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 WendyDarling » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:06 pm


LOLZ! Yeah men.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7014
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:10 pm

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. Although, that may change in the future as the sexes genetically converge, but it hasn't happened yet (generally).

Women are essentially risk taking, as they have less physical strength and yet have to expose themselves to men to be selected and be penetrated.
Only in a very much managed and supervised society are women somewhat free of the risk that comes with exposure to the sexual market.
And you see that once they are, they often become lunatics. A woman who isn't forced to be constantly vigilant becomes a liability to her environment pretty much as a rule.
This, in turn, turns to dangers, which in turn will teach the woman renewed vigilance.

I'm sure safeguards existed in antiquity as well.

Whats risky for a man is often idiotic for a woman. Whats risky for a woman is often unthinkable or impossible for a man.

That's poetically said, but what's risky for women isn't a choice and isn't for fun (translating to the displaying of horns for sexual selection). Why do two rams butt heads? No risk, no reward.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:12 pm

WendyDarling wrote:
LOLZ! Yeah men.

How predictable: (Not all _____ are _____). Sure, there are male pussies, but perform a real scientific experiment and compared the number of women who scream like girls to the number of men.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:14 pm

Oh and she says "I need you to be a man right now." Why didn't she say "woman"? Come on man, be a man! Why not be a woman?
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:19 pm

She said why he needed to be a man because he's at least two feet taller than her. Obviously, height was wasted on him.



Thanks Serendipper for inspiring me to look for those videos. I'm in tears from laughing.
Last edited by WendyDarling on Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7014
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:38 pm

That one has to be staged. I can't believe even a woman would run and hide under the bed :lol:
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Pandora » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:21 pm

I will agree with serendipper on the risk taking difference. It’s not that women cannot take risks, I think it’s just not really their default state. For men, it seems more innate. Women often refer to it as “men doing stupid shit”, and their women sharing in the (often negative) consequences of those (often dangerous) actions. Although it is often observed in young guys, it is not necessarily so. I have seen men going through mid-life crisis or even much older men (retired) engaging in unnecessary risk taking (and ending up in a hospital...or worse). I think maybe it’s a part of man that refuses to be domesticated.
But their woman, too, is taking a risk in being with such a man.
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4153
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Female power over men

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:54 pm

It’s not that women cannot take risks, I think it’s just not really their default state. For men, it seems more innate.

Yes, men acting without thinking is more innate however it's not courageous in the least.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7014
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:22 am

Pandora wrote:I will agree with serendipper on the risk taking difference. It’s not that women cannot take risks, I think it’s just not really their default state. For men, it seems more innate. Women often refer to it as “men doing stupid shit”, and their women sharing in the (often negative) consequences of those (often dangerous) actions. Although it is often observed in young guys, it is not necessarily so. I have seen men going through mid-life crisis or even much older men (retired) engaging in unnecessary risk taking (and ending up in a hospital...or worse). I think maybe it’s a part of man that refuses to be domesticated.
But their woman, too, is taking a risk in being with such a man.

The voice of reason! Yes, I think you put it well: It’s not that women cannot take risks, but it’s not really their default state.

WendyDarling wrote:
It’s not that women cannot take risks, I think it’s just not really their default state. For men, it seems more innate.

Yes, men acting without thinking is more innate however it's not courageous in the least.

No, we think about it. If there is a high risk of injury, it's calculated fun. "Hold my beer! Three guys failed, but watch this!" I bet that's why the guy ran out to help the 3 women cops; he wasn't trying to be helpful (maybe a little), but the main driver was seeing if he could take the other guy down. What better opportunity to attack someone than under the guise of assisting the police? Any one of the 3 cops could have gotten enraged then charged the perp, putting him in a headlock while the other 2 restrain the limbs, but they couldn't cross some psychological line because it must have been determined to be "stupid" instead of "fun" to cross it.

Woman: Oh crap I have to do this dangerous thing.
Man: Oh boy I get to do this dangerous thing.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:48 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Arc, unleash more dragon :angry-fire: , roast Serendipper's hide to a medium well. :evilfun:


Aye!
Then I shall bring it to you on a silver platter. I will leave it to you to choose the salad, vegetables, potatoes, and dessert dish.
He shall be well done!

Bon Appetit


Thank you for teaching me gratitude with this delicious bread and meat.
Thank you for teaching me patience while waiting 'til time to eat.
Thank you for teaching me faith, expecting food and never having doubts.
Thank you for teaching me suffering by providing these brussel sprouts.

Irish Blessing
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.
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15213
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Female power over men

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:40 pm

Serendipper


Do you actually think that these women are not aware of the risks and the dangers? Yet they joined up. Why, for the cheap thrill of it all?

I have no idea what they were thinking. Girl power I suppose.


You have a point there. We cannot know what they were thinking. But we might be able to imagine why they joined.

1. To serve their country.
2. To make more money to send home than they or their husband could at home. (not sure of that though).
3. To have a chance to go to a good college or university. The Armed Forces sometimes offers that.
4. To prove their mettle and to transcend their fears.
5. Because they have come to realize that this is not a man's world anymore and they choose to follow the same spirit which brought the man into the Armed Forces.
6. To get away from the kids. (with tongue in cheek).

Equal rights means equal sharing of the responsibilities which once belonged to the man.

...among other possible reasons.

Aside from that, no matter what the cause, there can be great risk to them.
I might suggest that many if not most of them give this decision a lot of thought.


What does serving humanity have to do with the topic of taking risks?


To answer your question, it would depend on the situation and circumstances.
Women who join the Armed Forces because they believe that they are fighting for freedom or liberty ARE in effect serving humanity!


A risk is not a risk unless it serves humanity?


It would be a risk, yes, but the question would be what kind of a risk?
An insane one for no good reason except for a cheap thrill or to try to impress people or one that is reasonable (even though to some may seem impracticle) that would serve the greater good or perhaps save someone.
For instance, someone who is not a lifeguard or a skilled swimmer but reasonably skilled who runs into the ocean to save a child. That is a risk worth taking.


Oh yes, when there is a spider in the house, all the women come to answer the call. Riiiiight.


Oh, please. Do you think that men are not afraid of a poor little spider?


Did I what? Kill spiders? No I let them live because I'm not scared of them.


Personally I like spiders. I do not kill them. If one gets into my house, I try to get it outside without damaging it.
Who could want to kill something which creates such great masterpieces like the spider webs which hang between trees. Have you ever take a really good look at a big spider's web?


Why do you think I have to push this wheelbarrow around? ;)

:-k
Your punishment from the gods perhaps?
Are you possibly being facetious? I hate to even ask.
But I am curious about it? Is wheelbarrow a metaphor for something or are you one of those hard-working important members of society - a farmer?


You don't display the same valor on here. I doubt you'll even reply to this, if history is a guide.

Hmmm...What is it that they say one makes of him/her -self when they assume?
As I said somewhere above this post, discretion is the better part of valor.
Different circumstances decide different choices of behavior.

Anyway, I would be curious to know what you mean by "You don't display the same valor on here"


Of course, now that I've said it, maybe you will, but I'm convinced you wouldn't have otherwise.


That is your own subjective thinking and lack of knowledge. I will not ask you to read some of my posts as time may not allow it.
We choose our battles and our war. It also depends on what we value and hold meaningful.


1
out of 4 billion. And it's a moot point anyway since when you have no choice but to be courageous, then you have no choice.


I am not so sure about that. There are many cowards in this world. We do have a choice and some do not make them and regret it and some make them and regret it. Perhaps we see no choice because we do not always have the time to think things out.
But of course if you are talking about a dire emergency than I do understand what you are talking about.

What is it that you think allows a person that kind of courage which is generally *under fire*?
Basic humanity, compassion, the unconscious instinct to perpetuate humanity, ad continuum?


The issue here is taking needless risks


*Needless risks* is kind of like beauty - they are in the *eyes* of the beholder.
We do not all live in the same perception of reality and experience and sensate things in the same way.
But I will grant you that there are things which are *needlessly risky* but again that is just to you and me and him and her...
We would have to know and understand another's personal history and psyche in order to under why someone would take *needless risks* or any kind of risks for that matter.
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.
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15213
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Female power over men

Postby Serendipper » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:44 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Serendipper


Do you actually think that these women are not aware of the risks and the dangers? Yet they joined up. Why, for the cheap thrill of it all?

I have no idea what they were thinking. Girl power I suppose.


You have a point there. We cannot know what they were thinking. But we might be able to imagine why they joined.

1. To serve their country.

Why is that defaultly always admirable? What if we don't agree with our country nor their wars?

No cop enforcing vice laws can be moral and they're essentially armed clergy.

5. Because they have come to realize that this is not a man's world anymore and they choose to follow the same spirit which brought the man into the Armed Forces.

That's perversion of tradition.

6. To get away from the kids. (with tongue in cheek).
:lol:
That's funny, but who are the kids pawned off upon?

Equal rights means equal sharing of the responsibilities which once belonged to the man.

Yep and leaves the kids dangling somewhere.

What does serving humanity have to do with the topic of taking risks?


To answer your question, it would depend on the situation and circumstances.
Women who join the Armed Forces because they believe that they are fighting for freedom or liberty ARE in effect serving humanity!

The last time anyone has ever fought for freedom was the revolutionary war. The civil war, WWI and WWII, Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the skirmishes did not protect nor establish my freedoms; only the revolutionary war. I hate that soldiers flatter and congratulate themselves for "protecting my freedoms" when they've done nothing of the kind since my freedoms were never in danger. And they are not serving humanity, but serving their elitist masters. Serving humanity would be not having a war resulting in millions of dead humans.

You should watch the Hellstorm movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psicZ2LdrzE The allies dropped bombs on German citizens, repeatedly, for nothing other than to have them roasted alive in the boiling asphalt of the streets. I would not flatter myself for being party to that. Then they ran about raping all the women and come how to parades and congratulate themselves for protecting my freedoms. Pft.



Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerer of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah!

Now in darkness, world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more war pigs have the power,
hand of god has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, god is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercy for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings...Oh lord, yeah!

A risk is not a risk unless it serves humanity?


It would be a risk, yes, but the question would be what kind of a risk?
An insane one for no good reason except for a cheap thrill or to try to impress people or one that is reasonable (even though to some may seem impracticle) that would serve the greater good or perhaps save someone.
For instance, someone who is not a lifeguard or a skilled swimmer but reasonably skilled who runs into the ocean to save a child. That is a risk worth taking.

Taking a necessary risk undermines valor since there is no other option. Taking unnecessary risks underpins valor since safer options exist.

The person saving the child has no other option and can't be said to be brave because who can stand and watch a child drown? But to swim without a purpose demonstrates fearlessness.

Oh yes, when there is a spider in the house, all the women come to answer the call. Riiiiight.


Oh, please. Do you think that men are not afraid of a poor little spider?

A spider put grandma in the hospital for 2 weeks, so I kill the brown recluses and black widows because I fear what they might do while I'm not looking, but the others I leave alone because I figure they must be eating something.

Did I what? Kill spiders? No I let them live because I'm not scared of them.


Personally I like spiders. I do not kill them. If one gets into my house, I try to get it outside without damaging it.
Who could want to kill something which creates such great masterpieces like the spider webs which hang between trees. Have you ever take a really good look at a big spider's web?

Yes there was a barn spider that used to make its web every night and take it down in the morning. I took pics of it. We also have a lot of wolf spiders that do not build webs.


Why do you think I have to push this wheelbarrow around? ;)

:-k
Your punishment from the gods perhaps?
Are you possibly being facetious? I hate to even ask.
But I am curious about it? Is wheelbarrow a metaphor for something or are you one of those hard-working important members of society - a farmer?

It's a metaphor of having big balls. Facetious, yes :D

You don't display the same valor on here. I doubt you'll even reply to this, if history is a guide.

Hmmm...What is it that they say one makes of him/her -self when they assume?
As I said somewhere above this post, discretion is the better part of valor.
Different circumstances decide different choices of behavior.

Anyway, I would be curious to know what you mean by "You don't display the same valor on here"



When you don't reply to a post, it appears that you're running away. Women typically do that, I've noticed. Men tend to stick it out longer.

Of course, now that I've said it, maybe you will, but I'm convinced you wouldn't have otherwise.


That is your own subjective thinking and lack of knowledge. I will not ask you to read some of my posts as time may not allow it.
We choose our battles and our war. It also depends on what we value and hold meaningful.

Well, I was right ;)

What is it that you think allows a person that kind of courage which is generally *under fire*?
Basic humanity, compassion, the unconscious instinct to perpetuate humanity, ad continuum?

Well, I believe there is no unselfish act, so any act of courage will ultimately be to one's own benefit. You save the baby from the burning building because you couldn't live with yourself if you did not, or possibly to gain honor among people. It would be a function of how you're put together and the cultural influences.

The issue here is taking needless risks


*Needless risks* is kind of like beauty - they are in the *eyes* of the beholder.
We do not all live in the same perception of reality and experience and sensate things in the same way.
But I will grant you that there are things which are *needlessly risky* but again that is just to you and me and him and her...
We would have to know and understand another's personal history and psyche in order to under why someone would take *needless risks* or any kind of risks for that matter.

Well, if I say "hold my beer while I ride this machine up this mountain just to see if I can", that is a needless risk.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Jakob » Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:41 pm

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.

Im in favour of caste-systems where cowardice is just acknowledged as a common disease of the lower castes. The Bhagavad Gita is about how courage is the mark of nobility, of the higher caste.

Although, that may change in the future as the sexes genetically converge, but it hasn't happened yet (generally).

If this trend continues our species needs to go extinct.

Women are essentially risk taking, as they have less physical strength and yet have to expose themselves to men to be selected and be penetrated.
Only in a very much managed and supervised society are women somewhat free of the risk that comes with exposure to the sexual market.
And you see that once they are, they often become lunatics. A woman who isn't forced to be constantly vigilant becomes a liability to her environment pretty much as a rule.
This, in turn, turns to dangers, which in turn will teach the woman renewed vigilance.

I'm sure safeguards existed in antiquity as well.

Wherever such safeguards overtook instincts, decadence and madness ensued.
In the end you get a state ran by eunuchs, like the end of Ancient Rome when it had fallen to the Christians.

Whats risky for a man is often idiotic for a woman. Whats risky for a woman is often unthinkable or impossible for a man.

That's poetically said, but what's risky for women isn't a choice and isn't for fun (translating to the displaying of horns for sexual selection). Why do two rams butt heads? No risk, no reward.

In general this is true, at least in healthier societies than ours.
Males were generally selected by their willingness to expend themselves combined with their capacity to dispose of others.
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 Apr 11, 2018 10:10 pm

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.

Oh I know exactly what you mean!

Image

Image

Im in favour of caste-systems where cowardice is just acknowledged as a common disease of the lower castes.

You don't agree that pampering makes one soft? Or is texture and courage mutually exclusive?

The Bhagavad Gita is about how courage is the mark of nobility, of the higher caste.

I see what you're saying, but then again:

Image

Alan Watts made the argument that no one is more terrified than the leadership: a king has his back to the wall and guards on either side and one must prostrate himself, bow, kneel in order to be placed at a disadvantage lest he attack. Our court rooms are modeled the same with the judge having his back to the wall and guards on either side. One must address the judge with reverence: "Your honor" lest he display contempt and be whisked off to jail until he's less of a threat to the court.

I can see what you're saying in some instances where Sir Lancelot can be brave, but I can also see the opposite effect.

Although, that may change in the future as the sexes genetically converge, but it hasn't happened yet (generally).

If this trend continues our species needs to go extinct.

It's a matter of time before gestation can be accomplished in incubators and we'll be debating the merits of one against the other which will invariably be decided that a woman has no obligation to carry a child just like the abortion debate concluded the same. Once that technological and legal/ethical hurdle has been crossed, there is no stopping the convergence of the sexes that's already underway. Of course that's far into the future which we won't live to see, but interesting to ponder.

Women are essentially risk taking, as they have less physical strength and yet have to expose themselves to men to be selected and be penetrated.
Only in a very much managed and supervised society are women somewhat free of the risk that comes with exposure to the sexual market.
And you see that once they are, they often become lunatics. A woman who isn't forced to be constantly vigilant becomes a liability to her environment pretty much as a rule.
This, in turn, turns to dangers, which in turn will teach the woman renewed vigilance.

I'm sure safeguards existed in antiquity as well.

Wherever such safeguards overtook instincts, decadence and madness ensued.
In the end you get a state ran by eunuchs, like the end of Ancient Rome when it had fallen to the Christians.

Yes it's a cycle of hardship and prosperity where one engenders the other.

Whats risky for a man is often idiotic for a woman. Whats risky for a woman is often unthinkable or impossible for a man.

That's poetically said, but what's risky for women isn't a choice and isn't for fun (translating to the displaying of horns for sexual selection). Why do two rams butt heads? No risk, no reward.

In general this is true, at least in healthier societies than ours.
Males were generally selected by their willingness to expend themselves combined with their capacity to dispose of others.

Well said!
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Jakob » Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:46 pm

Serendipper wrote:Oh I know exactly what you mean!

Image

Image

Excellent illustration. The second picture is so utterly sickening, like the innards of a worm.
These aren't humans anymore. Or, as Ive proposed long ago, "humanity" is not a species but a soil from which different species grow.

Im in favour of caste-systems where cowardice is just acknowledged as a common disease of the lower castes.

You don't agree that pampering makes one soft? Or is texture and courage mutually exclusive?

In actual aristocracies, of which admittedly there are very few left, children aren't pampered, at all. They are put through now unthinkably rigorous regimes. More of ten than not they'd be any from there parents for many years, to begin with.

An aristocrat I met in Austria is a good example, he had a toddler daughter who he let wander around the most dangerous seeming precipices, she was constantly playing on the edge of somewhere she might tumble in. I asked if he wasn't worried, he said you need to have them make every mistake and accident "when they're still made of rubber".

The Bhagavad Gita is about how courage is the mark of nobility, of the higher caste.

I see what you're saying, but then again:

Image

Thats been one of my all time favourite pictures. Best way you could make this point.
My argument is that these aren't aristocrats. Having defrauded the state of money by being a sick criminal doesn't count.

Alan Watts made the argument that no one is more terrified than the leadership: a king has his back to the wall and guards on either side and one must prostrate himself, bow, kneel in order to be placed at a disadvantage lest he attack. Our court rooms are modeled the same with the judge having his back to the wall and guards on either side. One must address the judge with reverence: "Your honor" lest he display contempt and be whisked off to jail until he's less of a threat to the court.

Fuck Alan Watts for generalizing.

Image

Faggots believe its ruinous to look into the Sun even for a few seconds. All weak people have been taught to believe this so they will become slaves without
Image.

All initiation schools have techniques of looking into the Sun to draw its energy into the brain.
Trump here is communicating to us in the know.

And Your Honour is a beautiful term of Rank. Without Rank, there is no beauty, no culture, no worth.
Chances are about 99% that someone who appears before a judge is a being inferior to the judge. Just consider how difficult it is to become a judge, and how many fucking scum get caught committing crimes.

I can see what you're saying in some instances where Sir Lancelot can be brave, but I can also see the opposite effect.

Of course. Decadence is always an imminent risk at every aristocratic birth. Most "royal houses" these days are just lineages of supreme decadence.

Although, that may change in the future as the sexes genetically converge, but it hasn't happened yet (generally).

If this trend continues our species needs to go extinct.

It's a matter of time before gestation can be accomplished in incubators and we'll be debating the merits of one against the other which will invariably be decided that a woman has no obligation to carry a child just like the abortion debate concluded the same. Once that technological and legal/ethical hurdle has been crossed, there is no stopping the convergence of the sexes that's already underway. Of course that's far into the future which we won't live to see, but interesting to ponder.

I can promise you that any society that attempts this will be overrun by Islam.

In the end you get a state ran by eunuchs, like the end of Ancient Rome when it had fallen to the Christians.

Yes it's a cycle of hardship and prosperity where one engenders the other.

I dont see it that way - Rome was both hard and prosperous, Christian Europe was both weak and poor.
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 Apr 13, 2018 12:03 am

Jakob wrote:Excellent illustration. The second picture is so utterly sickening, like the innards of a worm.
These aren't humans anymore. Or, as Ive proposed long ago, "humanity" is not a species but a soil from which different species grow.

I resonate with your sentiment, but is there an objective correct way humans ought to be? I "feel" one way, but "reason" the other. Kids today are soft, there is no doubt about that, but how can we be sure that it's a bad thing? What wisdom can you offer to put that concern to rest?

In actual aristocracies, of which admittedly there are very few left, children aren't pampered, at all. They are put through now unthinkably rigorous regimes. More of ten than not they'd be any from there parents for many years, to begin with.

An aristocrat I met in Austria is a good example, he had a toddler daughter who he let wander around the most dangerous seeming precipices, she was constantly playing on the edge of somewhere she might tumble in. I asked if he wasn't worried, he said you need to have them make every mistake and accident "when they're still made of rubber".

Oh yes, kids are durable! I don't heal as quickly as I used to and if one is to be a boy, it's best to do it while young.

The problem is too many single mothers and not enough chores to do in lieu of video games. Parents are raising kids, not adults, and kids they remain since they're taught to be a dependent with a sense of entitlement by doting helicopter parents obsessed with safety.

You might like this:



Faggots believe its ruinous to look into the Sun even for a few seconds. All weak people have been taught to believe this so they will become slaves without

I try to be outside in the sun around noontime to soak up the UV and I've often wondered about the effects on the eyes. UVA and UVB are antagonists to each other, but UVB is blocked by just about anything, including spectacles, leaving UVA to ravage the eyes potentially causing cataracts (which are more prolific among the blue-eyed of the population). I'm curious if UVB would mediate the UVA effects, but information is lax in light of the sweepingly generalized demonization of the sun altogether. We need sensible sun exposure, but not sure about staring directly into the sun.

And Your Honour is a beautiful term of Rank. Without Rank, there is no beauty, no culture, no worth.
Chances are about 99% that someone who appears before a judge is a being inferior to the judge. Just consider how difficult it is to become a judge, and how many fucking scum get caught committing crimes.

I never known an honorable judge. One in my town who seemed like a decent fella was found guilty of planting meth in someone's car and is currently serving time. Another routinely gets duis. They're all sock-suckers imo and all they need to do to get elected is cheese-smile, smooze, and win votes from the ignorant masses. I'd hang every one in a heartbeat and give them the same presumption of innocence they gave everyone else. Clean house and start over; let God sort them out.

Recent surveys and events indicate that judicial corruption could be a significant
problem in the United States. This Note builds an economic model of bribery to better
understand the incentives behind this pernicious phenomenon. It then compiles a data set of
discovered incidents of judicial bribery in the United States to test the effectiveness of our anti-
judicial-corruption institutions. This analysis suggests that our institutions are particularly
ineffective at preventing and uncovering judicial bribery in civil disputes and traffic hearings.


https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/cor ... -is-hidden

Power almost always corrupts.

I can see what you're saying in some instances where Sir Lancelot can be brave, but I can also see the opposite effect.

Of course. Decadence is always an imminent risk at every aristocratic birth. Most "royal houses" these days are just lineages of supreme decadence.

Quite a bit of inbreeding too right?

I can promise you that any society that attempts this will be overrun by Islam.

Education might fix that. Islam is the religion of the ignorant, so eliminate the ignorance and Islam peters out.

Yes it's a cycle of hardship and prosperity where one engenders the other.

I dont see it that way - Rome was both hard and prosperous, Christian Europe was both weak and poor.

You don't agree with this?

Image
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby Jakob » Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:29 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Jakob wrote:Excellent illustration. The second picture is so utterly sickening, like the innards of a worm.
These aren't humans anymore. Or, as Ive proposed long ago, "humanity" is not a species but a soil from which different species grow.

I resonate with your sentiment, but is there an objective correct way humans ought to be? I "feel" one way, but "reason" the other. Kids today are soft, there is no doubt about that, but how can we be sure that it's a bad thing? What wisdom can you offer to put that concern to rest?

I don't think in such terms as "should". It surprises me that you do.
I know what I love, and what I loathe.
And I will do everything in my power to destroy what I loathe and cultivate what I love.
To judge less autonomously is not actually existing. Or so goes my philosophy and my life's path.
Im pretty harsh.

Oh yes, kids are durable! I don't heal as quickly as I used to and if one is to be a boy, it's best to do it while young.

The problem is too many single mothers and not enough chores to do in lieu of video games. Parents are raising kids, not adults, and kids they remain since they're taught to be a dependent with a sense of entitlement by doting helicopter parents obsessed with safety.

You might like this:

Outdoors activity is crucial, but so are rigorous studies in math, learning the basics of at least 5 languages, later on chemistry and physics, biology, geography, history of all the ages, - the education that I had, nothing less.

Rules are necessary, but they need to be the right rules. Children need to be tested to their limits until they are beyond adolescence, or they become utterly worthless.

We need sensible sun exposure, but not sure about staring directly into the sun.

8)

I never known an honorable judge. One in my town who seemed like a decent fella was found guilty of planting meth in someone's car and is currently serving time. Another routinely gets duis. They're all sock-suckers imo and all they need to do to get elected is cheese-smile, smooze, and win votes from the ignorant masses. I'd hang every one in a heartbeat and give them the same presumption of innocence they gave everyone else. Clean house and start over; let God sort them out.

I won't argue. Ive said my piece but I am aware that your side of the story has a basis in reality as well.

Power almost always corrupts.

To me that always sounds like an excuse for not having power.
The lack of power corrupts with absolute certainty.

I can see what you're saying in some instances where Sir Lancelot can be brave, but I can also see the opposite effect.

Of course. Decadence is always an imminent risk at every aristocratic birth. Most "royal houses" these days are just lineages of supreme decadence.

Quite a bit of inbreeding too right?

Yes, both at the top and at the bottom this seems to be a compulsion.

I can promise you that any society that attempts this will be overrun by Islam.

Education might fix that. Islam is the religion of the ignorant, so eliminate the ignorance and Islam peters out.

A muslim isn't typically as ignorant as people who think they can actually change genders, and don't realize the are merely sterilizing themselves. Anyone who can endure five minutes of The Daily Show is much farther from knowledge than your average muslim.

You don't agree with this?

Image

No, I don't. I think that a wealth of resources coupled with a small population makes for hardy people, this creates an age of prosperity of a good number of generations, then there are too many people, there is scarcity, ruthless and scheming people come out on top and the rest falls into horrible decay, as they are led to believe they live "good lives" but they have no idea what it means to live. The average tindering city critter has far less joi de vivre than an ant.

A truly good life of wealth and freedom always makes one hardy in one way or another. Freedom is tough on the psyche, perhaps one in ten thousand people these days has an inkling of what freedom or wealth is.

Without resources here isn't anything to build. The American Age of Prosperity was based on the untapped resources of North America and harsh physical conditions of pioneering, braved by those who can.
Which is part of the reason why Canada, cold and packed with minerals as it is, owns a tremendous future, if it can deal with its current fad.

Image

"Malade"



The long term future of the West:

Image
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 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:00 am

Jakob wrote: I don't think in such terms as "should". It surprises me that you do.

You're saying I should not think in terms of what I should do?

I know what I love, and what I loathe.
And I will do everything in my power to destroy what I loathe and cultivate what I love.
To judge less autonomously is not actually existing. Or so goes my philosophy and my life's path.
Im pretty harsh.

How can we have an idea of right and wrong without feeling like we should do what is right and should not do what is wrong? And how could we destroy what we loathe if we shouldn't claim what should be done?

On one hand integrity feels like something I should pursue, but on the other it feels like arrogant sin and self-righteous justification to think I'm abstractly better than anyone else. It seems there is no way to win. What do you advise?

Outdoors activity is crucial, but so are rigorous studies in math, learning the basics of at least 5 languages, later on chemistry and physics, biology, geography, history of all the ages, - the education that I had, nothing less.

Kids should get the education you had? My education was shit; I had to dispense-with and relearn most everything.

Rules are necessary, but they need to be the right rules. Children need to be tested to their limits until they are beyond adolescence, or they become utterly worthless.

How do you know the right rules are right?

Power almost always corrupts.

To me that always sounds like an excuse for not having power.
The lack of power corrupts with absolute certainty.

I think I misspoke, power reveals the corruption that already existed, so I'm not quite sure how people become corrupt. Will you describe the mechanism by which lack of power corrupts? Maybe that will spark some ideas.

Quite a bit of inbreeding too right?

Yes, both at the top and at the bottom this seems to be a compulsion.

A guy in a small town said, in his defense, "well, back then there was no one who wasn't family, ya know." But what's the excuse of royalty who rule over entire kingdoms?

I can promise you that any society that attempts this will be overrun by Islam.

Education might fix that. Islam is the religion of the ignorant, so eliminate the ignorance and Islam peters out.

A muslim isn't typically as ignorant as people who think they can actually change genders, and don't realize the are merely sterilizing themselves. Anyone who can endure five minutes of The Daily Show is much farther from knowledge than your average muslim.

I see what you're saying, but is arrogant dismissal of tradition really considered ignorant? Those progressive sorts tends to be quite bright academically, but have the "this time it's different" philosophy that bites just about everyone in the ass. "We don't need no stinking traditions and because of technology, this time it's different!" On the other hand, the dogmatic practitioners of Islam aren't very educated, but indoctrinated such that they never came to a place where they could claim to have had an objective decision about why they should or shouldn't adhere to traditions. I think education in philosophy and science could snap a few out of their stupor.

No, I don't. I think that a wealth of resources coupled with a small population makes for hardy people, this creates an age of prosperity of a good number of generations, then there are too many people, there is scarcity, ruthless and scheming people come out on top and the rest falls into horrible decay, as they are led to believe they live "good lives" but they have no idea what it means to live. The average tindering city critter has far less joi de vivre than an ant.

A truly good life of wealth and freedom always makes one hardy in one way or another. Freedom is tough on the psyche, perhaps one in ten thousand people these days has an inkling of what freedom or wealth is.

Without resources here isn't anything to build. The American Age of Prosperity was based on the untapped resources of North America and harsh physical conditions of pioneering, braved by those who can.
Which is part of the reason why Canada, cold and packed with minerals as it is, owns a tremendous future, if it can deal with its current fad.

I could handle the pioneering life, but on the other hand, 7 billion slaves are what produce cheap goodies. I can't imagine an advantage without a disadvantage and I suppose we don't get to pick our monsters anyway; plus, the grass is always greener on the other side.

Image

Oh hell, castro was gay? :shock:

The long term future of the West:

Nukes?
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby URUZ » Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:44 pm

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

Women are essentially risk taking, as they have less physical strength and yet have to expose themselves to men to be selected and be penetrated.
Only in a very much managed and supervised society are women somewhat free of the risk that comes with exposure to the sexual market.
And you see that once they are, they often become lunatics. A woman who isn't forced to be constantly vigilant becomes a liability to her environment pretty much as a rule.
This, in turn, turns to dangers, which in turn will teach the woman renewed vigilance.

Whats risky for a man is often idiotic for a woman. Whats risky for a woman is often unthinkable or impossible for a man.



Right, exactly. Thanks for bringing this topic back to focus.
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 URUZ » Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:48 pm

Power almost always corrupts.


To me that always sounds like an excuse for not having power.
The lack of power corrupts with absolute certainty.



Haha yes, certainly.

Power over each other, and power over ourselves. First.

Odin.
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 Jakob » Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:45 pm

Great, Im happy you singled out the important points. The ones the ladies are processing in silent gratitude.

Don't want to get lost in peripheral bantering.

Dipper, you're missing a lot. For starters, click the image.
Pakistan has nukes. The future of the west is about resources, geography, and will.
And again when I say "it is not A but B", it is a little surprising to see you say "oh to be clear it is A?"

Maybe Uruz can educate some more, Im out.
Thanks for the chat.
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 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:20 pm

Jakob wrote:Great, Im happy you singled out the important points.

I didn't single-out anything; all your points were addressed.

The ones the ladies are processing in silent gratitude.

And you know this because, from the vantage point of hiding behind them, you were able to peek over their shoulders? :confusion-shrug:

Don't want to get lost in peripheral bantering.

Yes, better to be safe that risk getting lost. :-?

Dipper, you're missing a lot.

Hell, I'm ready to learn, but you're running away.

For starters, click the image.

Which one?

Pakistan has nukes. The future of the west is about resources, geography, and will.

Ok?

And again when I say "it is not A but B", it is a little surprising to see you say "oh to be clear it is A?"

You're hallucinating. If you say A not B, then I ask how do you know. Your reply seems to be "because I said so and I'm going to run away lest you convince me otherwise."

Maybe Uruz can educate some more, Im out.

He's currently otherwise engaged on his back with the struggling to pour mud out of his boot by searching for instructions on the heel.

Thanks for the chat.

Concession accepted.

Geez man, up until this display of pussification I had a lot of respect for you. So much for the royal treatment. :icon-rolleyes:

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger rears it's ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes Brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat.
Oh bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!


Does anyone else desire to retrieve the once-again prostrate flag in continuance of the crusade for the existence of righteousness? Surely there exists someone on this planet who can argue their own position to a resolution without first retreating to the safety of Ft Dogma and y'all are apt to give me an ego if you continue throwing white flags at me like this.

Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby URUZ » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:46 pm

Jakob wrote:And again when I say "it is not A but B", it is a little surprising to see you say "oh to be clear it is A?"


Hahahahaha

Yeah, that.

Maybe Uruz can educate some more, Im out.


Naw, I don't give a fucking fuck.
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 Serendipper » Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:34 am

URUZ wrote:Naw, I don't give a fucking fuck.

Yes, you're undoubtedly the catcher and not the pitcher. Give FC my love :obscene-buttred:

Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Female power over men

Postby URUZ » Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:28 pm

Freud might have something to say about you at this point, I would wager.

In any case, you have proved yourself to be a subcreature with the soul of a worm. And somehow enjoying that. I suppose wormy things are enjoyable to worms. I wouldn’t know.

Try living sometime, or don’t. I don’t give a fuck either way.

Uruz
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

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

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users