Violence is for afraid pussies and only cowards carry weapon

[Meno_]

Unless the Toddler can not distinguish a metaphore

[Thanathots]

Unwrong in the thread on women cannot be strong and victims at the same time. I posted a response, talking about how the violence those men use is based on fear, and that they are responsible for their own behavior and it is not inevitable, etc., and later that day you started this thread. I though it was a partial response to what I said - Perhaps it was a coincidence, but I took it as a response - so it seemed like you were supporting his position. He was not suggesting one should beat women, but rather that it was simply sort of inevitable, what else can a lower status man do. IOW they had no responsibility. As if only lower status men beat women, and many other problems with his post. Then your thread appears seemingly mocking the idea I raised, about those men actually being afraid to face their own feelings and so they turn to violence, but in this thread it is as if you are responding to a general claim about all violence

I didn't read that entire thread but yes, originally this thread was a response to the things in your post.

I think men who have authority in the relationship are "jailors" of women as much as the state is a jailor of all of us, or as much as humans are jailors of animals they keep as pets, or as much as adults are jailors of children.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that if we are going to live on the same territory, somebody is inevitably going to end up having authority.

And when it comes to male female relationships it only makes sense for that somebody to be men, for reasons which are obvious unless you have been thoroughly brainwashed by feminism.

[lordoflight]

Yes the state are jailors of men. But I think men are mostly manipulators and not jailors of women.

There are several problems and why this is. So Ecmandu is not fully crazy, only half crazy.

First, the state are both jailors and manipulators of males and females.

Males, are mostly manipulators, but not jailors, of females.

The reason that males must manipulate females is obvious: Modern females are usually repulsed by most males inherently, and rarely approach. If all males followed Ecmandu's advice, which says never to manipulate or approach females, then only 2% of males would ever get laid. Which is what Ecmandu complains about in the first place.

Nikola Tesla first noticed this trend 100 years ago, that females were becoming increasingly masculine. Females will a masculine mind will never approach males. So males have to somehow activate their feminine minds to have any kind of relationship.

When females, have minds that are so masculine that they are literally repulsed by penis, then people tend to drift towards fantasies to counteract that, such as BDSM fantasies of females in bondage who lust for and worship the penis.

[lordoflight]

That is backwards. It is the right that holds positions on faith.

The right asserts objective morality on faith / the left is only intolerant of intolerance (assertion of objective morality is subjectively immoral and a violation of autonomy)
The right are absolutists / the left are relativists.
The right are dogmatists / the left are evidence-based.

Abandonment of logic and reason is conditional to be conservative and for a quick easy illustration, just visit any political board and argue for a minimum wage then observe the slanderous defense void of substance indicative of holding ideas absent of evidence. Conversely, argue against climate change and see how many liberals resort to slander.

The right is essentially a group with limited education arrogantly proclaiming nobel laureates stupid by appealing to "common sense".

Simply not true.

It's the left that has absolute, dogmatic faith in their "Social Justice Crusade". Social-Justice-Warriors represent the new (Modern) religion. If you're not a gay-queer-gender-fluid then you're morally evil. If you're a straight-white-male then you're going to Hell.

You're over complicating this. It's really more simple. If you lust for women, you are evil. If you offend a woman, you are evil. Even if you are a minority. It all revolves around maintaining the female ability to control sex. If you are a white gay who wouldn't dare flirt with a woman, then you are ok and a good person in the book of SJWs. Except you can't offend a woman either. That is why the white gay known as Milo is not ok in the SJW book either.

Also, the other thing I noticed, its like with American women only the most basest, primitive part of their mind is flourishing, while their feminine, Natural part of mind rots and withers into nothing.
Okay, let me explain.
Picture an American school. There is a hot guy at the school. And the hot guy has a crush on a girl. The girl has a masculine and feminine part of her mind. The masculine, hostile part is to keep her safe of danger. So the guy tries to approach her. She cruelly rejects him, because she is in man-mode. In normal society, there would be feminine women. Women talking about sex and penis. Encouraging her to be more feminine and give him a chance. But nope. Instead she will read a bunch of feminist garbage. The masculine part of her mind will continue to grow, like a tumor. She will become more and more masculine. The human part of her mind, that has empathy, will wither and rot into nothing. She will become increasingly unable to comprehend anyone else's problems except people who think exactly like she does. She won't have any nurturing qualities. The only men she will ever sleep with, most likely was when she was under the influence, drunk or on drugs, because without drugs she would be in her normal, masculine state, hating fearing males and having no empathy for males. So most likely she will get hitched to some addict. Most likely, her children will be raised in a daycare, her husband will have left her after a divorce paying her child support, and her kids will be raised by the State and a masculine, non-nurturing woman, without any paternal influence. Having a macho mind, she will want to ban guns, because men fight with their hands. People who are too macho usually don't see the need for guns, they don't feel any fear or danger in society. They look at the stats objectively, like a robot. Guns kill people. Thus they should be banned for the greater good. Nowhere will they even think about buying body armor, to protect themselves or their family. Because, like a macho man, they have no self identity, they dont value themselves as an individual. They are just part of a collective. Just like how men in the titanic, robotically sacrifice themselves. Macho women, wouldn't feel any fear living in a filthy, dilapidated city full of danger. Thus they wouldn't see anything wrong with equality. Filthy, dangerous, eye-sore cities would be equal to clean, natural, european cities of the beautiful countryside. And we all must support equality of the urban city because urban, dilapidated city is good and we ought to be proud of the progress we made.

[lordoflight]

Omg. A member of the hive speaks. You sound like a fucking Borg from star trek.

I'm not a trekky so I'm afraid I can't relate, however if the Borg are anything like the Zerg in Starcraft, then what I'm saying about the reality of the world - whether I like it or not by the way - fits what I'm saying pretty well, sure. Come to think of it, it's a clever little scenario that the makers of the game came up with when it comes to attracting the target audience i.e. gamers. Generally gamers are outcasts who have turned away from the normal life and towards an alternative virtual one, and Starcraft presents a fabricated reality where the good guys (the human "Terran") are fighting against an infesting malignant conformity that's threatening their way of life, yet on the other hand the alien "Zerg" might be more tempting to play in order to achieve a more angry catharsis through destroying humanity altogether. Perhaps there's a similar sentiment behind the Borg in Star Trek, you tell me.

Adaptation? No it sounds like you advocate collectivist pacifism. Like merging. As in fluids.

It's a sad reflection that I am often met with when I present reality as I see it objectively, and it is assumed that people including myself are only ever out there to sell their biased subjective agenda - which is often taken for granted by them because that is the method they are adopting themselves. I am not advocating anything. I am simply presenting how the world is, whether you/I like it or not. I am interested in truth, not a story.

Trying living in the fucking hood for a year and then you'll think twice about not carrying. What the fuck am I supposed to do? Walk around in the hood and get shanked? Man when were the days when people actually valued their own damn lives. Even suicidal people seem to value their own lives more than these collectivist borg types. A borg could care less whether or not he has the American right to defend himself or his property. Just wants to give up his rights to a bunch of pigs like a good little brainwashed cuck. Maybe I'm getting to old. I no longer feel like I'm part of society anymore. Some of the stuff I hear just seems too insane to believe. Its like humans are another species from me. Sheep I think.

I like what little property I own being mine, but I've never once needed to actively defend it beyond locking my doors. But then, I've never lived "in the hood". From what little I know of such places, it seems that people only "get shanked" when they/others have stupidly set up "gangs" with "territories" - presumably just to feel any kind of semblance of ownership at all in a world where they own relatively very little yet they need to think of themselves as big - and you violate this arbitrary claim. Either that or some desperate guy wants things of value and you're both having a bad day - or cowardly people just wanna feel big and pick on someone just for a petty ego boost. It's all cowardly and breeds cowardliness in retaliation - completely pointless and something that you should stay away from, but admittedly should participate in to as minimal a degree as possible if you can't escape for whatever reason. Do educate me if you feel the need.

My life has been threatened and in danger several times. But I had to deal with a pathetic liberal pansy who didn't believe in guns so I had to hide in total darkness for an hour in fear. I have had to deal with crazy stalkers and insane drunk people who had a gun trying to break into my home. So I don't need people like you who live with a sheltered spoon trying to take away my right to live. People who want to ban my guns, they are literally no different than some murderous asshole who wants to kill me.

And even if I was a sheltered spoon like you. And nothing but safe. I would read up the law of averages. Being safe for so long means something bad is bound to happen to me. Id get suspicious and arm myself.

And then there's the other thing. You're probably a goodie two shoes who's been brainwashed by cartoons. Crappy, childish superhero cartoons who look down on honest criminals. You don't believe in ancient fairy tales like Robin Hood anymore. It's like kids read Robin Hood. But yet they don't take it to heart. Thankfully things are beginning to change. They made a recent movie with Michael Palin, glorifying bank robbery. And that is a step in the right direction. Banning guns will give less chance of honest criminals to get away with crimes. That is why I can't stand surveillance.

If you give the government complete control, any random inbred tyrant who happens to born into it, gets to do what they want. And as we know politics is already corrupt and controlled by the rich elite. So why the hell would you want them to have total control in the first place?

[Silhouette]

I don't need people like you who live with a sheltered spoon trying to take away my right to live.

You might have a point that my background clouds my judgment of what it's like to live in environments that are unfamiliar to me.

No doubt it works both ways, but I don't want to deny you or anyone a right to live. Yet again the main factor at play seems to be poverty, and what it can do to people such that they feel the need to use guns aggressively, causing everyone else to feel the need to use guns defensively. I would rather these people were instead allowed to grow up in similar situations as I did, because those conditions don't cause the kind of catch 22 that you're describing.

This is why I advocate relative wealth equality. Not absolute equality, that's dumb. It's my theory that there's a sweet spot between that and what we have now that can be regulated - ideally self-regulated through an optimal mechanism.

As it is, our global sledgehammer solution is "government" to regulate the private sector that rewards the pushing of inequality towards extremes with visible but insufficient forces towards equality.
To answer your closing question, I don't want them to have total control any more than I want private sector "winners" to have total control, or anything close to it on either end.
The naive ideals are that government will successfully self-regulate (left) or the private sector will (right). The only people worth listening to are the ones who are able to think outside of the box.

I'd rather people didn't feel the need to be criminals, honest or not.

[lordoflight]

This was all set into motion ages ago, with the banks taking over our country 100 years ago, the American dollar has decreased steadily in value ever since. If you look at the wealth distribution charts it looks ridiculous, like the 1% has so much wealth it escapes the bounds of the page, and the poor have wealth that is only a few pixels tall, the middle class only having double or triple the amount the poor has, while the 1% would take several pages to print out how long their bar is.

It's like that thing with lions. One alpha male lion takes over the tribe and kicks out all the other males, and makes all the women his bitches and gets to have all the girls. Then the other male lions are exiled and turn gay. Then turn straight again and kick out the last alpha and become the next douchebag in his place. As humans, I thought we were beyond such behavoirs. But this banning guns thing just seems like a propaganda pushed by the 1% to further emasculate the other lions.

[Silhouette]

But this banning guns thing just seems like a propaganda pushed by the 1% to further emasculate the other lions.

You're not going to stem accelerating inequality by giving more poor people guns, sorry. Especially not considering the modern technology that the rich can fight back with.
Guns do nothing except protect/kill those who had the bad luck to be born to the wrong parents in the wrong neighbourhood, or to be in the wrong place at the wrong time/be shot by accident.

Inequality goes deeper than a scheme set in motion ages ago by banks, or propaganda. The richer you are the more likely you are to become richer and the poorer you are the less likely you are to get out of poverty. Anecdotes abound of exceptions, but the rule is the rule, and it appears to follow the Pareto distribution.

The mechanism needs to be amended to cause wealth to dissipate (more) evenly for the benefit of everyone, but there are so many archaic ideals to contend with here, but more menacingly the simple fact that if you can cheat the system and get away with it, you and others like you (more likely to be genetically and environmentally similar to the cheater) will proliferate and the whole problem will spiral away yet again. At this point it seems to be a choice between what form we want inequality to take. It used to be aristocracy, before then it was the kind of might that these "alpha male lions" of which you speak had in order to dominate others. What kind will we come up with next to replace the current one?

I've been wrestling with the possibility that there may be no solution for a long time now, I just know that if there was one, we'd not need to bother having this kind of debate.

[lordoflight]

But this banning guns thing just seems like a propaganda pushed by the 1% to further emasculate the other lions.

You're not going to stem accelerating inequality by giving more poor people guns, sorry. Especially not considering the modern technology that the rich can fight back with.
Guns do nothing except protect/kill those who had the bad luck to be born to the wrong parents in the wrong neighbourhood, or to be in the wrong place at the wrong time/be shot by accident.

Inequality goes deeper than a scheme set in motion ages ago by banks, or propaganda. The richer you are the more likely you are to become richer and the poorer you are the less likely you are to get out of poverty. Anecdotes abound of exceptions, but the rule is the rule, and it appears to follow the Pareto distribution.

The mechanism needs to be amended to cause wealth to dissipate (more) evenly for the benefit of everyone, but there are so many archaic ideals to contend with here, but more menacingly the simple fact that if you can cheat the system and get away with it, you and others like you (more likely to be genetically and environmentally similar to the cheater) will proliferate and the whole problem will spiral away yet again. At this point it seems to be a choice between what form we want inequality to take. It used to be aristocracy, before then it was the kind of might that these "alpha male lions" of which you speak had in order to dominate others. What kind will we come up with next to replace the current one?

I've been wrestling with the possibility that there may be no solution for a long time now, I just know that if there was one, we'd not need to bother having this kind of debate.

The solution is obvious. Maybe if the 1% stopped feeding us fake news and putting toxins in all of foods and flourides in our water, poor people would be better at math and business because they wouldn't have brain damage from all the chemicals the 1% made to keep us down. Feminism and hating males also a tool made up by the 1%, making it llegal to be male. So much paperwork too, everything has fines and fees and its just draining to even try and navigate society, everything is so damn over-regulated with the fine print and taxes and fines and fees. They over tax the middle class and the super rich just seem to always get richer while the middle class always seems to be in debt. And then you have to act like a trendy goodie two shoes to even be given a job, its really similar to Orwellian attitudes where everyone has to act a certain way and people who are negative or talk about conspiracies are viewed as going against the program. The program is of course the 2 party system and prison plantation meant to mostly benefit the 1%.

[Silhouette]

The solution is obvious. Maybe if the 1% stopped feeding us fake news and putting toxins in all of foods and flourides in our water, poor people would be better at math and business because they wouldn't have brain damage from all the chemicals the 1% made to keep us down. Feminism and hating males also a tool made up by the 1%, making it llegal to be male. So much paperwork too, everything has fines and fees and its just draining to even try and navigate society, everything is so damn over-regulated with the fine print and taxes and fines and fees. They over tax the middle class and the super rich just seem to always get richer while the middle class always seems to be in debt. And then you have to act like a trendy goodie two shoes to even be given a job, its really similar to Orwellian attitudes where everyone has to act a certain way and people who are negative or talk about conspiracies are viewed as going against the program. The program is of course the 2 party system and prison plantation meant to mostly benefit the 1%.

I too hate the institutionalised superficiality of the whole economic game, and yet to so many people it comes so easily and even at least seemingly naturally. These people are never the ones who are the most honest, brave and free thinkers either - so I am faced with a society that encourages and even rewards something I consider to be a grave vice: inauthenticity, and it even at least tacitly punishes its opposite that I consider to be a great virtue (no doubt giving lip service to say the opposite, but actions speak louder than words) - Orwellian indeed.

The effects of poverty on human physiology and subsequently their cognitive faculties is provably extreme enough without any foul play like poisoning water and supplying/prescribing questionable chemicals. Even in utero effects are far more severe than people previously thought - at the very least it's enough to stunt the development of the frontal cortex that is needed for things like math, business and seeing through fake news. It's actually better for everyone to keep people out of poverty for this reason alone - including the 1%. They won't feel their superiority over others quite so much, but the collective contribution of everyone being healthier and more mentally capable will elevate even the 1% higher than they currently are.

But that's the whole problem.
To so many people, they would rather sacrifice something of themselves to cause others to fail even worse. This is the driving force behind all the philosophies of unregulated inequality being morally superior - dressing it all up with ideal notions of freedom.

I'm not sure you explicitly said what the obvious solution is, but you don't need to, because the obvious solution is to solve the above tendency. But the obvious problem is that this obvious solution has no obvious mechanism by which we can achieve it. I'm more and more sure that it's not even possible all the time.

[Serendipper]

Yet again the main factor at play seems to be poverty, and what it can do to people such that they feel the need to use guns aggressively, causing everyone else to feel the need to use guns defensively. I would rather these people were instead allowed to grow up in similar situations as I did, because those conditions don't cause the kind of catch 22 that you're describing.

The cause is disparity.

The richer you are the more likely you are to become richer and the poorer you are the less likely you are to get out of poverty.

Yes, adversity does not cause prosperity. When it happens by chance, they write books and make movies about it. No good can come of making people struggle.

[Silhouette]

Yes, adversity does not cause prosperity. When it happens by chance, they write books and make movies about it. No good can come of making people struggle.

Serendipper, I love how we continually concur with one another in most major ways, but let me qualify your closing sentence.

I think the difference is between a surmountable struggle an an insurmountable struggle. Struggle is of course what causes success, achievement, progression. It's surmountable and in such cases where people succeed, this is provably so.

But the problem comes when people abstract the type of struggle from its context (usually through ignorance and/or laziness). It is generally assumed that if someone can surmount a struggle that is worthy of a book and/or movie, such a struggle must be generally surmountable. Of course under some (often most) contexts this is not the case.

Perhaps you have become aware by now that I am absolutely behind the kind of work being done by such people as Robert Sapolsky and Sam Harris on such things as the notion of free will. This is nothing more than the acceptance of mind-body causation - at least in the direction of the body being the thing that affects the mind (perhaps being considered as the same thing: Monism, or even not considered as working in the other direction: Epiphenomenalism). Is the mind fully the arbiter of the body's actions and is there no or at least some influence of the body on the mind? Experimentally it's becoming increasingly clear that the mind is fully dependent on the body - your free will is nothing more than that which was determined by your body's interaction with your environment (neither of which you initially chose to be born to/into).

Give people surmountable challenges and they grow, give them insurmountable ones and they remain in poverty and too often turn to violence and other anti-social behaviours.

[Serendipper]

Yes, adversity does not cause prosperity. When it happens by chance, they write books and make movies about it. No good can come of making people struggle.

Serendipper, I love how we continually concur with one another in most major ways

Me too!

I think the difference is between a surmountable struggle an an insurmountable struggle. Struggle is of course what causes success, achievement, progression. It's surmountable and in such cases where people succeed, this is provably so.

Yes you can see the situation clearly! That is exactly right: providing what others could provide for themselves is an impediment to progress, but it's too easy to get carried away and think that the cause of progress are the impediments such that one begins to equate adversity with prosperity.

For instance parents often do too much for their kids in the way of cooking, laundry, etc so that kids never learn independence; they coddle too much and raise dependents without survival skills. That is true, but other parents take the philosophy to extremes and believe that specifically making it harder on kids produces kids that are more self-sufficient, but if that were true, then the hoods would be churning out geniuses and poverty would be self-eliminating.

Obviously there is a middle way between the two extremes: we need to be challenged, but can't be overwhelmed. This is true in bodybuilding since sleep is more important than gym-time: sure we need the stimulation to trigger muscle growth, but we also need to coddle ourselves while the muscle responds with growth. It's true with the immune system as well: we need to be challenged as babies in order to develop a strong immune system, but we can't be overwhelmed to the point of death. Likewise it's true with society: we have to guarantee everyone basic necessities lest they be overwhelmed by insurmountable challenges involved with mere survival instead of having the opportunity to contribute to society in a more meaningful way.

Organisms reproduce more aggressively in response to poverty (environmental stress) which increases the odds the species will survive by betting on a genetic variation that will overcome the environmental stressor. That strategy produces strong animals, but it also produces lots of dead ones and humans would find it abhorrent if people were allowed to starve in order to genetically evolve into people who can better-handle adversity just so the rich can keep their wealth because they are the most productive of society which means what; that people have to starve to make it so? That doesn't seem so noble. People don't need to be so reliant on genetic strategies since we have technology. We just need to open our eyes to the fact that the machines are working for the few instead of society and make the inevitable moral judgement that each of those machines should be paying taxes like the workers were before the machine replaced them, then that money used to relieve people of drudgery and provide a socioeconomic floor that no one is allowed to fall through.

Perhaps you have become aware by now that I am absolutely behind the kind of work being done by such people as Robert Sapolsky and Sam Harris on such things as the notion of free will. This is nothing more than the acceptance of mind-body causation - at least in the direction of the body being the thing that affects the mind (perhaps being considered as the same thing: Monism, or even not considered as working in the other direction: Epiphenomenalism). Is the mind fully the arbiter of the body's actions and is there no or at least some influence of the body on the mind? Experimentally it's becoming increasingly clear that the mind is fully dependent on the body - your free will is nothing more than that which was determined by your body's interaction with your environment (neither of which you initially chose to be born to/into).

Yes it's hard to escape the fact that we are continuous with our environment. I could argue that my blood is my environment or that my room is my body because I have more control over the temperature and humidity of my air than I do my blood pressure and most of the things happening in my body may as well be something in outer space considering what little control I have over it. I have about as much control over my thyroid gland as I do the sun.

Warren Buffett attributes his success to luck because he was born in the right environment for his genetic propensity to thrive and if he had been born in some other time or place, he says he would have been some animal's lunch.

People flatter themselves saying "hard work is the key", but how did they get that ethos? Luck? Whether one is smarter or more diligent or whatever reason they cite as responsible for success, possession of that attribute will always come down to luck. I didn't make preparations to be born how I am, but I just woke up this way. That's what my name means: I stumble into things by chance and it's no credit to me.