Are You Not What You Are Being Told You Are?

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by mistermonculous

 

There are two types of dogs male dogs and female dogs....And every dog has his day....It does not get much clearer then that. Just like there are two types of humans, male humans and female humans, yet they to will have there day...Sorry I have no time or want to explain things to you in a much more clearer way, really you would not even understand it, and it would take way to much writing...

Ah the reference to the balance achieved through swapping between matriarchy and patriarchy.

Not necessary. This isn't balancing, it is a violent see-sawing force , and is accepted mostly because nobody noticed before and those who have have now built some sort of historical mythology of the duality of time around it.

What a crock.

Same with all the pseudo mystique. If you want to be some sort acceptance of the death of time and space with your nihilist attitudes about it, you go ahead. You're about the same as most other people in that way so it really isn't new and special. Its just the same old entrophy, and I have no interest in its embrace.

Put another way - God has mysterious ways, I'm happy to be one.

reply to post by Aeons


Matriarchy Patriarchy, same difference switch one for another that is the same.

Sorry Aeons but we have not lived in a patriarchy for most of time like the history books like people to believe. If anything that is just an excuse for the female gender to never really do any work when the time comes for it, all they seem to do is whine and blame others for there mistakes and faults, even to the point of inversely projecting what they are onto others, mostly males ....And yet they whine either way. If you do not believe me look at this site were its the topic or any other it's constant.

Matriarchy is just about as stupid as Patriarchy. I don't have nothing against the ladies like some seem to think, but I just don't like to pretend, and I will say it. There will be no difference in the world under a matriarchy, in fact it might be worse off, for females do have a habit of seeing things only one way, in there narrow view of things and the world. Some of the most ignorant people on the face of the earth are females. And if it were not for biological reasons, and billions of years of sexual development, some would literally would have went extinct centuries ago due to there ignorance on things.

Obviously for some reason you and mistermonculous seem to like to accuse me of things I am not, In fact your both so ignorant on things it' not even funny. In fact all you feminists are just plain fail, and all of you need to grow up.

And if you do not believe me here is a supposed dead, sort of a celebrity on ATS. Sharing the same thoughts.

"Feminism is mind control at its finest......Nikola Tesla"

Same with all the pseudo mystique. If you want to be some sort acceptance of the death of time and space with your nihilist attitudes about it, you go ahead. You're about the same as most other people in that way so it really isn't new and special. Its just the same old entrophy, and I have no interest in its embrace.

Wow even though they don't have a facepalm emoticon. I don't think they could make one to express the total fail in what you seem to try to pin on me. I think you should go sit on the little stool and think about how stupid what you wrote is.

Put another way - God has mysterious ways, I'm happy to be one.

I will ask it, next time I see it.

But your right God does work in mysterious ways. And no doubt you are one, but aren't we all? In fact aeons be more mysterious, so that way. I will be more surprised in what you say. As of yet nothing has been surprising or all that mysterious about you.

Ah, but apparently the very *idea* that I might want to make a place in society for disaffected men makes me a lazy, harpy and drives you crazy. That's AWESOME.

You'd rather we do nothing than do something. Embrace entropy. Why are you so threatened by the idea of societal direction by...gasp....real people!?

I answered your questions, and you've done nothing but attack. One moment for wanting to find a common ground with some smart men, and then the next for not being nice enough and being lazy and whiny as a woman.

So apparently I am a mean lazy woman towards men, who shows it by seeing something astonishing and worthy in them.

Alright.

reply to post by Aeons


Your making no sense Aeons, I think this is just a break down in communication.

Ah, but apparently the very *idea* that I might want to make a place in society for disaffected men makes me a lazy, harpy and drives you crazy. That's AWESOME.

I will tell you this. I do not know what the above means. Who are these disaffected men that you are talking about, and if you are trying to make a place for them in society that is great. But still it is more then a bit confusing.....As for me, I have learned and seen enough to know what "help" really is....And its anything but help, it's kind of like the people who just want to help you be free.....Ya it's a lot of things but not really all that free.

Anyways please make sense.

You'd rather we do nothing than do something. Embrace entropy. Why are you so threatened by the idea of societal direction by...gasp....real people!?

Ok another thing that I do not know what it is supposed to mean.....But lets just say if it came down to trusting a machine to guide me or people....I would trust the machine way more. As of yet they have not gave me any reason to distrust them...The same can not be said of people.

But still do as you will.

I answered your questions, and you've done nothing but attack. One moment for wanting to find a common ground with some smart men, and then the next for not being nice enough and being lazy and whiny as a woman.

No what you have done is not make much sense.....But hey if your looking for common ground, OK as you wish. But I do not think there is much that we or especially I, have in common with most people and yes especially women.

As for the other part, I was expecting you to go in another direction...It is usually what happens, I was just trying to save myself some typing.

So apparently I am a mean lazy woman towards men, who shows it by seeing something astonishing and worthy in them. Alright.

Oh yes your definitely on the mean side....You forget Aeons I seen you around and my third eye never lies. In fact it seems like a miracle that you have been on a thread about such things, without all of that spouting how some men who don't do what you seem to want, are looser's and should be removed from the gene pool.

I could source such things you know, but I am sure your remember them. But anyways usually when women try to be all nice, and cozy up to males.....They want something, or are up to some sort of silly plot. ....So Aeons what do you want? Whats the plot of this story, that has gotten you to write two words together without insulting my manhood.

There are entirely some losers who should fall out of the gene pool. I've been interacting with a few recently. If they did, the world would entirely be a better place without them.

I'm sorry, am I interfering with YOUR plans? Good.

Hiding behind the graces of good men, while whispering poison in their ears.

You LIE to men. If you don't like my interference with your lies, then I must entirely be on the right track.

www.socio-legal.sjtu.edu.cn...

Culture as a Determinant of Behaviour.

Figured this might make for some interesting academic reading for the less mystical here.


Mister - I've been thinking about your friends ideas. I think I agree with you. I think the do smell the dead end. How amazing is that?

Originally posted by Aeons
www.socio-legal.sjtu.edu.cn...

Culture as a Determinant of Behaviour.

Figured this might make for some interesting academic reading for the less mystical here.


Mister - I've been thinking about your friends ideas. I think I agree with you. I think the do smell the dead end. How amazing is that?

Oh, that notion was mine. And I think it's a recent phenomena. Within the past 10-15 years or so, those who would otherwise have felt the military offered a viable life choice are now treating it like a leper colony.

I've been thinking about the reproduction angle. It made me think of something a vet buddy of mine said about marriage. This guy is so down with kicking out some babies, that he's settled down with someone he doesn't particularly even like. When this is pointed out to him, he doesn't appear bothered in the least: "I don't have to like her, it's not important."

So, _____, why do you want to get married and have a bunch of kids?

"Because I want them to have my back, and I want to have their backs. It's like the marines; you don't have to like eachother, but you're all brothers, and you've got eachothers' backs."

This guy, by the way, is very, very smart. So, that answer may strike some of us as bizarre, or maybe even dumb. But it's not, it's just not a mentality one sees much anymore.

Hey, I also like your idea of mech gladiators as an interim solution.

edit to add: I'm digging that article, thanks.

All our behaviours are reproductive in some manner. There are some people who seem to have started to subsume their reproductive tendencies completely to other things.

The part that the mech warrior doesn't address is the interest in the protection of the body-politic. So while it might make for a short term solution, I think it only addresses part of the issue.

I have this amusing idea in my head of all wars going like the original Lacrosse, only taken into the game world. It'd probably make a good book, but not so great in reality.

Individuals determine culture, but cultures determine individuals. While these seem to be opposite ideas, I bet they are overlapping. Some individuals determine cultures, and the vast majority find their place in that fold.

Instead of cultures organically organizing around their inherent principles, the modern corporate communist cultural revolution has thought it is in control. When really, most people are merely adaptable and willing to subsume themselves to a certain degree. As long as they have a myriad of outlets for their more natural tendencies.

One can't actually completely retool the human genome to remove the process to animate a survival principal.

Things are classified as disorders in people, when they are really disorders in culture. I'll use the now common example of ADHD, with it being 5-10% of boys it is not properly a disorder. These are large enough numbers to be a tendency in the population. If 5-10% of boys is a disorder, then what the hell is green eyes at 1% of the human population?

Things are classified as disorders in people, when they are really disorders in culture. I'll use the now common example of ADHD, with it being 5-10% of boys it is not properly a disorder. These are large enough numbers to be a tendency in the population. If 5-10% of boys is a disorder, then what the hell is green eyes at 1% of the human population?

edit on 2011/11/4 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Funny you should mention this, as I happen to have made a thread to address this question:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Probably comes as no surprise that I find moderate cases of certain conditions to be an adaptive response, not a disorder.

Since posting that thread, I've begun to question my take on the sociopath. It's possibly a tad myopic and reactionary to call it a maladaptation, which I pretty much do in the OP. I'm still mulling this one around, and it's not a comfortable subject for me. It brings out my worst chicken-brain tendencies, and kicks my rational faculties in the junk.

What I'd say tentatively so far is that one of the outstanding characteristics of this type is that they will always look to others to fulfill their needs, rather than relying on themselves. It's possible that a culture geared toward knackering self-sufficiency is going to turn out some weird wolves right along with the livestock.

Oh, on the subject of why some of these guys aren't interested in reproducing, I think suspended adolescence plays a pretty hefty role there, too.

reply to post by Aeons


Sorry Aeons your are just confused, and I have no time to play silly power and control games with silly girls.

As none of you are saying anything new in this thread, or linking to something I haven't heard and seen a bunch of times before, I must go somewhere else were they are.

Revert.

Originally posted by mistermonculous

Probably comes as no surprise that I find moderate cases of certain conditions to be an adaptive response, not a disorder.

Since posting that thread, I've begun to question my take on the sociopath. It's possibly a tad myopic and reactionary to call it a maladaptation, which I pretty much do in the OP. I'm still mulling this one around, and it's not a comfortable subject for me. It brings out my worst chicken-brain tendencies, and kicks my rational faculties in the junk.

I think that ADHD/ADD absolutely must be an adaptive response. There must be significant selection advantage in this group. If the condition is a mal-adaption it must be tied tightly to something else that is advantageous.

Sickle-cell anemia is a double dose of a trait that when it occurs in a single dose is an advantage to the carrier against malaria. There is a reason for the trait, the removal of it is not an advantage to the population.

The sociopath clearly has some advantages too. Though I would guess it could be argued that being selfish makes having children easier in some ways.

I can probably riff on this subject a bit. Both my husband and I are likely carriers of whatever the trait is that creates sociopathy (or is it psychopathology now?) though neither of us is. (okay, I don't think I am though I don't have any proof.)

I've known a number of people who are closely related to someone who is a sociopath. Most of them have been eccentric, survivors, adaptable,and intelligent. Or gigantic suckups. All traits useful for surviving living around a sociopath and surviving childhood. This could be a chicken and egg thing. Being a carrier of these traits gives you advantages, but when the pathological expression shows up it actually becomes an aggressive selection force for itself. The children the sociopath has that have the trait are more likely to survive to adulthood.

Originally posted by mistermonculous
Oh, on the subject of why some of these guys aren't interested in reproducing, I think suspended adolescence plays a pretty hefty role there, too.

I have a very hard time with wanting them to. If people are missing this instinct, I somewhat want to embrace that they know that they are carriers of some trait that isn't useful to continue on.

But then in the current dynamic this means that the governments then move in other people who don't share any of my cultural values to overwhelm and replace with a group that doesn't embrace permanent adolescence. I don't object to the people so much as the colonization factor. Replacement rather than enmeshment.

This is probably why I want to focus on the people who want to breed, but find themselves with reduced opportunities because what they are isn't appreciated.

The children the sociopath has that have the trait are more likely to survive to adulthood.

edit on 2011/11/4 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

I'd think their survival rate would be mitigated by the compulsive risk-taking behaviors that characterize the pure sociopathic (sorry, psychopathologic. yeah, they've swapped terms recently, and I'm ones of those guys who still says "Burma") type.

You've pretty much summed up where I've been going with this, that was a very strong post. I most certainly agree that just as with the more debilitating forms, say, Autism can take; that Sociopathy is the outermost extreme of a set of traits that are advantageous when exhibited in moderation.

As for those lacking the desire to reproduce being nonviable, and nobly (if unconsciously) doing their civic duty by refraining; that is wickedly funny. However, it makes me kind of nervous. But I'm a squeamish humanist, so I'll always look to the culture to be deficient before I'll look to the individual to be genetically fubared.

Do you think that the best of the Type we're discussing in this thread is going to be characterized by certain activities, but also by the need to be husbands and fathers? Because if so, I'ma strongly agree.

The will to be fathers and husbands may be their saving social grace. Tying their concerns to something real and concrete. Extending their interest outside of the control of today and tomorrow's activities.

This assumes some ability to abstraction clearly. Now this isn't new ground here at all. Clearly many people understand this. Even the people who are rejecting it. Their reason to reject family is that it gets in the way of their narrow control of life. Then losing their best buddies to the evils of tying themselves to the abstraction of humanity over time must seem like a horrible betrayal.

reply to post by Aeons


So the Tribe, which entails things like family obligation and forgoing the pursuit of one's own pleasures has been transmuted into a Brotherhood? Where any mode of lifestyle is permitted save that which compromises your Clan-related activities and loyalties?

Can't play with your baby or spend time with your wife *and* raid with your Brothers.

Bonzai men who willingly perpetuate the process that dwarfs and twists them.

Hunh.

It appears there are alternative niches in the offing:

From here :

All the skills that have been so valuable in the past are still needed, but they must be wedded into the same practitioners. We no longer have the luxury of a linear, series type engagement. We now require an integrated simultaneous approach that has soldiers who can do development and intelligence gathering, who know the psycho-social dynamics of the people among whom they live and move. It requires information operations that range from paper leaflets to the most sophisticated cyber campaigns, and it must be completely immersed in the overall policy thrusts of the nation’s leaders. This new integrated concept is called Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW). I have begun to search out these visionary warriors.

Yeah, I'll bet you have, bub.

Interesting to note: this guy uses the term "warrior" every 2nd sentence. Only mentions Al Qaeda as a target but this line: "who know the psycho-social dynamics of the people among whom they live and move." tells you the real story.

Tribal defenders being conditioned to regard the tribe itself as the foe.

Terrible news.

Going further: War is a murderous engine, and generates value. However, once established, commerce demands stability. With every nation that comes under the global capitalist umbrella, the pool of potential enemies is diminished. Here's where the snake chokes on its own tail: stability is inimical to Corporate interests that profit from rebuilding infrastructure, weapons manufacturing etc.

So in a world without real enemies, no new territory to grab, and the threat of mutually assured destruction; what is the easiest way to keep that engine puttering on? Turn the war effort inward. Ah, jeez. I hope I'm off base here.