies, and it persists, in history, within human groups, despite severe penalties, and prohibitive rules against it...across cultures, and time periods, from the dawn of historical time. Why? It is the only option left to a beta, or inferior male, who can never be a dominant, alpha male. If risks and potential costs are accounted for it deals with sexual needs. It responds to female control over fertilization. It challenges the alpha's domination - rebelliousness. It implies dominance, relieving insecurities.
This is obvious to intelligent minds that can study the world objectively. For the simpleton, potential, rapist, or the animal who has no mind for such concepts, it is a response to basic sexual desire. He doesn't give a shit about Marxism, and nihilism, and power, he doesn't know about reproductive strategies and psychological adaptations ...all he knows is he needs to unload without suffering a penalty.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:25 am; edited 3 times in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Why do degenerates want to make everything human, and only human, into a social construct? Because then, they desperately hope, they can "correct" it, with proper edumucation, and strict laws, to produce their ideal Utopian world.
Notice the degenerate speak of "acceptable actions".....which is another way of saying moral, or permitted by the majority. She is for social engineering...and what OUGHT to be considered acceptable, and what OUGHT to not be considered acceptable. Abrahamism on display. Judeo-Christianity masked as Marxist Utopianism.
This 'ought' she considers an "argument". A moral one. As if the entire cosmos follows her Humanitarian moral standards, and evolution is based on her Judeo-Christian ethos. Moral absolutism, implied, never stated. A back door way to sneak in God, as State.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
One more thing, because I missed it... Sexual dimorphism is associated with investment is the offspring. In species where investment is minimal, males tend to be larger than females. In species where it is almost equal, like in many birds, the differences are smaller. Humans show a significant dimorphism.
This means that makes must compete for sexual access.
Paternal or Maternal social conventions are also associated with the degree of threats to a species. Bonobos for survival reasons, migrated up the mountainside, where predators were significantly fewer than those where chimpanzees stayed. Paternalism is associated with a need for inventive, strong males. Maternal societies, such as our currently developing feminization, is associated with relative peace and prosperity - the division is one along the right/left political lines. Stress demands strength....comfort declines, atrophies, into maternal bliss.
Males have an advantage in spatial conceptualization, because they had to hunt, and a good hunter must triangulate to hit his mark - this is the basis of abstract thinking where females are inferior, and so they do not appear as useful in anything demanding abstract thinking, such as philosophy. Males also dominate in inventiveness, in rebelliousness, challenging authority and conventions, thinking outside the box, because they had to prove themselves before they gained access to females. This is more pronounced in the Indo-European, race because they were forced in less hospitable environments, where inventiveness, creativity, was essential to survive and to pass on your genes. Monogamy also developed among these tribes, because they were more dependent on others...whereas the Negroes remaining in their primordial habitat did not have to evolve much, and he could be less cooperative. Altruism evolved within Aryan tribes, as a survival necessity, not so important to races that remained within less demanding environments. Monogamy also had to evolve among the Aryans who had to integrate as many males into the group if they were to survive...not so important to Negroes...so they remained far more promiscuous.
Feminine minds are more focused on integrating within a group, maintaining peace and stability, social rules, and evaluating psychologies....nurturing relationships because their reproductive role forces them to become more vulnerable during and after gestation. This is why females change their loyalties with ease, adapting to new hierarchies, why they are family and socially oriented...why they never contradict the status quo, unless it seems, to them, to be waning. Females contribute to the status quo, or to any trend they judge as ascending in power, or dominance within the group. They accept any new fashion, in society, technology, spirituality, philosophy, politics. They remain shallow and superficial, so as to change allegiances, or to not invest heavily in any power structure. they never, ever, innovate, rebel, or contradict power, unless they sense it weakening and being replaced by an upcoming new power. The clever noes find pride in being on the forefront of fashion, of trendiness...of avant guard thinking. They compete, with each other, on who is most ahead of the times, more in-tune with new fashions and trends.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
One more thing, because I missed it... Sexual dimorphism is associated with investment is the offspring. In species where investment is minimal, males tend to be larger than females. In species where it is almost equal, like in many birds, the differences are smaller. Humans show a significant dimoprhism.
This means that makes must compete for sexual access.
Paternal or Maternal social conventions are also associated with the degree of threats to a species. Bonobos for survival reasons, migrated up the mountainside, where predators were significantly fewer than those where chimpanzees stayed. Paternalism is associated with a need for inventive, strong males. Maternal societies, such as our currently developing feminization, is associated with relative peace and prosperity - the division is one along the right/left political lines.
Males have an advantage in spatial conceptualization, because they had to hunt, and a good hunter must triangulate to hit his mark - this is the basis of abstract thinking where females are inferior, and so they do not appear as useful in anything demanding abstract thinking, such as philosophy. Males also dominate in inventiveness, tin rebelliousness, challenging authority and conventions, thinking outside the box, because they had to prove themselves before they gained access to females. This is more pronounced in the Indo-European, race because they were forced in less hospitable environments, where inventiveness, creativity, was essential to survive and to pass on your genes. Monogamy also developed among these tribes, because they were more dependent on others...whereas the Negroes remaining in their primordial habitat did not have to evolve much, and he could be less cooperative. Altruism evolved within Aryan tribes, as a survival necessity, not so important to races that remained within less demanding environments. Monogamy also had to evolve among the Aryans who had to integrate as many males into the group if they were to survive...not so important to Negroes...so they remained far more promiscuous.
Feminine minds are more focused on integrating within a group, maintaining peace and stability, social rules, and evaluating psychologies....nurturing relationships because their reproductive role forces them to become more vulnerable during and after gestation. This is why females change their loyalties with ease, adapting to new hierarchies, why they are family and socially oriented...why they never contradict the status quo, unless it seems, to them, to be waning. Females contribute to the status quo, or to any trend they judge as ascending in power, or dominance within the group. They accept any new fashion, in society, technology, spirituality, philosophy, politics. They remain shallow and superficial, so as to change allegiances, or to not invest heavily in any power structure. they never, ever, innovate, rebel, or contradict power, unless they sense it weakening and being replaced by an upcoming new power. The clever noes find pride in being on the forefront of fashion, of trendiness...of avant guard thinking. They compete, with each other, on who is most ahead of the times, more in-tune with new fashions and trends.
Yes yes, but what does Shlomo Shekelstein, the sociology "expert" say about this? Surely it's just a bunch of patriarchal social constructs invented by cis white males.
An expert shows you connections you could not make sense of, he does not give, you or tell you what is TRUTH. This is the difference between nihilists and Realists...or Pagans and Abrahamics. Another mind is not evidence....someone saying so, or a bunch of others saying so, is not an argument....majority is not what determines what is a superior theory. An insightful mind, a teacher, exposes you to what was always right before your eyes, but you could not articulate or make sense of. He reveals what was, fro you concealed. He does not command you, or impose anything upon you....he says "Look, you blind monkey.....see what I see?" He does not say..."See through my eyes, or I will tell you what to see, if you close your eyes to the world.". An expert does not fabricate reality, he exposes it.
These degenerates are asking us to blind ourselves to all we see, and to feel their truth...so they minimize what is obvious....like racial and sexual differences. it's not large enough of a difference, she says....feel the injustice and surrender to feelings.
3% difference is big enough to separate chimpanzees from homo sapiens, but anything below this is not significant enough to make an impact...so why not ignore the differences, and approximate parity? Lets' ignore everything below an arbitrary, convenient, level, and pretend it's all the same.
And who decides how big or small it must be before we generalize? They do, of course, based on emotional criteria. What hurts...okay everything above that level is not appropriate. Let's pretend it's not there, so they do not hurt.
Statistics and data is the new fashion statement on thinking. The loony mimetic feud between the current right/alt-right and the left is a case in point. They are both obsessed with language and sources of information they fling at each other branded with their own labels on them as selling points to others. They both reinforce different versions of the status quo, whether they are aware of it or not.
Who has the best selling point to the status quo, is the competition. Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote that real intelligence comes from the ability to reach an insight about something on your own, despite never having read others who have already reached it.
And that's all the referencing on an authority i'll do here.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
What's funny is that these "rebels" against the status quo are so dependent and impressed by the mere mention of an authority figure, that supports their emotional "arguments", or that they even consider such naive, infantile methods "arguments".
This is pronounced in these so called Nietzscheans, who declare themselves revolutionary thinkers, and then surrender to the cult of personality. The mere mention of the name is an 'argument" is "evidence".
We see this in a more unsophisticated form with these morons, like the girly. She's considers herself an advanced, enlightened mind, contrary to authority and paternalism, and then has only deference to authorities as "arguments"....she cannot articulate their "conclusions" so she refers to them. It's like what the shit-Stain did....he is clueless, incompetent, a mediocre mind declaring himself a genius, and all he has is his theoretical dinners with intellectuals, his success with women, and some allusions to intellectuals he supposedly understands and are superior to what we, mortals consider philosophy.
In the case of the Jewish princess, she likes to think of herself as the equal to men, and liberated from her dependence on them...but here she is, alluding to male pseudo-intellectuals, adopting male idealism, and demanding that the masculine entity of the state assures her an idealized lifestyle as a pretend male. We've provided her sex with the means to pretend she is a male, with abortion on demand, the pill, policing, and law and order, giving her the right to pretend to be whatever she needs to cope with what she is, but this is not enough when there are real men around reminding her she is pretending to be their equal, and that she cannot even walk down a dark street without shitting in her panties...because, you see, there are special laws protecting males from hoodlums and violence. She wants the state to step in and ramp up the illusion of parity...because without the state she remembers what she truly is. She demands that the paternalistic system, she theoretically opposes, become more strict towards everyone but her, so as to offer a protective shield for the little girls to play at being men......so she wants a father-figure entity to walk next to her, at all times, with an all-encompassing, protective umbrella.
She has to make it all a social construct because her ideal is a social constructed lie. Imagine her arguing with a man, in the wild, where no modern systems exist, about her rights and how equal she is to him. Imagine her telling him he wants to rape her, because of his upbringing, and his need to feel superior to her, or some other political motive. She's a pathetic, hypocritical, imbecile, like the lot of them.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
What's funny is that these "rebels" against the status quo are so dependent and impressed by the mere mention of an authority figure, that supports their emotional "arguments", or that they even consider such naive, infantile methods "arguments".
This is pronounced in these so called Nietzscheans, who declare themselves revolutionary thinkers, and then surrender to the cult of personality. The mere meton of the name is an 'argument" is "evidence".
We see this in a more unsophisticated form with these morons, like the girly. She's considers herself an advanced, enlightened mind, contrary to authority and paternalism, and then has only deference to authorities as "arguments"....she cannot articulate their "conclusions" so she refers to them. It's like what the shit-Stain did....he is clueless, incompetent, a mediocre mind declaring himself a genius, and all he has is his theoretical dinners with intellectuals, his success with women, and some allusions to intellectuals the supposedly understands and are surprise to what we, mortals consider philosophy.
In the case of the Jewish princess, she likes to think of herself as the equal to men, and liberated from hr dependence on them...but here she is, alluding to male pseudo-intellectuals, adopting male idealism, and demanding that the masculine entity of the state, assures her an idealized lifestyle as a pretend male. We've provided her sex with the means to pretend she is a male, with the abortion, the pill and policing, and law and order, giving her the right to pretend to be whatever she needs to cope with what she is, but this is not enough when there are real men around reminding her she is pretending to be their equal, and that she cannot even walk down a dark street without shitting in her panties...because, you see, there are special laws protecting males from hoodlums and violence. She want the state to step in and ramp up the illusion of parity...because without the state she remembers what she truly is. She demands that the paternalistic system she theoretically opposes, become more strict, towards everyone but her, so as to offer a protective shield for the little girls to play at being a man......so she wants a father-figure entity to walk next other, with an all-encompassing, protective umbrella.
She has to make it all a social construct because her ideal is a social constructed lie. Imagine her arguing with man, in the wild, where no modern systems exist, about her rights and how equal she is to him. She's a pathetic, hypocritical, imbecile, like the lot of them.
Feminism in a nutshell.
/thread
Black Jew Witch
Gender : Posts : 40 Join date : 2017-07-23 Age : 32 Location : New Orleans
I'm somewhat disappointed. I went out of my way, taking a week of my life, to make a strong argument and back it up with a lot of evidence. But all I got in return was anecdotes and conjectures. Both would be fine if you people presented at least some decent evidence to back it up, or at least pretend to like Tomi Lahren does, or even make a serious effort to disprove the evidence. But there is no good argument against all the evidence I brought up.
Citing a statistic or a science journal is not blindly following authority; it's citing reliable evidence to back up your claims, especially since I know how to actually read a statistic or scientific study to figure out how the scientists arrived to their conclusions. It's hypocritical to tell me I blindly follow authority when you take at face value everything Black Pigeon Speaks, Camille Paglia, and Karen Straughan say with no critical comments on any of them.
@Impulso Oscuro, I'm sorry to hear you were depressed for 2 years. But getting put in the friends zone by a girl you like is not a good reason to adopt a political ideology. You need to seriously look at evidence and critically examine what you believe in and why. Adopting a party line to soothe your butthurt is a bad decision to make. You're better than that.
@Satyr, you're like a broken record. You repeat the same things, over and over again, no matter what anyone says, and it's all based on personal anecdotes and broad conjectures. Both would be fine if you bothered to back it up with critical thought; in other words an actual desire to do the hard work to find the truth. This is bad philosophy, if it can be called philosophy at all.
@AutSider, Shekelstein insults are neither creative, intelligent, nor funny. For every joke you make about Jews and showers, I can make jokes about Communists utterly destroying the Nazis. At least Communists won WW2. Fascist ideologies always fail because they are so deeply delusional and hypocritical and cannot honestly asses the people they consider enemies.
@Aeon, you're OK. Get out while you're still sane.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I'm somewhat disappointed. I went out of my way, taking a week of my life, to make a strong argument and back it up with a lot of evidence. But all I got in return was anecdotes and conjectures. Both would be fine if you people presented at least some decent evidence to back it up, or at least pretend to like Tomi Lahren does, or even make a serious effort to disprove the evidence.
Is it "evidence" to allude to some debunking by some authority, or do you seek evidence directly in world? It took you a week to google search that crap?
Quote :
But there is no good argument against all the evidence I brought up.
How could there be? Rape is a social construct, means rape in nature is a product of human societies. Species simply emerge overnight...they do not gradually evolve through intermediate states. Specialization only affects the body, and not the mind, just as environment only affects the body, how it looks, and not the mind, how it thinks. Intelligence just happened...or God created it. He created man, as social organism and placed him in a system. There was no past. It all began 6 thousand years ago.
Quote :
Citing a statistic or a science journal is not blindly following authority; it's citing reliable evidence to back up your claims, especially since I know how to actually read a statistic or scientific study to figure out how the scientists arrived to their conclusions. It's hypocritical to tell me I blindly follow authority when you take at face value everything Black Pigeon Speaks, Camille Paglia, and Karen Straughan say with no critical comments on any of them.
Moron, I repeat myself because I come across the same bullshyte.
Explain how nature only works superficially, affecting individuals physically but not mentally, if you can. Explain how man invented rape, as part of his power relationships, and that it has no sexual factor. Explain why rape is so distressful, when it is a benevolent sharing of love?
Do something more than declare shit, and then demand to be respected and to be taken seriously.
Moron, read that book by Thornhill and Palmer, if you actually care for the truth. They answers all your post-modern mythologies and addresses all your statistics and your emotional defensiveness. Then come back and let's discuss.
I'm sure you can find someone on ILP on your level.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
A excerpt, that unfortunately does not copy & paste well. It requires work, I have to justify to myself, given the quality of the counter- argument.
Bear with me as I untangle this mess.
Thornhill: Palmer wrote:
A Critique of the Arguments
We now offer a critique of the arguments that are most often used to support the claim that rapists are not sexually motivated.
Argument 1 "When they say sex or sexual, these social scientists and feminists [who argue that rape is not sexually motivated] mean the motivation, moods, or drives associated with honest courtship and pair bonding. In such situations, males report feelings of tenderness, affection, joy and soon.. . .It is this sort of pleasurable motivation that the socioculturists (and feminists) denote as sexuality.... " (Shields and Shields 1983,p.122) The socio-cultural definition of 'sex' is inaccurately and unnecessarily restricted. In view of the more common usage of the word 'sex', it is, according to Hagen(1979,pp.158-159), "abundantly self evident. ..that a large percentage of males have no difficulty in divorcing sex from love, " and "whistles and wolf-calls, attendance at burlesque shows,[and] patronizing of call girls and prostitutes" are all "probably manifestations of a sexual urge totally or largely bereft of romantic feelings."
Argument 2 Rape is not sexually motivated, because "most rapists have stable sexual partners"(SanfordandFetter1979, p.. This argument hinges on the assumption that a male's sexual desire is exhausted by a single partner. In addition to being contrary to our knowledge of the evolution of human sexuality, this assumption is obviously inconsistent with Symons's observation (1979,p.280) that "most patrons of prostitutes, adult bookstores, and adult movie theaters are married men, but this is not considered evidence for lack of sexual motivation."
Argument 3 Rape is not sexually motivated, because rapes are often "premeditated" (Brownmiller 1975;Griffin 1971). This argument hinges on the assumption that all acts that are truly sexually motivated are spontaneous. The assumption is obviously untrue: many highly planned affairs, rendezvous, and seductions are considered to be sexually motivated (Symons1979,p.279).
Argument 4 The age distribution of rapists demonstrates that rape is a crime of violence and aggression rather than a crime of sex: ".. .the violence prone years for males extend from their teenage years into their late forties, this is the age range into which most rapists fall. Unlike sexuality, aggression does diminish with age and, therefore, a male's likelihood of committing a rape diminishes with the onset of middle age."(Groth and Hobsonl983,p.l61) Contrary to this assertion, the peak age distribution of rapists (teens through twenties; see Thornhill and Thornhill 1983) is perfectly consistent with the view that rapists are sexually motivated, since it closely parallels the age distribution of numerous other types of male sexual activity and of maximum male sexual motivation in general (Kinseyetal.1948; Goethals1971).
Argument 5 The fact that rape is common in war demonstrates that rape is motivated by hostility rather than sex (Brownmiller 1975,pp.31-113;Card 1996). The high frequency of rape during war does not necessarily indicate that the rapists are not sexually motivated. The exceptionally high vulnerability of females during war may account for the greater frequency of rape by sexually motivated men. Theft is also frequent during war situations, owing to the fact that punishment is unlikely (Morris 1996), but this does not imply that the thieves are not motivated by desire for the stolen objects. Furthermore, the patterns of rape during war are consistent with the view that the rapist soldiers are sexually motivated and inconsistent with the view of rape as simply a tool of political domination. Throughout recorded history, the pattern in large-scale warfare has been to spare and rape the young non-pregnant women and to slaughter everyone else (Shields and Shields 1983; Hartung 1992).
Brownmiller (1975) sees rape in large-scale war as stemming in part from the frenzied state of affairs and the great excitement of men who have just forcefully dominated the enemy. That hypothesis predicts that soldier rapists would be indiscriminate about the age of the victims. But they are not; they prefer young women. Similarly, Brownmiller's view that rape in war—like rape in general—is a strategy of men to dominate women predicts that men would rape older women, who tend to have more resources and more social dominance.
Argument 6 Rather than a sexually motivated act, rape is a form of "social control" because it is used as a form of punishment in some societies (Brownmiller1975,p.285). The flaw in this argument is that the use of rape as a punishment" does not prove that sexual feelings are not also involved, anymore than the deprivation of property as punishment proves that the property is not valuable to the punisher "(Symons1979,p.280).
Argument7 "Men have been asked why they raped and many have said it was not out of sexual desire but for power and control over their victims." (Dean and deBruyn-Kopps1982,p.233, citing evidence from Groth1979 ) to Numerous studies have found that rapists often cite sexual desire as a cause of their actions. For example, Smithyman(1978,p.ix) reports that 84 percent of rapists surveyed cited sexual motivation "solely or in part" as a cause of their acts. "Indeed, even the quotations Groth(1979,pp.38, 42) selected in an attempt to demonstrate the insignificance of sexual motivation includes such statements as "She stood there in her nightgown, and you could see right through it—you could see her nipples and breasts and, you know, they were just waiting for me, and it was just too much of a temptation to pass up" and "I just wanted to have sex with her and that was all."
Indeed, Groth(p.28) points out that the most common type of rapist— what Groth calls the "power rapist"—"may report that his behavior was prompted by a desire for sexual gratification." It is also important to note that reports of rapists 'citing power and control rather than sexual desire as the cause of their actions come primarily from studies of convicted rapists. Were these men truthfully reporting their motives, or were they giving the explanations desired by the researchers? As Symons(1979,p.283) observes,"it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the men's conscious attempts to emphasize their correct attitudes and to minimize their sexual impulsiveness were to some extent calculated to foster the impression that they no longer constituted a threat."
Argument 8 The physical harm done to victims demonstrates that rapists are not motivated by sexual desire (Harding 1985). To determine the significance of data on rapist violence and victim injury , one must distinguish between instrumental force (the force actually needed to complete the rape, and possibly to influence the victim not to resist, not to call for help, and/or not to report the rape) and excessive force (which might be a motivating end in itself). Only excessive force is a possible indication of violent motivation. Use of forceful tactics to reach a desired experience does not imply that the tactics are goals in themselves (unless, as was noted above, one is willing to argue that a man's giving money to a prostitute in exchange for sex is evidence that the man's behavior is motivated by a desire to give away money). Here again the crucial distinction between goals and tactics is blurred when rape is referred to as an act of violence. Harding(1985,p.51) claims that "in many cases of rape in humans, assault seems to be the important factor, not sex, " on the ground that "in most cases the use of force goes beyond that necessary to compel compliance with the rapist's demands. "However, it is evident from the actual data—including the data that Harding cites on the very same page—that, although force is often used instrumentally to accomplish a rape, excessive force resulting in substantial physical injuries occurs only in a minority of rapes. In their study of 1401 rape victims, McCahill et al.(1979 ) found that most of the victims reported the use of instrumental force (84percent reported being threatened with bodily harm, 64 percent being pushed or held), but acts that might indicate excessive force were reported in only a minority of the rapes (slapping in 17 percent, beating in 22 percent, choking in 20 percent). Similarly, a survey of volunteers at rape crisis centers found that only 15 percent of victims they encountered reported having been beaten in excess of what was needed to accomplish the rape (Palmer 1988b,p.219).
Geis(1977) found that 78 percent of the rapists in his study had wanted the victim to cooperate. Katz and Mazur(1979,p. 171 ) found that "although most rape victims encountered some form of physical force, few experienced severe lasting injuries"— a pattern also reported by Bowyer and Dalton(1997). Even a study that focused on"overly violent rapists" (Que en's Bench Foundation 1978,p.778) found that only 23 percent of these rapists inflicted "very severe injury." In comparison with Harding's assertion, the evidence appears to be more consistent with Hagen's (1979,p.87)conclusion: .. .in the great majority of rape cases, physical injury , other than that which might he related to penetration is not done to the victim (for example Brownrniller 1975, p.216; Burgess and Holmstrom 1974). And generally, there is no injury at all. If violence is what the rapist is after, he's not very good at it. Certainly he has the victim in a position from which he could do all kinds of physical damage. Even when excessive violence does occur, sexual motivation still appears to be a necessary part of the explanation for why a rape rather than a non sexual assault occurred. As Rada(1978a,p.22)states,"if aggression were the sole motive it might be more simply satisfied by a physical beating." Although murder of a rape victim certainly may indicate hostile motivation, at least some such murders may be due to the simple fact that killing the victim greatly increases the rapist's chances of escaping punishment by removing the only witness to the rape (Alexander and Noonan 1979;Groth 1979;Hagen 1979). Rape-murders,however,are a very small percentage of all murders. In the United States, over the period 1976-1994, in no year was the percentage of murders that included rape or other sexual assault higher than 2 (Greenfield 1997)—and an unknown portion of that small percentage involved male murder victims. An evolutionary approach can also explain patterns of excessive force in the minority of cases where it does occur. Young women, highly over represented as rape victims,are also at the greatest risk of being killed by their assailants, according to data from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Chicago (Wilsonetal.1997). Young women appear to resist rape more than females in other age groups. The strong sexual motivation of the rapist to rape a young victim, in combination with her greater resistance, may account for young women's over representation in homicides with sexual assault. And female victims of theft-murder are, on average,much older than female victims of rape-murder (Wilsonetal.1997). Another circumstance that is probably related to the use of excessive violence by some rapists is dissolution of mateship. Men's sexual jealousy and other proprietary actions toward deserting mates often includes battering as a mechanism of sexual control. Another abusive behavior may be inseminating the deserting mate against her will, which has the (perhaps evolved) effect of increasing the rapist's paternity reliability if there is sperm competition. There are data indicating that men who rape their estranged mates are more likely to physically injure the victim than rapists who have other relationships to the victim (Felson and Krohn1990). While contrary to the social science explanation of rape, evidence that rapists do not routinely use excess violence in order to mate with unwilling women is predicted by evolutionary theory. Rape occurs against the will of the victim and thus is often accompanied by tactical violence. However, violence that injures the victim would reduce her ability to produce and care for any offspring that resulted from the rape. This cost,which applies to much of human evolutionary history, is expected to have given rise to selection for rapists who minimize injury to their victims. ' ' As was detailed in chapter 3, the evolutionary view of rape as rape specific adaptation suggests that men may be sexually aroused by physical control of the victim because such control would have facilitated rape in human evolutionary history while also reducing the cost of rape to the rapist. This does not imply that rape motivation of men requires physical control of the victim; it implies only that such control, when perceived by men, may increase rape motivation because it increases their sexual arousal.
Argument 9 IT IS NOT A CRIME OF LUST BUT OF VIOLENCE AND POWER...RAPE VICTIMS ARE NOT ONLY THE "LOVELY YOUNG BLONDES" OF NEWSPAPER HEADLINES—RAPISTS STRIKE CHILDREN,THE AGED,THE HOMELY—ALL WOMEN. (Brownmiller1976,back cover) It is fitting that this argument should appear in bold type on the cover of Brownmiller's milestone book Against Our Will, since the assertion that rapists do not prefer sexually attractive victims is probably the most powerful and the most widely cited argument used to support the claim that rapists are not sexually motivated (Palmer1988a). That argument is fatally flawed, however. The statement that "any female may become a victim of rape" (Brownmiller1975,p.348) does not imply that the "rapist chooses his victim with a striking disregard for conventional 'sex appeal'" (ibid. ,p.338). Contrary to Brownmiller, although any female might become a victim of rape, some women are far more likely to become victims of rape than others. Indeed,one of the most consistent finding of studies on rape, and one not likely to be due entirely to reporting bias, is that women in their teens and their early twenties are highly over represented among rape victims around the world (Svalastoga 1962;Amir 1971 ; MacDonald 1971;Miyazawa 1976;Hindelang 1977;Hindelang and Davis 1977;Russell 1984;Kramer1987;Whitaker 1987 ;Pawson and Banks 1993). Far from demonstrating the absence of sexual motivation in rapists, the correlation between the age distribution of rape victims and the age of peak female sexual attractiveness is powerful evidence of such motivation. Other such evidence is provided by the finding that during sexual assaults men are more likely to engage in penile-vaginal intercourse (as opposed to exclusively non-copulatory sexual behaviors), and in multiple episodes of such intercourse, when the victim is a young woman than when she is of non-reproductive age.(Seechapter4.) Many of the researchers who have denied the importance of sexual motivation in rape have asserted that the vulnerability of victims is the primary factor explaining the age pattern of victimization. For example, Groth (1979,p.173)states that "vulnerability and accessibility play a more significant role in determining victim selection than does physical attractiveness or alleged provocativeness" and that "rape is far more an issue of hostility than of sexual desire. "This argument is truly astonishing in view of the fact that the age distribution of rape victims is essentially the opposite of what would b predicted by this explanation. Numerous researchers, including Groth, have pointed out that females in the age categories least likely to be raped are the most vulnerable. As Rodabaugh and Austin(1981 ,p.44)note, "both the very young and the very old [are]at high risk because of their inability to resist. "Indeed, although the elderly are "particularly vulnerable "to rape (Groth 1979,p.173), various studies, including Groth's own, have consistently found that less than 5 percent of rape victims are over the age of 50. Although the greater vulnerability of children and the elderly probably accounts for why they are raped more often than would be expected on the basis of their attractiveness alone.
A Natural History of Rape
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:33 pm; edited 6 times in total
Impulso Oscuro
Gender : Posts : 796 Join date : 2013-12-10 Age : 33 Location : Praxis
@Impulso Oscuro, I'm sorry to hear you were depressed for 2 years. But getting put in the friends zone by a girl you like is not a good reason to adopt a political ideology. You need to seriously look at evidence and critically examine what you believe in and why. Adopting a party line to soothe your butthurt is a bad decision to make. You're better than that.
You didn't answer my question, and responded in the most predictable way, but thats what you wanted to hear right? Save your patronizing, im glad it all happened, i probably wouldn't be here if it hadn't.
But i wonder how would you answer it? Would you say that the disparity between me and the other guy was itself a mistake, would you say that my preference for her "intelligence" is a mistake itself? Perhaps i should've just closed my eyes and "eeenie meenie minie mo".
I think its a great reason, it illustrated the hypocritical nature of those who desire equality, a trend which i have seen again and again ever since.
Your evidence is all words and no action, thinking that if i ignore my senses and believe in the word long enough, it will eventually come true...
Why does inequality make you butthurt?
_________________ Once more, with knowing.
The meek shall inherit the Earth, but the Noble shall take it.
The main thing is my jokes are funny and based on facts - overwhelming influence of a certain tribe in global politics compared to their actual numbers, and the fact that their influence is destructive to white people.
Your jokes are based on disregarding the fact that the Communists far outnumbered the Nazis, aka on disregarding the scientific principle of all other factors equal (ceteris paribus), which I'm glad you did because it showed how hypocritical you are, and that you only pretend to care about science when you think it supports your views, but you disregard actual scientific principles the moment it is convenient for you.
The only reason Nazis are hated is the post-war propaganda. Objectively speaking, they're the modern day equivalent of Spartans - they had better quality men, they caused disproportionate losses to the enemy, and they ultimately lost due to being overwhelmed by sheer numbers. In a saner world, we would be admiring them in the same way we admire the 300 Spartans.
_________________ "WOMEN BAD, CHURCH GOOD, NIGGERS BAD, WHITE GOOD, EUROPE CUCKED, PATRARCHY GOOD, ARISTOCRACY GOOD, DEMOCRACY BAD" - polishyouth
America designed a government to criminalize black people ever since slavery ended.
So your alternative is to let criminals roam freely, murdering, raping, thieving as they seem fit? And when you are the victim, won't you run to the authorities, the very ones you just rebuked? Sounds like a simple contradiction-hypocrisy to me. You basically bite the hand that feeds you.
I'm cool but others are not? Does that mean you agree with my perspective on feminism? Do you even know my position or are you self-absorbed? To me, a "feminine woman" is one who is dignified, does not slut around, is self confident with her ability to seduce, chooses a mate, a man with severe discrimination, cooks for her man, and builds a home, and family for herself. She defends what she has created and is responsible for. She is not ashamed of herself, like modern women and "feminisnts" are.
A really feminine woman is not a "feminist" by any means. The word "feminism" is an inversion, a corruption, twisting around the premise, a feminine-woman, as a means of political ideology and leverage. The ideal of "feminists" and those who created the movement, is to undermine and destroy traditional homes and families, marriages, and the truly 'feminine' women.
If you were a feminine woman then you would quickly learn how feminism is a sham, and detrimental to yourself, and other women.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Universities, as many academics now tell us, have been taken over by the social warriors of post-modernity, bread and raised since the sixties on Marxist propaganda. The humanities, in particular, are dominated by hippie types and activist more interested in bringing about a Utopian Marxist society, than exploring reality. Peterson is one of many who are exposing the infection of the same dis-ease infecting culture, in academia.
In their desperation to prove that Negroes are equal to other races, and to explain why there si no civilization before contact with the evil White man, comparable to those found in Asia and Europe, they shamelessly attempt to make Egyptian civilization one established by Negroes.
Since I've been reprimanded for repeating myself, and sounding like a "broken record" when I repeat the same arguments these degenerates fail to respond to, and then throwing at me the same crap I've faced for twenty years, I promise to never respond to the same tired crap again.
From now on, I will respond to this degenerate that all her posts have been answered, here, and in many other threads throughout KT and other Forums. If she offers no challenges to them, directly, but cites the same crap, seeking validation in authorities infected by her dis-ease, and offers no logical explanations to the queries I make into her absurdities, then there's really nothing more to say. Her positions, though regurgitated, fail to offer explanations, not only to the positions quoted above, but to observations into species behaviour throughout nature. She simply wants to cherry pick studies made by her social warrior types, to validate positions she cannot justify on her own. All she does is hide behind authorities, while declaring whores in the wold west as being challenging to institutional authority and paternalism. She contradicts her own declarations, with actions. Here she is, a real female, completely dependent on authorities, declaring females as being rebels and challenging authority. Unable to offer her own arguments, all she has are these proxies. In the meantime she is a living example of all my positions concerning females and their mentality.
I've given her a response constructed by another, since she does not respect anything that comes from unauthorized sources, and cannot judge an argument on merit, but only values it based on popularity and official, sanctioning. The idea that science is also corrupted by cultural influences, and their dependence on funding, is not enough to question authorities that tell her exactly what she wants to believe. Rape is rampant in nature. No social power games, or human contrivances there. Only basic reproduction strategies. No moralities, and 'oughts" and 'should be's', only basic utility and cost/benefit judgment calls.
The authors of the book I quoted offer some very compelling reasoning into many aspect of rape...from why young females with mates seem to suffer more distress than do females with no mate or older females that cannot conceive, to explanations as to why rape is so distressful to females, generally, when no damage is done, and they are built to be penetrated.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
She vomits this crap as if she is debunking something, and then demands others wade through the filth to figure out what specifically she thinks is an argument against what is being said here.
Take #5, which has been answered not only by me but by the authors in the book I quoted.
What does this study state? That males tend to be more aroused by consensual sex than by violent sex....and? How does this contradict my positions? I'm supposed to figure that out, because the twat is afraid that if she says something she'll expose what a moron she is.
#4 offers us a feminist approach to seductive attire, and objectification of women, straight out of the same book of feminism. We are supposed to weep because men objectify women. we're supposed to suspend our own reasoning, and believe that females do not dress provocatively during fertile periods in their cycle, and that going out with tits and ass on display does not increase the chances of being raped....like entering the Pacific with a bloody steak in your anus does not increase the odds of being eaten by a great white shark.
She included an article on male rape, as if male rape is the same as female rape...because having a penis shoved in your rectum is exactly the same as having it shoved into your vagina. Was your ass made to be fucked? Faggots say yaaaa....holla!!!
Look at #1.... pandemic of sexual violence, already part of my thesis on feminization....But I shan't repeat myself, and I shall remain quiet, and let her declare victory. Does it say why rape evolved or why it persists? What is called "sexual harassment" in these degenerate times, was called flirting 30 years ago. Ha!!!
This is the kind of "arguments" this imbecile thinks are new, and require a response.....when they've been responded to a dozen times. But I repeat myself, so I shall not....
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Black Jew Witch
Gender : Posts : 40 Join date : 2017-07-23 Age : 32 Location : New Orleans
Generally Equal" is not equal. Men have higher IQs not only on average but on the right end of the bell curve, where it matters most.
I explained in detail why the majority studies show that men don't have higher general intelligence than women. I also explained why the studies by Richard Lynn, who argues that men have higher IQ, was flawed because he left out a significant portion of the data. I also brought up Robert Sapolsky, who explained that as societies become more equal the gap between women and men in math closes, and that includes the far end of the bell curve. If women were so naturally stupid then nothing of the sort would happen.
Impulso Oscuro wrote:
Where was the equality there? She taught me more with what she did than any of your arguments or sources ever will. Call me a bitter idiot and ridicule me if you desire, but i will not be fooled again.
You say there was equality, so there was nothing selected for? We were just randomly fucking eachother in an orgy with no direction at all, until suddenly patriarchy came from the void and ruined the party? The sexual organs developed randomly and have no predictive power on the attitude towards existence that one will have. The differences in brain size are just a long randomly socially constructed effect of patriarchy. Of course here is the part where you give me some mental gymnastics as to how there was "choice" but not enough to be significant. Where the sexual organs have some predictive power but are not everything. How despite a controlled environment the female and male brain difference can still be explained by the infinite amount of environmental variables.
I'm not saying there is no natural selection with sexual organs or brain size or any of it. Your problem is you assume that any natural difference between men and women automatically means men are superior. But Nature doesn't work like that. Women have different and smaller brains than men, but women still have the same general intelligence as men do.
Impulso Oscuro wrote:
This is a very common behavior i see in you...
Yes i admit x, but since x is not absolute that means x is irrelevant and insignificant.
"Yes i admit there is a difference in average intelligence, but since its only about 5 points, it shouldn't really matter.
Even if Lynn's study was completely accurate and reflected some truth written in stone, so what? How will that affect your decision-making? If a woman in a profession is just as qualified, intelligent, and capable as a man in that same profession, or even more qualified, intelligent, and capable, will you reject the woman simply because she is a woman? You also said that a "proper" woman stays all the time in the house and looks after a man's interests. How would an 5 IQ point difference justify such things? Never mind that women throughout human history did hard work and did not stay cooped up at home all the time.
Impulso Oscuro wrote:
But i wonder how would you answer it? Would you say that the disparity between me and the other guy was itself a mistake, would you say that my preference for her "intelligence" is a mistake itself? Perhaps i should've just closed my eyes and "eeenie meenie minie mo".
Your evidence is all words and no action, thinking that if i ignore my senses and believe in the word long enough, it will eventually come true...
So you're going to make an entire worldview, and ignore all evidence against it, because of one think that happened? You act as if biologists and sociologists just make shit up. They don't.
Impulso Oscuro wrote:
Why does inequality make you butthurt?
You are far nastier and angrier to me than the other way around. Clearly you are butthurt and more emotional than I am.
Black Jew Witch
Gender : Posts : 40 Join date : 2017-07-23 Age : 32 Location : New Orleans
The main thing is my jokes are funny and based on facts - overwhelming influence of a certain tribe in global politics compared to their actual numbers, and the fact that their influence is destructive to white people.
Your jokes are based on disregarding the fact that the Communists far outnumbered the Nazis, aka on disregarding the scientific principle of all other factors equal (ceteris paribus), which I'm glad you did because it showed how hypocritical you are, and that you only pretend to care about science when you think it supports your views, but you disregard actual scientific principles the moment it is convenient for you.
The only reason Nazis are hated is the post-war propaganda. Objectively speaking, they're the modern day equivalent of Spartans - they had better quality men, they caused disproportionate losses to the enemy, and they ultimately lost due to being overwhelmed by sheer numbers. In a saner world, we would be admiring them in the same way we admire the 300 Spartans.
I don't know about you, but the Nazis had plenty of allies, including Imperial Japan, Italy, Croatia etc. This also includes all territories occupied by Italy (Libya and Albania) and Japan (Thailand and Indonesia). Germany did not enter a one-man war against the world.
Also, about fascism standing up to degeneracy, you do realize that fascism is not a refutation against Capitalism and Christianity. Fascism is made up of Capitalism and Christianity. The Catholic Church greatly supported Hitler and Mussolini during the war. The very word "privatization" was created to describe what Hitler and big business did in Nazi Germany, which was to take government-owned sectors and give it to wealthy business-owners [1].
American capitalists admired Nazi Germany before WW2, when Hitler interfered with American business interests. They thought fascism was a return to noble "tradition" and, like fascists, they sought to destroy those who opposed business interests; union groups, communists, anarchists, feminists etc. America has behaved in a similar way long after WW2.
America officially despises Nazis but American government is much closer to fascism than communism. America is a system where corporations practically own the government at this point and have slowly deregulated, and well privatized, over the decades. And don't forget that most American politicians are zealot Christians and hold views similar to fascists, such as controlling women's bodies, deregulation of corporations, and so forth.
Mussolini is often believed to have said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” He never said this, but it does reveal the truth that fascism is just capitalism behaving sincerely. Here is an actual quote Mussolini said, that says that same thing in essence, that corporatism birthed fascism, "The corporative regime, “typical creation and legitimate pride of the fascist revolution,” the cornerstone of the fascist State, “which is corporate or is not fascist,” was made, if not already, the doctrine, the doctrine of inspiration since December of ’21."
Face it, fascism is the most degenerate political ideology ever devised by humans.
The only reason Nazis are hated is the post-war propaganda. Objectively speaking, they're the modern day equivalent of Spartans - they had better quality men, they caused disproportionate losses to the enemy, and they ultimately lost due to being overwhelmed by sheer numbers. In a saner world, we would be admiring them in the same way we admire the 300 Spartans.
Um, all the genocide Nazis did against many groups of people probably has to do with it. I doubt Serbians liked Nazis very much. I'm not sure disabled people liked Nazis either. I doubt I have to mention all the Germans who didn't like Nazis, nor the Jews or Roma. But nah, the Nazis were the noble 300 Spartans, not brainwashed tools of a corrupt government.
Last edited by Black Jew Witch on Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Black Jew Witch
Gender : Posts : 40 Join date : 2017-07-23 Age : 32 Location : New Orleans
So your alternative is to let criminals roam freely, murdering, raping, thieving as they seem fit? And when you are the victim, won't you run to the authorities, the very ones you just rebuked? Sounds like a simple contradiction-hypocrisy to me. You basically bite the hand that feeds you.
No, I'm not saying let loose all criminals. But please let loose people arrested for having weed and not putting non-violent offenders for 20+ years in prison. That is what most black people are arrested for. Even Nixon's aid admitted that the War on Drugs was made up to put black people in jail.
Aeon wrote:
I'm cool but others are not? Does that mean you agree with my perspective on feminism? Do you even know my position or are you self-absorbed? To me, a "feminine woman" is one who is dignified, does not slut around, is self confident with her ability to seduce, chooses a mate, a man with severe discrimination, cooks for her man, and builds a home, and family for herself. She defends what she has created and is responsible for. She is not ashamed of herself, like modern women and "feminisnts" are.
If that is your feminine ideal, great. But don't force other women to conform to one man's ideals. Most modern women and feminists aren't ashamed of themselves. Traditionally-minded women are more ashamed of themselves because they believe in doctrines (such as Christianity or Islam) that outright state that women's bodies are disgusting, that women are responsible for the corruption of mankind, and women should be ashamed for themselves. Many atheist right wingers say the same thing, just try to dress up their bigotry with pseudoscience.
Also, not all discrimination is good. Some discrimination is good, if it is informed and well-thought. Discrimination based on on prejudice or fear is just bad.
Aeon wrote:
A really feminine woman is not a "feminist" by any means. The word "feminism" is an inversion, a corruption, twisting around the premise, a feminine-woman, as a means of political ideology and leverage. The ideal of "feminists" and those who created the movement, is to undermine and destroy traditional homes and families, marriages, and the truly 'feminine' women.
If you were a feminine woman then you would quickly learn how feminism is a sham, and detrimental to yourself, and other women.
I don't know about you, but I like being able to vote, having my own bank account, not being turned down for a profession just for being a woman, being accepted in society for my own merits and not judged badly just for being a woman, and being able to reject a partner who abuses or rapes me and not depend on such a person for safety or money.
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
No matter the ability of women, they will always have wombs and men have the penis. And men will always be fighting over control of the women. There has yet to be any sort of female 'take over' of civilization because women rely on men, still.
Women will have their 'equality' when men stop competing over them (and all men treat women the same, don't kid yourself). Enabling women greater 'rights' is just the current established patriarchs wanting to prevent them from siding with a different patriarch.
If the patriarchs succeed, they only succeed in bandaids. Islam will be a temporary 'refresher' of exotic masculinity, and then the same problems will arise again. What amount of stupefying will they have to sink to in order to get their fix of masculine spirit again? Maybe they'll start having women fuck gorillas.
Black Jew Witch
Gender : Posts : 40 Join date : 2017-07-23 Age : 32 Location : New Orleans
@Satyr, if you read what I said, I never said sexual urges was never a factor in rape, but that rape is caused by many other factors too. You can't pin rape as only a sexual thing and then try to make it normal and acceptable human behavior because nature fallacy. And I have the quote here just in case you think I'm making things up.
Quoting Brownmiller's Against Our Will is nice and all but that book is very outdated and has been criticized even by other feminists. It is not the view even most feminists today have regarding rape.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
@Black Jew Witch All you offer is the same post-modern rhetoric, and Marxist based idealism, I have encountered everywhere, from YouTube, to the Networks...it is repeated daily in television shows and in movie blockbusters. You offer nothing new. I have addressed these delusional ideologies....as have some others willing to risk careers and reputation for the sake of truth. If you ever add something new to the rhetoric, I will address it. All else has been given a reply. Read precisely what I say about the big three issues in Modern social activism: females, homosexuals, part of the same theme, and race. You offer nothing in response but what is currently popular. Since you do not want me to repeat myself, spare me from your repeating crap, or read what is already posted, here and elsewhere, if you care to do so....because I really do not care if you don't.
I'm going to leave you with an insinuating question... Twins are born, one male and another female. They share most of the same DNA....yet the male develops differently. He grows taller, and more muscled, but do the differences end there? How could the same DNA allocate the same, in general as you say, potentials, so differently, and why would nature be so "unfair"?
Answer that, honestly, and you will understand why men dominate in the creative arts, and in philosophy and in innovative science and technology, and females dominate in social relationships, and intuitive psychological insight...and why Negroes do not have the same potentials as Europeans do. Think specialization. One species is a Jaguar, the other a Cheetah...both have, in general, approximately, the same DNA, but one is agile and climbs trees, and the other is the fastest land animal. Specialization is the allocation of energies, and the development of different traits.
That 5%, or 0.5% or 0.005% makes all the difference. How could a small genetic difference make one species remain a simple animal, like chimpanzees, and another develop spaceships?
If whores built the west, by challenging the male authorities, as you wrongly believe, then why do you remain trapped in the shadow of authorities and you refuse to see for yourself? Is it because what they say satisfies your desires, flatters you, pleases you? You are no philosopher, dear. You are another woman, who wants to feel safe, and to be loved, and to be appreciated and respected and taken seriously, and listened to...and you want the State, the institution, to be like a father, and help you do so.
.