Page 49 of 228 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999149 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #481
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Does the sacred band of Thebes not provide an alternate construct where women aren't needed for empowerment? Truthfully, without a biological component, I don't see any proof sex is really all that compelling. Companionship, however, is and sex is a reinforcement within a healthy relationship which is why homosexuals can fit a normal family construct. So, strip the gender roles and companionship becomes a mutual decision, so I'd suggest that it's actually disempowering for women to move away from the biological elements. I believe the male dominant societal construct is dying, but it doesn't flip to where every man is a sexual cuck/ subvert. It just levels the field.
    Last edited by ironyusa; 01-05-2018 at 10:13 PM.

  2. #482
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Does the sacred band of Thebes not provide an alternate construct where women aren't needed for empowerment? Truthfully, without a biological component, I don't see any proof sex is really all that compelling. Companionship, however, is and sex is a reinforcement within a healthy relationship which is why homosexuals can fit a normal family construct. So, strip the gender roles and companionship becomes a mutual decision, so I'd suggest that it's actually disempowering for women to move away from the biological elements. I believe the male dominant societal construct is dying, but it doesn't flip to where every man is a sexual cuck/ subvert. It just levels the field.
    power flows in different ways. and so empowerment comes in different ways. traditionally, yes, women defined what made a man a man, but at the same time, they were compelled, legally and forcefully AND sexually to the gender roles which tradition dictated. they were locked out many things because of the system that biology and economics had created for them.

    so female empowerment, comes in economic and political freedom from those traditional norms.

    meanwhile, male empowerment, comes in being free of using the female to define himself.

    we are fairly familiar with the notion that female empowerment is bread-winning, and getting high tech and high powered jobs, and a career without a man etc etc, this is just second wave feminism. and its all good stuff as far as im concerned.

    what we arn't familiar with is male empowerment. what seems to be the coping mechanism by traditionalists, and MRAs and conservatives, is to take the red pill. but thats not empowerment. male empowerment isn't being a pick up artist. male empowerment isn't fucking women, or being the most fucked dude on earth. thats still using the female to define your value. these guys claim to be alphas, claim they can bang anyone they want to etc etc .... but thats still just using female to define you. thats putting women in charge of your value. thats being cucked. thats letting women define you and your value.

    male empowerment comes in being totally fine with not being fucked. male empowerment is being perfectly fine with being rejected. male empowerment is being who you want to be, regardless of what society, women, or anyone says you should be. defining your value as something other than women.

    and i think your post touches on that, with the notion that actually sex shouldn't be what drive you into a relationship. companionship is. i agree with you. sex isnt that compelling. on the whole, its fun, i enjoy it, but i can think of probably a half a dozen different things that i enjoy more. what keeps me dating, is the want/desire to have a partner in life. companionship.

    especially in a world where sex is borderline free and easy for almost anyone ... sex should not be your motivation in life.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #483
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    It's just amazing how consistent you are at rewriting reality for your own comfort and taking the corresponding political position...as far as I can recall, you've done it for every issue we've covered
    Beh - I didn't know which side of it it was. I really don't care. My bad. It seems like a CYA either way. My position on this is mostly shit talking to piss you off Steve. I don't really care that much. THAT should be obvious by now.

    And... look below.
    ___________________________________

    there wouldn't be republicans if women got there shit together.
    Funny, my wife is the conservative and her shit is together. We have 6 kids. Have you every thought that women went to the polls and said, you know what, I don't want Hillary to be the first woman to represent my sex as president? Because that is what she said. I mean, she disliked Trump, but she felt he was the lesser of two evils, and didn't think so much about doing the historic let's let a woman be president. She said, FUCK NO to Hillary. Instead of trying to let her sexual organs determine how she should vote.

    If you want to know what they actually think, instead of assuming they want to be sexists and vote for somebody because of their sex, maybe you should try conversing with a conservative woman instead of guessing. Surprise, they aren't stupid either.

    I supported Johnson. (shrugs, inserts dick joke)
    ___________________________________

    so, still no increase in TSI

    k.
    I showed that the increase in TSI works with the increase in temperature, if you can comprehend that the TSI is taken as an absolute, and if you apply the absolute range to temperature also, it shows exactly the same trend.

    Just 2 or 3 pages back I showed how the changes in TSI are affecting...well, Uranus also: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-sun-re...tness.html#jCp

    AND Svensmark's paper just came out last month. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2



    Red curve is the variation in the local supernova rate, and therefore also the variation in cosmic ray flux during the last 500 Myr. The colored band indicates climatic periods: warm periods (red), cold periods (blue), glacial periods (white and blue hatched bars) and finally peak glaciations (black and white hatched bars). The proportions of carbon-13 in sediments (d13C in parts per mill) over the past 500 Myr, shown in the scattered points, reflect changes in the carbon cycle. d13C carries information on the burial of organic material in sediments, and is therefore a record of bio-productivity. Blue dashed curve is smoothed d13C. Circles are d13C from marine carbonates, open circles with a star symbol, Jurassic to Neogene, are a carbon isotopic record of organic matter. Note that there are three brief gaps in the d13C data (end-Silurian, mid-Carboniferous and mid Jurassic). Abbreviations for geological periods are Cm ?Cambrian, O ? Ordovician, S ? Silurian, D ? Devonian, C ? Carboniferous, P ? Permian, Tr ? Triassic, J ? Jurassic, K ? Cretaceous, Pg ?Palaeogene, Ng ? Neogene.
    Still, Models have all failed. Predictions have all failed, no matter what you think the TSI is doing or not doing. Trying to distract from that with a I-can't-take-time-to-actually-read-shit fallacy or the I-am-ignoring-everything-you-said-that-ruins-my-position fallacy doesn't help.
    _______________________________

    Also still hasn't explained to us how satellite measurements work or why they should be more reliable than ground stations. His position seems to be "satellites are magic so of course climate stations are wrong"
    Ignoring what I posted doesn't mean I didn't say it. I linked to the Fall et al paper that shows the majority of surveyed Surface Stations have a warming trend and are affected by local warming affects. I have mentioned it nearly a half dozen times. I mentioned I was actually part of the program, and I walked down and surveyed the local sites.

    I also went over the problems with the satellite data source, the biggest point being there is no reference for it, and one dataset. I said that in my first post on the subject some 46 pages back or so. I also said that the satellite dataset matches weather balloon data sets, which also can register warming at the 300mbar and other levels (where the warming is supposed to happen due to the theory), and the surface data from that the raw station data matches surface warming the satellites register also, but the satellite takes a far higher resolution dataset, and also does it more than 6 ft from the ground.

    And I showed that satellite data matches rural surface stations, in fact, satellite data matches the stations that fall between the 1-2 rated locations and the 3-5 rates locations, but after that the NOAA adjusted dataset is warmer than either of those datasets. Funny how that is. They made 1+2 equal 4. Huh.

    That you guys keep ignoring the wealth of data I have brought forward to make this point only shows that your belief system makes you blind to this information.

    It isn't that I haven't proved my point, several times over. It is that your reading comprehension is just piss poor when thrown contrary or damaging data, and you end up bringing up positions again and again as if you had a blinding case of cognitive dissonance. Yeah, there are examples of mine being so through out here - but on this, my point has been made overly so, and now you guys are resorting to being obtuse because you know you are wrong. Or, may I suggest a Plexotomy? That might help.
    _______________________________

    The Clinton Foundation is being investigated for fraud. An interesting bit:

    The first time the Clinton Foundation was investigated, between 2001 and 2005, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey, and others could not seem to find obvious and escalating frauds as a supposed presidential library complex in Little Rock, Arkansas, also ?fought HIV/AIDS internationally? from unregistered offices in New York and Massachusetts without ever obtaining required audits of worldwide activities.

    Strangely, as the first investigation wound down, evidence in the public domain suggests that the Clinton Foundation also defrauded the National Archivist by making demonstrably false representations in a binding legal agreement.
    There is more, lots more. Turns out the same few people each time. Out of tens of thousands. Huh. And now when others are looking into it, turns out, like the emails, there are some serious problems.

    And on the prepared statement, and how politic hacking is involved:

    x-FBI Director James Comey?s original statement closing out the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server was edited by subordinates to remove five separate references to terms like ?grossly negligent? and to delete mention of evidence supporting felony and misdemeanor violations, according to copies of the full document. Comey also originally concluded that it was ?reasonably likely? that Clinton?s nonsecure private server was accessed or hacked by hostile actors though there was no evidence to prove it. But that passage was also changed to the much weaker ?possible,? the memos show...The full draft, with edits, leaves little doubt that Comey originally wrote on May 2, 2016 that there was evidence that Clinton and top aides may have violated both felony and misdemeanor statutes, though he did not believe he could prove intent before a jury.
    And:

    While Mueller has prosecuted two Trump associates for lying to the FBI, the Obama Justice Department gave a pass to Mrs. Clinton and her subordinates, who gave the FBI misinformation about such key matters as whether Clinton understood markings in classified documents and whether her aides knew about her homebrew server system during their State Department service...The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are breathtaking: the failure to use the grand jury to compel the production of key physical evidence; the Justice Department?s collaboration with defense lawyers to restrict the FBI?s ability to pursue obvious lines of inquiry and examine digital evidence; immunity grants to suspects who should have been charged with crimes and pressured to cooperate; allowing subjects of the investigation to be present for each other?s FBI interviews and even to act as lawyers for Clinton, in violation of legal and ethical rules;
    Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills both gave false statements to the FBI about their knowledge of the "homebrew" server. Rather than having the specter of prosecution hung over their heads, they were granted sweeping and generous immunity deals, under which they protected themselves and their boss. And they weren't the only ones:

    A computer technician who deleted Clinton emails from her server in March 2015 after a congressional subpoena had been issued for them, originally lied to the FBI during his interviews, memos show. The witness?s name was redacted from documents released by the FBI but he was identified as an employee of a computer firm that helped maintained Clinton?s email server. His admission of false statements came one day after the Comey statement was already being drafted, investigators told The Hill. The computer employee originally told the FBI in a February 2016 interview that he did not recall making any deletions from Clinton?s server in March 2015, FBI records show. But then on May 3, 2016, the same employee in a subsequent FBI interview told agents he had an ?oh shit moment? and in late March 2015 deleted Clinton?s email archive from the server, according to FBI documents reviewed by The Hill...the FBI decided not to pursue criminal charges against the witness, and instead gave the technician an immunity deal so he could correct his story, congressional investigators said.
    On those emails, seems a Weiner is involved also:

    Weiner, the disgraced former New York congressman, was served divorce papers by former Clinton confidante Huma Abedin in May of last year.

    The new tranche of emails on Weiner?s computer appear to emanate from Abedin?s use of a non-State Department email address located on Clinton?s private server as well as from Abedin?s personal Blackberry.

    According to the press release issued by Judicial Watch earlier this afternoon, the 18 classified emails are broken down as follows:

    There are five new classified emails among 147 new Abedin work-related documents released by the State Department on Friday, December 29, 2017.

    Thirteen emails containing classified information were also found on the Weiner laptop computer that had already been released to the public. This classified material includes discussions about Saudi Arabia, The Hague, Egypt, South Africa, Zimbabwe, the identity of a CIA official, Malawi, the war in Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, and the PLO.
    More to come. Going to be an interesting year 2018...
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #484
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    Links to these sources would be rather helpful, because it seems the wording is editorial rather than news-factual. No journalist would use the words "oh shit moment" in an article. At least, really none that we'd all agree to reading, right? I hope we haven't crossed that boundary of what's professional journalism into that level of candor.

  5. #485
    so still no increase in TSI ....

    i'll never understand conservative women. i mean i get that men can be conservative, that makes sense. but i'll never understand a woman actually being like an actual conservative. i have seen a lot of women fake being conservative, my mom had to for decades. the amount of self loathing that must be involved has got to be pretty extreme. probably why religion is the leading predictor of conservatism in women. self loathing gonna self loath.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 01-06-2018 at 11:22 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #486
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    What's interesting to me is that the genders are dependant ONLY in biological terms and as a fledgling specie, survival instincts emphasized this but social constructs have eb and flowed. Greece is a particularly interesting society to study because you have Thebes and Spartans. Neither of which fit with the "traditional" gender roles. Thebes, in particular, were even more elite than Spartans in terms of fighting prowess and used (homosexual) companionship to reinforce power. Spartans on the other hand, were also not a particularly "traditional" society because women were quite powerful and if you really look into it they were respected biologically and sociologically.

    I am not really sure how man's dependence on women for gender identity became the norm. I think the machismo/ male dominant nonsense is not only degrading to women, but also to men. Each gender (identity) has equally amazing traits and being strong individually, makes them unstoppable together. The physiology and psychology are wired to be symbiotic and not parasitic. I don't love terms like feminism or male empowerment, but fully support the notion that the contributions in the work place, society as a whole and in companionship should be balanced. Respecting the opposite gender and not treating them as a conquest seems like a basic humanity to me.

  7. #487
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    What's interesting to me is that the genders are dependant ONLY in biological terms and as a fledgling specie, survival instincts emphasized this but social constructs have eb and flowed. Greece is a particularly interesting society to study because you have Thebes and Spartans. Neither of which fit with the "traditional" gender roles. Thebes, in particular, were even more elite than Spartans in terms of fighting prowess and used (homosexual) companionship to reinforce power. Spartans on the other hand, were also not a particularly "traditional" society because women were quite powerful and if you really look into it they were respected biologically and sociologically.

    I am not really sure how man's dependence on women for gender identity became the norm. I think the machismo/ male dominant nonsense is not only degrading to women, but also to men. Each gender (identity) has equally amazing traits and being strong individually, makes them unstoppable together. The physiology and psychology are wired to be symbiotic and not parasitic. I don't love terms like feminism or male empowerment, but fully support the notion that the contributions in the work place, society as a whole and in companionship should be balanced. Respecting the opposite gender and not treating them as a conquest seems like a basic humanity to me.
    i rather think that (and this is a comment to the poster who asked me about what i think should happen) rather than believing that the male and the female are different and thus promote symbiosis, that the goal should be the replacing of gender roles, and the feminine and the masculine with the simple concept of: adulthood.

    all human beings on earth should be capable of: expressing there emotions in a healthy way, relating and understanding and being empathetic to other humans, having the emotional strength to power through stressful situations, be capable of feeding ones self, be capable of cleaning up after ones self, being able to fix or take apart things, being able to build basic things, being able to physically defend ones self, being able to navigate legal situations, being able to navigate touchy social and professional situations, understand history, art, music and philosophy, being able to dress one self in ones selected style, plan and navigate a cross country, or multi-country vacation, survive out of a backpack outside for several days, navigate by the sun/stars, have a unique sexual identity that is fufilling ....

    these are just things that all human beings should be able to do. I admit i am not perfect, nor the perfect example of a human, i have things to work on personally like everyone on earth does.

    i think thats where much of the criticism of liberal men comes from conservative men. they see men who are learning or have learned far more emotional intelligence as the "feminizing" of men. in reality, its just men learning to be reasonable adults. on the flip side, when women are rough, angry, strong, or take on "male" jobs, or having short hair, conservative men see that as women no longer being women. in reality, women should be strong, do any job they are capable of or interested in, and express themselves physically however they wish to .. again, thats just adulthood.

    its just being a human adult. now im not advocating that we all be the same, what i am advocating for is that the ideal human should be the ideal human, not the ideal man or woman. people should be the great people they are, not be a great man or woman (whatever that is).
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #488
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    I don't disagree with the general sentiment, but I have a slight caveat to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    i rather think that (and this is a comment to the poster who asked me about what i think should happen) rather than believing that the male and the female are different and thus promote symbiosis, that the goal should be the replacing of gender roles, and the feminine and the masculine with the simple concept of: adulthood.
    I am not convinced that removing feminine and masculine identities do much to help. I mean, maybe, but in compatibility screening it's a broad stroke that helps narrow the candidate pool significantly. It's really not something that I think is fixed, but rather is a more or less a first pass reference. I guess it is construed as a sexist sentiment that "feminine" would be associated as subservient. The basic problem in most relationships is that a ship with 2 captains, sinks or said another way - opposites attract. It's not necessarily an impasse, but it'd need to be subcategorized under adulthood to maintain the efficiency of a parsing system.

    There is a lot of research on men and women's brains. They're makedly different and going back to a symbiotic idea within companionship, it's critical to compatibility.

    edit: A quick anicdote is I've been with my wife since we were 16 and we got married at 19. I can promise that if sex were the foundation of our marriage it'd have collapsed long ago. She is my best friend. That's why it works. I enjoy spending time with her and the other benefits just reinforce our relationship. In no way do I see me above her or vice versa. We both have a choice and make it daily to be committed to each other.
    Last edited by ironyusa; 01-06-2018 at 12:31 PM.

  9. #489
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    I think everyone can get behind the idea that true equality of opportunity is the keystone of an egalitarian society.

    I guess the question in my mind really is:

    Across the 2 biological genders, we have 2 distributions of psychological dispositions that are overlapping but do not share a mean. Is it better, on balance, to recognize this and attempt to design around it, or is a completely gender-blind society a worthy goal? To what degree are dispositional differences a result of culture, and not of biochemistry? Is "utility" in some pareto optimized sense even what society should value, or are higher principles (equality of opportunity) more important, even if they result in lower mean happiness?

    And actually, when I look it up:
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

    A more liberal definition of gender roles, at least in coupled women, seems to help somewhat. Interestingly, though teen depression rates are up, rates of teen sex are down, which runs counter to the hook-up culture rhetoric (largely driven by improvements from minority populations; flat for whites).

    So, I guess there's my answer - at least compared to current US cultural norms, a further move away from traditional gender norms should result in positive happiness/utility.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  10. #490
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    I think everyone can get behind the idea that true equality of opportunity is the keystone of an egalitarian society.

    I guess the question in my mind really is:

    Across the 2 biological genders, we have 2 distributions of psychological dispositions that are overlapping but do not share a mean. Is it better, on balance, to recognize this and attempt to design around it, or is a completely gender-blind society a worthy goal? To what degree are dispositional differences a result of culture, and not of biochemistry? Is "utility" in some pareto optimized sense even what society should value, or are higher principles (equality of opportunity) more important, even if they result in lower mean happiness?

    And actually, when I look it up:
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

    A more liberal definition of gender roles, at least in coupled women, seems to help somewhat. Interestingly, though teen depression rates are up, rates of teen sex are down, which runs counter to the hook-up culture rhetoric (largely driven by improvements from minority populations; flat for whites).

    So, I guess there's my answer - at least compared to current US cultural norms, a further move away from traditional gender norms should result in positive happiness/utility.
    id go with NDT's answer to this one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ihNLEDiuM

    i dont disagree that it is possible (even probable) there is genetic disposition in populations, but i agree with NGT, we do not have a controlled enough experiment to actually conclude that. until we have such an experiment, we should not conclude the hypothesis is correct.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 01-06-2018 at 04:20 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •