Lol. Couldn’t help yourself could you?
Wasn’t in need of help. Truth stands.
In this instance, it’s also relevant: the dominant religions of the last couple of millennia have been hostile to nature,
and way too cozy with the secular powers that are most destructive to nature. They had the obligation to reconcile
man’s ambition with his altruism, and they didn’t settle for failure; they went on to evil.
humunculus wrote
Science and its industry refuses to be reconciled. Each adult man and woman is responsible for their actions contributing to the decline on planet Earth, but science is corrupted, yes, by ambition in the most destructive ways in existence from global warming, oceans dying, outer space littered with dangerous trash, landfills overflowing, air polluted, nuclear waste leaking everywhere. If scientists are the more intelligent beings, why are they not acting with forethought in responsible manners to reign their actions in, to slow the decline? If the link between scientific methodology, its findings, its products, its consequences escape a delicate understanding for the scientific minded, then I’d be happy to further explain the hows and whys.
You guys know what being one with nature means? ~ lions kill, men fuck children etc. Society probably needs to be secular so at least we aren’t driven by nature [as if akin to a religion] or religion, it places us philosophically outside of such things.
Are men soulless? I’m beginning to wonder. Men around here are trying to rationalize their brute behaviors as natural, such a sexing a child.
Since the majority of the American population defines a “child” as someone who is 16…
Anyway, I’m done talking with you. You aren’t a real friend, won’t even join my forums, you are a fake, hollow person just like the rest…doubt you even have a soul.
That’s a very good point; the authorities have upped the age so what was normal in the 1970’s [under age attraction], now puts everyone who thinks like that into the monster category. Move the lines and you increase the amount of criminals without there actually being any extra.
men aren’t soul-less, they are what women would be if they weren’t historically subordinate to males. the female praying mantis predates the males. the idea that men are as if a different species is nonsense, women if in our position would be EXACTLY like what men are if the roles were reversed, its a zero sum equation. for humanity to survive until now they would have had to be able to kill predators and other humans for the same reasons as men did, and hence they would be like us.
Men refuse to take responsibility for what men do.
Make less laws.
That’s a very good point. But you do hint at a distinction between 1) what women would be like if they weren’t historically subordinate to men, and 2) what women would be like if they evolved without men doing all the killing and violence.
Yes, I think in both cases, we’d be surprised to see how brutish and violence prone women would be. I don’t know if they’d be just as brutish and violence prone, but they’d be right up there with men. In all honesty, I think if things switched around tomorrow and women suddenly had the opportunity to rule the world, there’d be slightly less violence and war–not much less, but less–but that might come along with other negative consequences (maybe more psychological abuse, less freedom, etc.). Then there’s the question of what would happen if women evolved into a position of being the hunters, warriors, law enforcers, etc. (and men, the caregivers, moralists, humanitarians, etc.)–would they have been just as prone to violence and war? I think probably. After all, in any society, somebody has to be prepared to go to war, to use violence as a means of curtailing harm to one’s own society. Men have always been in a position to be elected for that purpose, to be the ones to put themselves in harm’s way in order to protect others who are more vulnerable to physical harm and death (women and children). I’m not sure what would entail from women evolving into that roll–maybe greater muscle mass, more aggressive hormones, certainly not baby incubators–essentially, just being men. ← But the point stands in principle.
Gib
Less laws is so true.
Wouldn’t it be more or less the same, for example female humans [probably quite recently in evolutionary terms] ‘take on’ the roles of subordinates and homely mothers, the only difference I can see is that some of them would go hunting whilst other look after the kids and what have you. Men are only like men because that’s the roles they take on, that is, except in ancient amazon societies where the women dominated.
Take a look around facebook and see who’s causing all the trouble lol. Women are if anything the ones driving men to not let them say or do ‘that’, whatever that is. In my experience the kinds of men I least like are the kinds who like to big themselves up by making others look small, and they always have women who question them upon any iteration of perceived weakness. Indeed they encourage them to go around picking fights.
In nature female predators aren’t weak, and one wouldn’t want to approach them.
this is why I say its a zero sum equation, causality means that given the same causes [survival etc] then women would develop relative to those causes. the whole baby thing doesn’t make them weaker, it makes them stronger.
I honestly think that We should just catch and release criminals, even the worst. No punishment, no time in jail, no death penalty. Just round them up to prove you could catch them and admitting that nothing anybody does is going to change a damn thing and letting them back out into this giant game preserve for that most screwed up animal, man. Maybe if they did that, the other citizens would realize nothing was being done to keep them safe, which was true, but they’re jump to the wrong conclusion and probably eventually nut the fuck up, grab some nerve and go find out what it means to become killers and criminals themselves as they take matters into their own hands. Maybe then they might actually understand a thing or too at a moment that sums up the sentiment, too little; far too fucking late. But no, they’d rather sit at a distance where they can pretend the criminals aren’t people, are just horrible monsters; where they don’t have to get to know them personally or be put themselves in a situation that calls for them to actually be pushed into confrontation; to be put at a point where many of them wouldn’t survive, for lack of understanding and knowledge of their own animal nature, their own wild side; they would cry and throw self pity parties, they’d whine so loud about how the world is so unfair to them while those who actually were forced to live those lives before them barely spent much time crying over their own misfortunes and maybe then people might come to an understanding that would rob them of their prejudice and hate and they would be riddled with the depression they pretend to have with surface sadness only as they deign to claim that they understand depression, the concept, and wonder in the same breath at times why people get so listless and apathetic, how they can hate life so much when, didn’t they know, life is fucking great and if you want to die, there’s something wrong with you because there’s nothing wrong with society and isn’t life better than death, the willfully ignorant that lie to themselves say in such seemingly good manner that hides to their own eyes the twisted fucked-up shit that rests behind it all that would scream out that they cause the worst damage, do the most harm; are what is ‘innocent’ and the worst evil to existence and the screams that would be that would expose them are stifled by their own who think it’s just bad taste, something to be viewed with disdain and disgust; disturbs them so much that they just tune it out, stifle it and cause people to be unable to scream out in pain or agony or deep and raw sadness, no cries for help and in silence those silent screams are ‘heard’ by those who are called evil by those that pretend to be good as they work out the best way to deal with it all and having to fight against impossible odds by those with every reason to run from the truth, run from God, run from knowledge of the afterlife; that has every reason to continue lying because they’re the ones that look good and appearances are worth more than truth.
The ones that really believe that the life we live at their demands is better than the afterlife all because for a while, their personal lives are way fucking better than the afterlife that only they have in store to face. And they’re the ones that want to condemn others to Hell, that want to believe in a man who is willing to carry all their sins so they don’t have to be bogged down by all their faults and wrongdoings so they can pretend to be perfect and then pretend that there is any portion of reality that man and his god would actually prepare for them of heavenly comfort and be willing to torture themselves to actually try to put up with the spoiled little bitches. They’re the ones that focus on Jesus Christ and not God, disrespect the fuck out of the man and refuse to face the wrath of the vengeful father. They create Hell on Earth for so many others and actually believe that all those others deserve worse than what they were born into just so the ‘perfect ones’ can have better lives and pretend that they actually deserved it and the only thing that makes it right is the truth that the afterlife is filled with beings pissed off and waiting and knowing that they have all of eternity to beat the fuck out of those who did the worst damage to every bit of what would have been far better without them and their ‘perfection’. Those people that would love to convince themselves and others that we only live once. They’re brilliant mimics, copycats and they know they’re fucked.
I think by now in evolution, it’s in our genes. The stereotype of the caring, nurturing, sentimental female and that of the tough, warrior male is, to a certain extent, genetically hardwired into us. Think about the fact that women have a womb ← What do you think would be required of their personalities, skills, and other dispositions in order to make for good child rearers. And this has been going on long before human beings entered onto the stage–the split between male and female emerged during the Cambrian era (I think), and it has always been important to the evolution of dual sexual species to maintain some difference in roles between the sexes (division of labor).
So if we were to switch the traditional roles of men and women overnight, I think we would still see major difference in the outcomes (even after men and women were given sufficient time to adapt to their new roles). I think women really are more nurturing and caring than men genetically speaking, and I think that would come out if they were in power, at least slightly more than it does with men in power. I don’t think it would be overwhelming though–I think overall you’re right, that women would prove to the world that they too can be brutish, corrupt, war-oriented, and power hungry (some say Hillary’s already proven that).
I’d have to go onto facebook to see these altercations myself, but by the sounds of it, my guess would be these women are trying to hit these “tough guys” where it hurts–nothing hits harder for a guy than being told you’re weak–and women love it when they think they’ve found a guy’s weak spot.
Not if they’re cunning.
Well, the idea is that if you’re going to carry a baby around in your womb for 9 months and then rear it for the 20 years or thereabouts, it’s extremely difficult to do that and fend for yourself (and your offspring) at the same time. This is why I say that if women were somehow put into the role of warriors and protectors, evolution probably would have given a womb to men instead (along with breasts and less muscle mass–essentially becoming women themselves). It’s also why I make a distinction between evolving to perform these different roles vs. being socially conditioned to perform those roles.
Eels go out to sea and become either male or female as required [kinda randomly], men have nipples. Nature has both male and female and all individuals have that potentiality within their constitution. Some species have eggs and not wombs, sometimes the male incubates it. What I am proposing is that nature could make female humanoids somewhere in the universe, which play the male roles. Then you would literally have females like the earth’s human males.
Evolution_II_what will we become?
Printed humanoids perhaps? If the current path against gender prejudice is pursued, then either sexes will play either the given parental roles as required, that is, if parenting is required!
_
Yeah, but I still think it would be highly unlikely that they would be molded to play the role that men usually play while at the same time giving birth to babies and rearing them. I’m sure nature could find a way to fit them into that role while still preserving their biological “femininity”–I just don’t know how that would be done.
ok I concur on that. one small caveat, to survive the ancestors had to do x,y,z,. so even if women kept their femininity they would also have a side to them which has had to survive.
Of course! 
A huge part of that is finding strength in numbers. The old saying that a man is an island comes to mind here–men tend to focus on survival tactics that don’t require reliance on other people nearly as much as the tactics that women tend to focus on. Women are way more social creatures than men are.
Also keep in mind that a huge factor in the game of survival is not preservation of one’s self but the continuation of the genetic lineage. While men tend to focus more on themselves (but still with an eye for how they can contribute to the community), women focus more on their offspring. ← This serves a very important function: that the species not only survive now but for several generations to come.
I have come to the conclusion you are either a robot or clone…you have gone full retard and can’t even make a reply that doesn’t sound like some rubbish the quality that Cleverbot would put out.
A criminal has an element of nobility, he will kill quickly and put the animal out of his misery…but the common man is the cruelest force of all, he has designed a cage specific to each animal and torments each soul without end and without pity or respite.
You treat with both nature and nurture.
Nature: For sex offenders, nature can be fixed with castration, either physical or chemical. There are also drugs out there, certain anti-depressants, that work as a sexual-killer for both sexes. Introduce those medications as “anti-Viagra” and unless they are prone to manic episodes give them that. Another solution down the road would be gene therapy. Target the genes that influence the behaviors, feelings and thoughts, and turn them off. Another thing they could do is force rapists to take birth control or surgery to prevent them from reproducing. They don’t reproduce, and you’re less likely to have another generation of sex offenders. Of course, if the sex offender is in a loving relationship and has repented his old ways, I believe that person ought to reproduce. Most if not all of these cases would only apply to the individuals that are the most serious of cases. The kid that shows his junk on a phone wouldn’t be prosecuted this way. As far as non-sexual offenders go, many of these treatments still apply. Many medications don’t get used for what they could be used for. For example, I have bipolar one but when I take invega, it calms my anger problems. I believe that many psychiatric drugs could be off-label for other things. As they say, “there’s a drug for everything nowadays.”
Nurture: Have clinical psychologists and therapists for all cases of severe criminal behavior - not just the ones that are mentally ill. My idea of a jail would be like a place that girl is sent to in “Girl, Interrupted”. I believe that criminal issues should be focused not on punishment (as nature does), but rehabilitation and I strongly think that when it comes to nurture, criminal issues are deep psychological issues. People that are repeat offenders have deep psychological problems that need to be resolved. I would close the for-profit jails and prisons and re-open the decaying mental hospitals and re-brand them as, “psychological criminal units” which people would see therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists to treat the nurture of their problems. This wouldn’t be like Norway’s prisons - there wouldn’t be computers or wifi. But it wouldn’t be like the jails and prisons we have today either. It would strongly focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. There would be support group meetings and wings of the units that would focus on one issue (such as violence, financial gain, or sexual abuse) and people would be focused on getting help rather than getting hurt again. There would be support group meetings focused on resolving the issue at hand. Sentences would not be issued by judges or a jury. Instead the time someone is in one of these units would end when the therapist/psychologist, nurse, councilor, social worker, and psychiatrist all feel like it is okay to be released to the real world.
Also, once someone is rehabilitated, there would be no public records of their wrong-doing (similar to cases of mental illness). There would be a private record which judges would be able to access, however. Also, these places would not be for-profit, they would be run by the state.
Sometimes I get the sense that I would make a decent politician… Or at least someone that crafts bills into laws.
I’m all for it, long as we get to have sexual relations with the nurses while we’re in.
What part about being allowed to have sexual relations did you not understand?