Female power over men

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:26 am

Jakob wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I asked how you knew your assertion was true and I did it in the nicest way possible since I already knew you were a prick from the way you treat others on here, so apparently my mistake was assuming you were human-ish. You psychotically blew up for no reason or perhaps because your ship was about to be sunk requiring a convenient way out to save face; one or the other, but you are to one who lost it and reacted emotionally/irrationally as you always seem to do.

Oh no, Im so sorry I hurt you man.

So you shit on the board then claimed victory and now you're flattering yourself that you've somehow hurt me? If you've hurt anyone, it's the other people who may not be receiving the same benefit of doubt that I initially gave to you.

You're epitomizing the Dunning-Kruger offshoot: Unskilled and Don't Want to Be Aware of It.

"We contend that the unskilled are motivated to ignore (be unaware of) their poor performance so that they can feel better about themselves. We tested this idea in an experiment in which we manipulated the perceived self-relevancy of the task to men and women after they had completed a visual pun task and before they estimated their performance on the task. As predicted, the unskilled and unaware effect was attenuated when the task was perceived to have low self-relevance."

Not only can one be too dumb to know he is dumb, but can also have a big ego about what he mistakenly knows, and that is especially so when he *ought* to be knowledgeable in a particular field. Eh? Mr. Philosopher? :lol:

You identify as a philosopher and therefore it's very painful to admit error about the very subject with which you're supposed to be adept and that exactly what the study was about.

To illustrate, the women in the study had more motivation to excel in language because it's part of the feminine persona to be articulately accomplished while men give less of a shit in general.

"We expected that in this condition, male participants would perceive the task to be less important to men than to women. Hence male participants would see the task to be less self-relevant.

Male participants in the language ability condition did not consider the task to be important to the self. As a result, they were not motivated to self-enhance their performance on the task (see [9]) and therefore did not display a pronounced positive response bias. Instead, they based their estimation primarily on their actual performance. In this case, the unskilled are not motivated to ignore (be unaware of) their incompetence and they estimated their relative performance fairly accurately.

In contrast, female participants in the language ability condition considered the task to be important to the self. Hence, they were motivated to self-enhance; they displayed a pronounced positive response bias and did not base their estimation on their actual performance. In this case, the unskilled are motivated to ignore (be unaware of) their incompetence. As a result, they grossly overestimated their relative performance."


Keep ignoring man.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Dan~ » Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:33 am

Not only can one be too dumb to know he is dumb,

I've seen it. Too dumb to know he's too dumb.
Then there is also someone so full of crap that they believe their own lies.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9951
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:42 am

Jakob wrote:In the meantime still no one has responded to the pregnancy/risk issue. Or to the issue of women, being the frail gender, being necessarily more risk-taking in seeking a mate.
If these things aren't understood, all this resentment over women not constantly putting everything completely on the line for the benefit of a bunch of adolescent apes will keep lingering.

Then you "should" go on crusade to stop it :lol:

But before you do, you *should* work on your memory: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193935&start=75#p2699226

2 weeks ago:

Jakob wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Jakob wrote:For almost all of history, getting pregnant meant risking ones life.

Well that's not an unnecessary risk such as running out to help 3 women cops who couldn't handle one scrawny miscreant and getting pregnant is mostly not a choice. I'd venture to guess that most pregnancies were unintended. Women who actually endeavor to get pregnant, yes, I suppose that's courage, but less-so today since the odds are low that she will die. I'm not saying that women can't act courageous, but they aren't typified by it.

Neither are men though. Courage is pretty rare. In my environment Im almost the only man who dares to acknowledge even the most basic facts of life. Not that women who do have this courage are plentiful either but men, as a rule these days, are useless bitches as much as women are.


So men are just as much useless bitches as women, eh? Well, at least you're championing all the useless bitches while on your crusade :icon-rolleyes:

That's what I *should* have said last time rather than trying to amiably relate to you.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:43 am

Dan~ wrote:
Not only can one be too dumb to know he is dumb,

I've seen it. Too dumb to know he's too dumb.
Then there is also someone so full of crap that they believe their own lies.

Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Dan~ » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:17 am

That video is pretty funny.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9951
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Female power over men

Postby Jakob » Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:45 pm

I have another groupie.
Going back over my posts, quoting me back to me.

8)
Yeah but could you please stick to the subject for a change.

ADDRESS MY POINT?
about pregnancy and risk?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Female power over men

Postby Jakob » Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:49 pm

Also, the other one, about peoples complaining that they don't have as much power as this or that other person or group being an excuse for not having power.

You can quote almost as well as Sauwelios, I'm no sucker for quotations though. If you can't think, leave.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Female power over men

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:24 pm

Jakob wrote:I have another groupie.
Going back over my posts, quoting me back to me.

8)
Yeah but could you please stick to the subject for a change.

ADDRESS MY POINT?
about pregnancy and risk?


I will. The number one cause of female suicide around the world is pregnancy stuff!!

Either being infertile, or saying it is evil to give birth to a girl.

In fact, tribes that shame female births have higher female suicides than male suicides. Because the country is telling THEM that their birth is evil indirectly by stating not having a son is evil!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:42 am

Jakob wrote:I have another groupie.
Going back over my posts, quoting me back to me.

8)
Yeah but could you please stick to the subject for a change.

ADDRESS MY POINT?
about pregnancy and risk?

I did. Apparently your eyesight is as bad as your memory viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193935&start=125#p2700069
:teasing-slap:
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Jakob » Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:23 pm

I meant: to address the idea, not to click "quote" and rant some.
101.

The point you certainly didn't begin to address is vast. It is a revaluation of modern ideas about the female psyche.
She was known in classical times as the more capricious one. Classics understood that a woman, a beautiful one especially, is risk.

Ecm, male suicides are through the roofs in Britain, one every 4 hours.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Tue May 01, 2018 6:15 am

Jakob wrote:I meant: to address the idea, not to click "quote" and rant some.
101.

The point you certainly didn't begin to address is vast. It is a revaluation of modern ideas about the female psyche.
She was known in classical times as the more capricious one. Classics understood that a woman, a beautiful one especially, is risk.

I've never heard of a woman who said "I think I will get pregnant because it's risky."

Men do things specifically for the risk while women label that behavior as "stupid".
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue May 01, 2018 2:34 pm

Serendipper,


I've never heard of a woman who said "I think I will get pregnant because it's risky."


Have you heard of women who so desperately want to get pregnant ~ have a child ~ that they WILL take that risk even though they realize it could be detrimental to their life and to some degree may even cause their death? It depends on what we value.

Men do things specifically for the risk while women label that behavior as "stupid".

Every man?
There are many women who indulge in risky behavior too ~ they realize it but they cannot help themselves. The call to excitement, lust, instant gratification is too strong for their psyches.

Look at the Olympians, both the men and women. They take risks that some would never consider even though they are very skilled at what they do for the most part. Life can change on a dime ~ coma, paralysis...

Is risk taking an *individual* thing or is it more geared toward one gender or the other?

I had a friend some years back who's daughter got pregnant. She already had one child and there were no problems. The pregnancy and delivery seemingly went fine and the baby was born. The next day something happened ~ I cannot recall what the condition is called ~ but she bled out in the hospital and died. It was a terrible thing for the family.

I am working on it. :mrgreen:
Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.


The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.


“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”


You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15169
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Female power over men

Postby Jakob » Tue May 01, 2018 5:28 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Jakob wrote:I meant: to address the idea, not to click "quote" and rant some.
101.

The point you certainly didn't begin to address is vast. It is a revaluation of modern ideas about the female psyche.
She was known in classical times as the more capricious one. Classics understood that a woman, a beautiful one especially, is risk.

I've never heard of a woman who said "I think I will get pregnant because it's risky."

Ive never heard of a man who said "Im going to go to war because it is risky".

We take risks to allow for certain outcomes beyond ourselves. This is not a choice, but what evolution means. We're subservient to the risk-taking nature of life. Both genders are inherently lethal to themselves, so during the period we have, both take the risks that have evolved to be taken, and end up with progeny and culture.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Wed May 02, 2018 5:52 am

Jakob wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Jakob wrote:I meant: to address the idea, not to click "quote" and rant some.
101.

The point you certainly didn't begin to address is vast. It is a revaluation of modern ideas about the female psyche.
She was known in classical times as the more capricious one. Classics understood that a woman, a beautiful one especially, is risk.

I've never heard of a woman who said "I think I will get pregnant because it's risky."

Ive never heard of a man who said "Im going to go to war because it is risky".

Hello! Now you have ;)

We take risks to allow for certain outcomes beyond ourselves.

I do it because it's fun. I don't know why it's fun, but we can speculate and never know for sure.

This is not a choice, but what evolution means.

"Choice" opposed to "Evolution"?... I'm not sure where you're going with that.

We're subservient to the risk-taking nature of life.

Who is subject to the whims of nature? If one is a fatalist, he must recognize that he is part of the nature that is kicking him around and therefore there is no one to be kicked around. If your view is that you have no choice, then you have no choice but to accept that you do not exist.

Both genders are inherently lethal to themselves, so during the period we have, both take the risks that have evolved to be taken, and end up with progeny and culture.

So then why do you desire to have it understood that women are brave? Why fight for something that no one can have control over?
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Jakob » Wed May 02, 2018 8:26 pm

Serendipper wrote:
We take risks to allow for certain outcomes beyond ourselves.

I do it because it's fun. I don't know why it's fun, but we can speculate and never know for sure.

Oh yeah? Which wars have you fought in?
Was it fun?

This is not a choice, but what evolution means.

"Choice" opposed to "Evolution"?... I'm not sure where you're going with that.

I mean that it is necessary, a part of what it means to be a mortal.

We're subservient to the risk-taking nature of life.

Who is subject to the whims of nature? If one is a fatalist, he must recognize that he is part of the nature that is kicking him around and therefore there is no one to be kicked around. If your view is that you have no choice, then you have no choice but to accept that you do not exist.

I said "the risk-taking nature of life", not "the whims of nature".
There are many differences here. For one thing, not nearly all risk taking is whimsical. In fact the greater risks are usually taken with careful deliberation. Risks like going to war, or indeed getting pregnant.

Both genders are inherently lethal to themselves, so during the period we have, both take the risks that have evolved to be taken, and end up with progeny and culture.

So then why do you desire to have it understood that women are brave? Why fight for something that no one can have control over?

Where did I say that women are brave? I don't think I did, because I don't think that this is categorically the case at all.
Rather, many are quite mad. Which is what happens when people are exposed to risk but aren't brave enough to keep their eyes open, their mind clear.

Only very few women are capable of fully dealing with the risk their gender embodies.
Humans are in pretty bad shape overall. Maybe one in ten thousand is truly sane. From where Im standing, that is. I have certain criteria which not everyone shares, to put it mildly.

Why do I write on ILP, you ask? Because I find my own writing beautiful, deep and sublimely styled. 8)

Nietzsche wrote:Verily, I divine you well, my disciples: ye strive like me for the bestowing virtue. What should ye have in common with cats and wolves?

It is your thirst to become sacrifices and gifts yourselves: and therefore have ye the thirst to accumulate all riches in your soul

Insatiably striveth your soul for treasures and jewels, because your virtue is insatiable in desiring to bestow

Ye constrain all things to flow towards you and into you, so that they shall flow back again out of your fountain as the gifts of your love

Verily, an appropriator of all values must such bestowing love become; but healthy and holy, call I this selfishness.—

Another selfishness is there, an all-too-poor and hungry kind, which would always steal—the selfishness of the sick, the sickly selfishness

With the eye of the thief it looketh upon all that is lustrous; with the craving of hunger it measureth him who hath abundance; and ever doth it prowl round the tables of bestowers

Sickness speaketh in such craving, and invisible degeneration; of a sickly body, speaketh the larcenous craving of this selfishness


Tell me, my brother, what do we think bad, and worst of all? Is it not DEGENERATION?—And we always suspect degeneration when the bestowing soul is lacking
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Fri May 04, 2018 2:22 am

Jakob wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
We take risks to allow for certain outcomes beyond ourselves.

I do it because it's fun. I don't know why it's fun, but we can speculate and never know for sure.

Oh yeah? Which wars have you fought in?

That depends how you define war.

Was it fun?

Not all risks undertaken are for fun, but those that are fun are fun.

War must be fun since we have so many sports and video games devoted to and modeled after warfare.

This is not a choice, but what evolution means.

"Choice" opposed to "Evolution"?... I'm not sure where you're going with that.

I mean that it is necessary, a part of what it means to be a mortal.

I have no idea the point of this.

We're subservient to the risk-taking nature of life.

Who is subject to the whims of nature? If one is a fatalist, he must recognize that he is part of the nature that is kicking him around and therefore there is no one to be kicked around. If your view is that you have no choice, then you have no choice but to accept that you do not exist.

I said "the risk-taking nature of life", not "the whims of nature".

Apparently you haven't realized that if you're subservient to nature, then anything nature does is a whim. I mean, unless you want to ascribe purpose to nature.

There are many differences here. For one thing, not nearly all risk taking is whimsical.

If you're subservient to nature they are.

In fact the greater risks are usually taken with careful deliberation. Risks like going to war, or indeed getting pregnant.

Bullshit. Hardly anyone sets out to get pregnant. I am the only person I have ever known to have parents who actually tried to have kids; everyone else was an accident.

Both genders are inherently lethal to themselves, so during the period we have, both take the risks that have evolved to be taken, and end up with progeny and culture.

So then why do you desire to have it understood that women are brave? Why fight for something that no one can have control over?

Where did I say that women are brave?

By suggesting that pregnancy is an exercise in bravery and your continued harping on and on and on about it.

I don't think I did, because I don't think that this is categorically the case at all.

Then stop cheerleading the pregnancy issue.

Why do I write on ILP, you ask? Because I find my own writing beautiful, deep and sublimely styled. 8)

Hellos Narcissus

Nietzsche wrote:Poppycock
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Jakob » Fri May 04, 2018 1:08 pm

"That depends how you define war."

"None" would be the honest answer.

Your points stand all refuted. You are a little pampered boy, trivial at heart.
Your mother took more risk than you ever will- and from what we can see, she lost the gamble.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Female power over men

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri May 04, 2018 3:13 pm

Serendipper

A good soldier obeys orders like a cog in a machine and I don't believe anyone could be called "loyal" who obeyed only when in agreement with the command. When you join the military, you relinquish the right to march in the streets in protest of an unjust war.

Are soldiers court-marshaled for refusing to obey a command that they intuit or know to be morally and ethically wrong?
Can a member of the military march in the street in protest of other things?


They want their cake and free healthcare too, the honor of wearing the uniform without the risk of serving at the will of the executive branch. This is not how it works, and if they somehow missed this when they signed up then they need to realize it quickly.


Do you not think that THEY deserve free healthcare and their family too?
Who told you that they are not willing to risk life and limb? Who is it that you are speaking of here?

Just a little side-bar here: https://taskandpurpose.com/heres-why-yo ... -military/

Asking that active duty members of the military honor their oath and refrain from politics in no way muffles national debate around defense and security issues. Rather, it protects a basic principle of our democracy—that the armed services do not dictate policy but carry out the will of the people and their elected leaders. https://www.thedailybeast.com/soldiers- ... of-service


I am not what you might call a politically-inclined person but is a soldier marching against a war that he doesn't believe in *dictating policy*? Perhaps. Maybe I just have a problem with some authority figures. lol


Just think of how many lives have been ruined because of possession of the wrong kind of plant. Who could enforce that kind of law? What kind of person? At best one could dump the weed on the ground, .

Will you spell things out better here. I am not sure what *plant* you are speaking about. Cannabis?

but to suspend all professional licenses so the person cannot work and then fine them large sums of money or threaten with jail time is morally reprehensible

More clarity please. Who and what?


Cops should exist to "serve and protect" and that's it. No enforcement of morality.

Please define what you mean here by *no enforcement of morality". Does that mean that *by your book* anything has the right to go, even if it is illegal and just as long as no one is hurt by it? (the protect part).


If people want to use drugs, gamble, engage in prostitution, drive without a seatbelt, drink beer on sunday,


lol Are you being facetious here? There can be repercussions to these things, you know. Driving without a seat belt at the moment of an accident might make one lose control of their car and less able to keep it from barreling down into another car with children...who because of this die.
Also, a seat belt might protect someone from crashing into the windshield. Who would want to do that? Would you?
Using drugs and getting into a car...well. Using drugs and beating your wife and children because all sanity and inhibitions have left you...

then they should be allowed to make their own decisions as they see fit without having to worry about the inquisition seeking to make their life hell over a victimless crime.


But they are not always *victim-less* crimes. Even the gambler may gamble away all of his money, his house, et cetera. Tell me, who might the real victims be in that scenario? We will forget about the gambler. He caused the effects.
*Victim* does not necessarily mean DEAD!

Do you not see the logic in laws? Can you tell me what laws are illogical to you?


I am not sure what you mean by this. If a woman, for the most part, cannot exercise the same rights as a man, then THAT to me is perversion of tradition.

It's traditional that men and women have specific roles. It's perversion of tradition in equalizing those roles. Right or wrong, that's what it is.

Yes, it is the mindset of many men STILL that we have specific roles. I daresay that there are still women who feel that way. Of course, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if men and women are comfortable with some traditional roles in the home, why not?
What you call *perversion of tradition* though I call human evolution or *going against the grain*.


Some forms of *tradition* need to be eradicated ~ like the man feeling that he owns the woman, she is just so much chattel to him, what he says *goes* and if she doesn't *stay in line* he can beat her.

I agree there, but I don't think that is as prevalent as some think. In fact, it's probably more likely to be the other way around.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/ ... 59776.html

http://www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/stu ... estic.html

Cue the colloquial cartoon woman with frying pan or rolling pin chasing the man out of the kitchen. Everyone knows women secretly rule the roost ;)

No, evidently everyone does not know and is it not so bad that the woman herself does not know?
Some men may actually feel that it is to their greater benefit when the wife takes over and then again some men may just be wimps.
I think that there ought to be a flow of harmony from both sides ~ at times the woman rules the roost and then vica versa. That is a partnership, no?

Image


Being the skeptic, I somewhat find these statistics to be over the top so to speak. It does not mean that it did not happen to this man though.
Reading the below hyperlink was kind of an eye-opener to me although I think that the jury is still out about the statistics/percentages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_ ... gainst_men

Tradition in my book can often be a refusal to change, and a detrimental one at that!!!!!!1111

Abandonment of tradition is how societies always come to ruin as generations lose sight of what made a strong civilization. Just because the water is calm doesn't mean there are no crocodiles or that they have gone extinct. Traditions seem silly now, but they used to be sensible.

Give me an example of what tradition being abandoned would take its toll on civilization and society.
Do you not think that with the changing world holding to some traditions itself might be less sensible and practical? Come to think of it, they might be downright impossible.

I would never want the mother of my child to forsake attendance to the child for any reason. Whatever the calamity is, I'll handle it or find someone else to help.


Is forsaking attendance the same as abandonment albeit *forsaking* could mean abandonment.
So, you can see yourself *finding someone else to help*?
I do understand what you mean though. Maybe I myself am not evolved enough but I could not see myself leaving my children and going off to war or for a better cause than my children. But how do I know that my feelings or actions here are more *real* or valid than someone else's. How can I know?

There is more to raising children than merely keeping them safe and fed. She must spend time with them. She can't dump them off with grandparents and march off to prove she's just as manly as men.


What are we women? Nothing but a bunch of sardines in a sardine can to you?
I am sure that there are some or more who are trying to prove the above but I somehow do not intuit that that is the prevalent mindset.
How do you feel about the man doing the same thing?

We're stirring a beehive and then claim to be fighting the evil bees. If we would leave the arabs alone, they'd leave us alone. So I see troops over there only strengthening the resolve of the enemy and not only are they hurting themselves, but putting me in danger of continued terrorism.


Do you really believe that terrorism would stop and that the terrorists would stop coming for us?
Like I said, I do not really know or understand politics but it seems kind of naive to me to think that we would be left alone, all terrorism would stop if we stopped.

What happens to the child when he is too scared to stand up to the bully?

I'd feel safer if they'd stop protecting me and come home!


But how can you know, that in the long run, you would be safer?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemoller

I wonder how far Hitler would have advanced and Nazi Germany had the allies thought that way, had the German people and other peoples thought that way. Stop fighting Nazism, think peace and they will go away by themselves! Send out the doves. Oh, what a happy day!

The US is like an infestation:

Image

Image



My freedom is only in danger from within with the passage of new laws that will restrict freedom;


For instance? What law would restrict your freedom?
Do you see the possibility at some point of some other country or despot eventually making its way into your/our country and restricting your/our freedom or way of life? Did the Europeans?

"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." Aldous Huxley

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana


not some foreign power or ragtag group of terrorists.

Did you think that way before 9/11 and all of the terrorist attacks?
Do you feel secure that there could never be another attack like 9/ll?
The worst thing I feel is to feel secure (not paranoid though). We soften or lessen our vigilance and voila - destruction.

Currently we're under siege from regular Joes with ARs and a WaffleHouse was just shot-up the other day in TN where 4 died. School shootings, church shootings, Vegas shooting... why are the troops overseas???

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-need- ... s-allow-it


I have a sneaky suspicion that you already know the answer to this question.
Must I do all of the work for you? :mrgreen:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/0 ... rseas.html


Again, most issues are not black and white though you are in part correct. Look what happened in Nazi Germany. Vicious, cruel, barbaric acts by mindless men who thought nothing, felt nothing, but to follow their Fuhrer, a psychopath like their selves.

That's a perfect example because every one of them thought they were doing good just as our troops and cops are today.


Do you really believe that they all thought that they were doing good? The
psychopaths like Hitler were only mindless murderers of innocent people. Who would think that torturing, slaughtering shooting and raping children and innocent people was for the good? They were not about being good. They were about following the orders of one just like themselves and about destroying human lives, because this is what they were like, these soul-less creatures. There was no moral or ethical strain within them. That is not to say that there were not good German soldiers, Russian soldiers, et cetera, doing what they felt would be good for their countries. There are always bad apples in the bunch.


You're right, I'm overly empathetic imo, but I'm not very personable and that's pretty much why I appreciate a woman filling the void in capability that I have as a regular guy; a complement. I'm not doting, artistically expressive, emoting, and, even though the desire is there, I have no capability and certainly no proficiency in it. ; that's how regular guys are: engineery, mathematical, awkward moments of having no idea what to say or how to say it. Women are better with people and men are better with things, in general.

:evilfun: If you are ever in the market for a woman, I might suggest that you make the above your on-line dating profile.

Some have said I'm on the autism spectrum, but I honestly think I'm just a guy

lol Now THAT I will have to give some thought too.
I personally think that insofar as women being better with people and men being better with things, that is an individual thing but again I may be wrong. It is possible that more men are better with things than are women and vica versa.


So if we're all part of a larger organism, then who is the head?


What larger organism might you be speaking of here?

My first response was this and I decided to leave it here. That is a very good question. I was going to, at first, try to come up with some answer but then I decided that there was no easy answer to it though there might be for some who know sooooooooooooooo much more than I do. So I will reflect on it. I think that I am confronted by a puzzle which has many pieces to it.
I will wait on you for your response.

Image


I would be interested in knowing how war crimes were judged considering all of the innocent civilian lives which were destroyed ON ALL SIDES.

Don't read this until you feel you have a strong constitution... and even then it will stay with you for a lifetime https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/torture-an ... nuremberg/


I haven't read this yet but I will.

I do have a strong constitution but I am also a feeling human being. I remember some time ago listening to some chapters/excerpts from a book where someone was describing the chemical effects on the innocent people due to the bombings in Nagaski and Hiroshima. It was horrible. I could not contain my tears and at some point I had to make it into the bathroom. It was one of the most disturbing things I heard and ALSO experienced in a sense. I have never forgotten that.
Perhaps my constitution is not as strong as I think.


I know just enough to realize that I don't know enough to really say who was right,.


As for the first part above, I can almost agree with you but not quite. Evidently things were not well thought out in some cases and terrible things happen, but I think that those who were actually trying to liberate others, and/or trying to make a better life for themselves, were more in the right. It really just comes down to how it is done ~ what one is willing to do to gain the upper hand and be the winner. Those who were/are willing to commit any travesties are in the wrong. I do not think that this is even debatable. But then again, I am only once voice so I suppose that it may be.

but I think Hitler and the Nazis had many atrocities framed on them that either never happened or weren't sanctioned by them


Are you speaking of particular isolated incidents here?
I may be being a bit biased here, but I do not think that it is even possible to think in terms of what you say above. Anyone capable of going into homes in the dead of night and dragging people out, slaughtering innocents, CHILDREN no less, sending them to gas chambers, experimenting on the mentally and physically ill and deformed, et cetera, in my book at least, were not being framed. As far as Hitler and the rest of those Nazi pigs were concerned - it was all cart blanche!


History is written by the winners and I know how people are.

Are you saying that you do not believe that there can be any impartial historians?


Self-righteousness. Exactly.


How do YOU yourself observe and judge when one is being self-righteous or trying to be *real* and objective?

That's why the cops have no business imposing their morality on other people.


You would appear to be an anarchist. lol I think that the majority of police officers are honestly trying to just do their job according to the laws...the majority of them. Otherwise, wouldn't there be pure chaos and anarchy?

That's what Hitler did to the Jews: "We don't want your homosexuality and smut, but the highest calling of a woman is motherhood."

Something seems very lost in this translation considering how women were raped, tortured and burned in the crematoriums. What a pathetic, sick wimp he was...a real psychopath ~ but still responsible for his actions.

I wonder if history might have been a lot different had Hitler never met Dietrich Eckhart and been so influenced by his demonic. How careful we have to be in the ways in which we influence people.

"On his deathbed Eckart Stated 'Follow Hitler !He will dance, but it is I who have called the tune !' 'I have initiated him into the 'Secret Doctrine', opened his centers in vision and given him the means to communicate with the Powers. Do not mourn for me: I shall have influenced history more than any other German'"

What an arrogant narcissist and what a sad legacy to leave. I wonder if Hitler ever realized what a puppet he was.

Am I a self-righteous human being, Serendipper?


In 1934, Hitler proclaimed, "[Woman's] world is her husband, her family, her children, her house."[28] Women's highest calling was to be motherhood. Laws that had protected women's rights were repealed and new laws were introduced to restrict women to the home and in their roles as wives and mothers. Women were barred from government and university positions. Women's rights groups, such as the moderate BDF, were disbanded, and replaced with new social groups that would reinforce Nazi values, under the leadership of the Nazi Party and the head of women's affairs in Nazi Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_ ... y#Nazi_era


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... was-hitler

In the same way that drugs, gambling, sodomy, prostitution are morally wrong, then so is a mother or potential mother having a career morally wrong. For the same good ole fashioned christian reasons!

I am figuring that the above is not your viewpoint in light of things which you said above, true?
It would appear here that we are back in biblical times. :evilfun:
What, to you, would actually make these listings wrongful behavior?


War does not seem to make much sense to me, especially when we see such horrible acts such as the bombing of Germany, Germany's Blitz, which ALSO killed many innocent civilians. https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/ ... tory-facts, our senseless bombing of innocent civilians, including children, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Nazi's extermination of the Jews, including women and children, all told between 5 and 6 million.
War brings out the best in a human and the worst in a human. I suppose that Patton's statement that *Well is hell* was not such a simple statement.
Could hell, if believed in, be any worse?

And every one of those people responsible thought they were doing the right thing.


That is not necessarily true.
What Hitler and the Nazis did was not based on doing what they felt to be the right thing. It was not even based on *righteousness*. It was only based on sheer barbarism, sadism, despotism, callous indifference, etc.
I totally disagree with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I do not know how the war could have ended more quickly but I find it ludicrous and unthinking that we bombed these places in order to save the possibly ______________ of soldiers who might die if they had not bombed these places.
It is one thing ~ soldier of one country fighting against soldier of another country, bombing certain installations of other countries but to deliberately bomb cities where innocents live, especially children, is horrendous and terribly wrong to me.
There were many people who fought against Nazism but they did not give up their moral code. Of course, it is possible where they felt they had no other recourse but these are the people who probably felt guilt and remorse for what they had to do. They fought in their own ways to bring Nazism down and in order to have a better, free life.


Righteousness is extremely hazardous to the population.


Yes, it can be. Is it possible though that some of these people are trying to come from a good place but are doing it in an unbalanced way? Maybe I am wrong here though.

Wars fought for good ole fashioned greed are less atrocious than righteous wars because the greedy do not want to destroy, but capture for their own use, yet the righteous want total annihilation of whatever they deem as "evil".


I am not so sure that I agree with that but you may be right in a sense. Couldn't you say though that THAT might also depend on the INDIVIDUAL. I can see my country, and I love my country, feeling and thinking that it was the *righteous* thing to do, bombing those two cities but WAS IT REALLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO, was it even the most practical thing to do, in light of all of those people who suffered and died.

War is insane and I do know that there are no easy answers. Too bad that there is not enough time before we do the things we do which harm people to really think things out ~ Is this the moral thing to do? Is this the ethical thing to do? What will be the repercussions and the effects of doing this?

Here is an excerpt from someone named Octavusprime:

Yes but he should realize that he's approaching it from the assumption of the Nazi atrocities that he neither witnessed nor has really seen proof. I mean, I'm no fan of Hitler, but surely everyone has wondered how anyone could be so evil as he's portrayed.

Again, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... was-hitler

A very dark, sick mind is capable of anything and how contagious it can be, especially when surrounded by other psychopathic, narcissistic, sadistic personalities or those who would do their duty without any questioning of just what they ARE doing. What about the mob almost experiencing an orgiastic moment as they watch someone being hung or burned alive.

The piled-up bodies you've seen on tv are explained by being the result of starvation due to the allies cutting off supply lines and consequent disease that wiped them out. Look how skinny they were. Those people starved and died of disease. They didn't get off a train all fat n happy just to walk into a gas chamber. .


Please let us not downplay what Hitler and Nazi Germany did to these people. Do you believe the pictures of all the slaughtered Jewish people, gay people, et cetera laying in open graves and thrown on top of one another? Many people found that so hard to believe. Why? Because they could not realize just how depraved we humans are capable of becoming under certain circumstance. This is why "Know Thyself" is a great command for us.

Look at the pics of google images and see if you can find a dead fat person at a concentration camp

I have seen the pictures of them very often but never a dead fat person. I have always been interested in this and feel a great affinity for those people who died in the camps.
Many of them died of diseases in the camps.

I'm sure a lot of bad things happened and I'm pretty sure the germans used diesel engines to gas some people in poland, but I also think the story has been embellished to aid in demonizing the nazis, which I think most people would see as "perfectly fine" since Hitler deserves it, and there is my point (righteous indignation).


Do you think that there could possibly be another reason for this embellishment?
I would not even use the word *indignation*. It does not describe ANYTHING?
*Righteous* is not necessarily a negative, you know.

Because valor only comes due to having a choice not to choose it. If you chase an animal into a corner and suddenly it becomes brave because it has no other option, would you say that was a courageous animal?


I still do not see though how this lessens valor. I do not see the animal example as being such a good one. But that is just me. The animal is coming from a place to survive. That human being is taking the risk because of someone else. Well, maybe you are a bit correct where the animal is concerned. When I was attacked, at first I was so afraid I could almost taste death but then at some point I got my, whatever you want to call it, my dragon back, lol and sensed somehow that he did not have a gun, and after he threw me down on the ground, I fought and fought, and screamed and screamed and I won. The wimp got up and ran.

But I do think that there is a difference between someone saving someone else and saving one's own self. I think so anyway.


I think the idea of being here is to engage in philosophical conversations and if one doesn't have time for that, I'd have to wonder what other motivation exists.


I can agree with this. Sometimes though people can be rather swamped with their off-line life, no?

I understand what you are saying but I am not so sure that this is totally true.
Could there be an example of where someone knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that saving someone would ultimately cost him his own life?

Any choice he makes will ultimately be for his own perceived good. So if he chooses to die with honor by saving someone, then he's doing what is best for himself.


For his own good? What am I missing here? If he holds LIFE as being valuable and meaningful, he will value that of a child. Does he want to die because he realizes that he might in saving the child?
AT that moment, when he rushes into the ocean, is he consciously thinking to himself" "Ah, I shall die with honor. Oh boy, my picture shall be plastered all over the news. I am a baby saver.
It would NOT be for his own good. It would be for the good of the child.

How steep is the mountain and what machine is he riding? He may be reasonably sure that he could do it. He may be expert at it.

If he wants to "see if he can", then he's not an expert, but is walking into the unknown with low odds of surviving just to see if he can.


True, he may not be an expert but we cannot determine that he has low odds of surviving unless we can see him, know something of him, his arm and leg strength, his determination, how steep and high the mountain is.

I'm merely referring to a propensity to take risks in general. It will be expressed in all aspects of life: from skydiving to how one drives their car to whether or not they jump into debates. Sometimes the differences are small, subtle, nuanced and sometimes not.


This is true I think. Adventure junkers, one who is addicted to thrill seeking.

Fun conversation!

lol That made me laugh. Some would not understand that point of view; that is, someone who is not on a P.F.
Yes, I would agree.

You're east-going, honest, fair and I like that!

Thank you...and I am still a coat of many colors or perhaps a multi-faceted yet-to-be diamond in the rough (a piece of coal).
Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.


The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.


“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”


You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15169
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Female power over men

Postby MagsJ » Mon May 07, 2018 7:00 am

Many men want females to have power over them.. if those females are above-average in looks, but for the long-term? maybe they want someone that they can dominate.. or, how to separate the insincere from the sincere?

A male coming onto women (especially those of a certain age) far too strongly, should set alarm bells off as to the intention of that male.. but, then again.. that male could simply be showing that he can attain that female by the force of his raw sexual power alone. :|

It's that time of year.. all the human does and bucks are out.. the above enquiries and observations are real/spawned from the inception of the dawn of human conception.. the formality of approach being reserved for a certain kind/a certain few.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17253
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Female power over men

Postby URUZ » Mon May 07, 2018 5:15 pm

147147
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: Female power over men

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue May 08, 2018 3:21 pm

Serendipper,

Bullshit. Hardly anyone sets out to get pregnant. I am the only person I have ever known to have parents who actually tried to have kids; everyone else was an accident.


I know that I can sometimes be a bit naive but you were just trying to be funny here, right?
If not, will you please define for me what you mean by *tried* and by *accident*.

I know that I myself WAS an accident (of sorts) but I happily and wholeheartedly tried like the dickens :evilfun: (I was determined), to get pregnant. There were no accidents with my children. My children are not accidents. They are more like the sculpture of David as seen in the Marble before Michelangelo even began to create it.

That is also the way in which multitudes lol of children came into the world. No accidents. They were lovingly planned.

There are many out there who are looked upon as accidents and unfortunately still are.
How can we possibly know since we cannot really know for certain all the ways in which the universe does work and if there is or is not something called fate or destiny.

Was your statement a form of irony? I am still a bit unclear about that word. :chores-chopwood:
Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.


The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.


“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”


You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15169
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Female power over men

Postby MagsJ » Tue May 08, 2018 5:05 pm

URUZ wrote:147147

..meaning?
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17253
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users