[quote]nephorm wrote:
gojira wrote:
Monica Lewinsky:
(On CNN’s “Larry King Live”, discussing her miraculous weight loss) I’ve learned not to put things in my mouth that are bad for me.
Cool quotes, but this one is an urban legend.[/quote]
Yeah, you’re probably right. She may have never said it, but I bet she thought it.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Chicken & Egg question:
If women aren’t inferior to men, but have simply been repressed by men throughout human history, how did they come to be repressed in the first place?
So, what came first, the repression or the inferiority (whether existing naturally or imposed)? Obviously, some inferiority had to exist before the repression could be enacted.[/quote]
What inferiority? The sexes are different, that’s all. Men are quite inferior to women if the criteria is “able to carry a baby to term.”
Or men are women with no uterus and a six inch clit?
[quote]pookie wrote:
What inferiority? The sexes are different, that’s all. Men are quite inferior to women if the criteria is “able to carry a baby to term.”
Women are men with no balls and 1cm-long penises. Everything boils down to hormones.
Or men are women with no uterus and a six inch clit?
[/quote]
The inferiority can take any form that you choose. The point is, there is a glaring fallacy in any argument which claims that women have been kept “artificially inferior”, prevented from reaching their true potential, etc, by “society” or men. If women weren’t inferior to men in some way to begin with, then they never would have gotten to the point of being “repressed”.
In truth, there’s no such thing as repression in nature. All living things are in a power balance, and at any given point in time the power of an individual is reflected by his status in the hierarchy. So if women have found themselves on the bottom, it’s because they damn well belong there, not because anything has been “artificially imposed” on them. Nothing less than nature itself has mandated their status in the social hierarchy.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Or men are women with no uterus and a six inch clit?[/quote]
Both statements are true. The point was that the sexes are analogous, not different. They both exist at roughly opposite ends of the very same spectrum, and the two ends are a lot closer than most people think.
This is in accordance with basic laws of physics; for instance, of thermodynamics. E.g. there exists no such property as “cold”, only an absence of heat. All temperature values reside on the same spectrum of heat, rather than there being different and somehow-seperate scales of “cold” and “hot”. It is the same with many other things, including human sexuality.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
…
In truth, there’s no such thing as repression in nature. All living things are in a power balance, and at any given point in time the power of an individual is reflected by his status in the hierarchy. So if women have found themselves on the bottom, it’s because they damn well belong there, not because anything has been “artificially imposed” on them. Nothing less than nature itself has mandated their status in the social hierarchy.
…[/quote]
No such thing as repression in nature and then you go ahead and describe it.
Social hierarchys in the animal kingdom are all about repression.
Women “damn well belong” on the bottom of our social hierarchy?
Brother, you don’t know too much about women do you? It is no wonder you cannot get laid.
Gee I don’ t know, it looks like my quote of the day was highly successful.
(And some of you don’t “get” Camille. She’s not a man hater at all. In a nutshell, she wants women to be more forceful and take responsbility for their actions. She was on Mike Tyson’s side during his rape case. She’s a big fan of male bodybuilding–the extreme, over-the-top kind.)
““Or men are women with no uterus and a six inch clit?””
Actually a primary course in genetics will tell you that the answer to this question is “yes”. And it’s seven inches!
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
And it’s seven inches![/quote]
On the internet, every guy has a large dick and benches 405 for reps…
It was a joke. Obviously.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
No such thing as repression in nature and then you go ahead and describe it.
Social hierarchys in the animal kingdom are all about repression.
Women “damn well belong” on the bottom of our social hierarchy?
Brother, you don’t know too much about women do you? It is no wonder you cannot get laid.[/quote]
How can there be “repression” when every member of the hierarchy exerts the maximum extent of his/her power over others at any given time? The concept of the food chain depends on this. Big animals dominate smaller ones, which, in turn, dominate yet-smaller ones. Every member gets to play the boss as well as the slave at some point in time.
The house wife who is subordinate to her husband enjoys greater authority over their children. The children, over their pets. And so forth. The concept of the biological food chain is alive and well in the modern age, as relates to humans. It is embodied in the essence of the “Nuclear Family”.
To say that repression is taking place is fallacious. No one is being “repressed”, some are just weaker than others, and this relegates them to a lower position along the ladder.
You don’t get into a position of weakness without being weak to begin with. That is the simple truth at the crux of this matter. There is no such thing as an “artificially/societally-imposed” condition of inferiority. That is why I made the statement that IF women have found themselves to be in a position of inferiority to men, they have only themselves to blame.
I’m not trying to “degrade” women; I’m merely dispelling myths and fallacies. In many ways, this is a convoluted topic, with many people being unable to see the forest through the trees. My line of argument is that nature always expresses itself by default. It’s impossible to “interfere” with nature because everything is a product of nature.
Thus, the social hierarchy at any given time is a reflection of the relative power of its members at that particular time. There is no way for a weak member (relative to the others) to climb the ladder, and no way for a strong member (relative to the others) to descend it.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No such thing as repression in nature and then you go ahead and describe it.
Social hierarchys in the animal kingdom are all about repression.
Women “damn well belong” on the bottom of our social hierarchy?
Brother, you don’t know too much about women do you? It is no wonder you cannot get laid.
How can there be “repression” when every member of the hierarchy exerts the maximum extent of his/her power over others at any given time? The concept of the food chain depends on this. Big animals dominate smaller ones, which, in turn, dominate yet-smaller ones. Every member gets to play the boss as well as the slave at some point in time.
The house wife who is subordinate to her husband enjoys greater authority over their children. The children, over their pets. And so forth. The concept of the biological food chain is alive and well in the modern age, as relates to humans. It is embodied in the essence of the “Nuclear Family”.
To say that repression is taking place is fallacious. No one is being “repressed”, some are just weaker than others, and this relegates them to a lower position along the ladder.
You don’t get into a position of weakness without being weak to begin with. That is the simple truth at the crux of this matter. There is no such thing as an “artificially/societally-imposed” condition of inferiority. That is why I made the statement that IF women have found themselves to be in a position of inferiority to men, they have only themselves to blame.
I’m not trying to “degrade” women; I’m merely dispelling myths and fallacies. In many ways, this is a convoluted topic, with many people being unable to see the forest through the trees. My line of argument is that nature always expresses itself by default. It’s impossible to “interfere” with nature because everything is a product of nature.
Thus, the social hierarchy at any given time is a reflection of the relative power of its members at that particular time. There is no way for a weak member (relative to the others) to climb the ladder, and no way for a strong member (relative to the others) to descend it.[/quote]
How can it be repression? Are you fucking kidding me? When the alpha male does not let any other males breed that seems like he is repressing them.
By your logic slavery is not repression. The slave holder exerted his maximum power and the slave exerted his maximum power. Since the slave holder has more power he is in charge.
Might makes right works in the animal kingdom but not always in human society.
I think I will beat my kids tonight. They in turn can beat the cat. This is OK because it is a product of nature.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
How can there be “repression” when every member of the hierarchy exerts the maximum extent of his/her power over others at any given time? The concept of the food chain depends on this. Big animals dominate smaller ones, which, in turn, dominate yet-smaller ones. Every member gets to play the boss as well as the slave at some point in time.
The house wife who is subordinate to her husband enjoys greater authority over their children. The children, over their pets. And so forth. The concept of the biological food chain is alive and well in the modern age, as relates to humans. It is embodied in the essence of the “Nuclear Family”.
To say that repression is taking place is fallacious. No one is being “repressed”, some are just weaker than others, and this relegates them to a lower position along the ladder.
You don’t get into a position of weakness without being weak to begin with. That is the simple truth at the crux of this matter. There is no such thing as an “artificially/societally-imposed” condition of inferiority. That is why I made the statement that IF women have found themselves to be in a position of inferiority to men, they have only themselves to blame.
I’m not trying to “degrade” women; I’m merely dispelling myths and fallacies. In many ways, this is a convoluted topic, with many people being unable to see the forest through the trees. My line of argument is that nature always expresses itself by default. It’s impossible to “interfere” with nature because everything is a product of nature.
Thus, the social hierarchy at any given time is a reflection of the relative power of its members at that particular time. There is no way for a weak member (relative to the others) to climb the ladder, and no way for a strong member (relative to the others) to descend it.[/quote]
What a load of crap. We aren’t animals. We don’t live under the rule of the strongest of the herd. When a cop stops you to give you a ticket, do you evaluate whether you can “take him” and beat your way out of a fine?
Do you beat your girlfriend into doing what you want by saying “Sorry honey, I’m just stronger than you are…”? Maybe she can stab you to death in your sleep or poison you to assert herself? But don’t feel bad as you’re going into convulsions, you’re just a product of nature being retrograded to the bottom of the ladder.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How can it be repression? Are you fucking kidding me? When the Alpha Male does not let any other males breed that seems like he is repressing them.
By your logic slavery is not repression. The slave holder exerted his maximum power and the slave exerted his maximum power. Since the slave holder has more power he is in charge.
Might makes right works in the animal kingdom but not always in human society.
I think I will beat my kids tonight. They in turn can beat the cat. This is OK because it is a product of nature.[/quote]
How does the Alpha Male prevent the other males from breeding, if not by overpowering them? He is the strongest, by definition, and therefore, he exerts his natural might over the others. Might makes right. Repression is a worthless term. To say that lower members of a social hierarchy are being “repressed” by the higher members is superfluous, since every member of the hierarchy exerts dominance over others to the maximum extent of his ability and is dominated by others to the maximum extent of theirs.
Slavery occured because the power structure at that time dictated that it was appropriate. The power structure has since changed, and that’s why you don’t see slaves anymore.
If you try to enslave someone today, you’ll be thrown in jail. That’s the CURRENT power structure in effect. If you tried to enslave someone in the past, you likely would have gotten away with it. That was the effect of the OLD power structure. “Repression” doesn’t even enter the equation. When there is enough power to do something, it gets done. When there isn’t, it won’t. That’s how nature operates. Humans have a hard time dealing with this because they live in a metaphysical clusterfuck of possibilities, ideals, probabilities, uncertainties, time, and other nonsense. They find it difficult to seperate empirical reality from imagination.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Might makes right works in the animal kingdom but not always in human society.
I think I will beat my kids tonight. They in turn can beat the cat. This is OK because it is a product of nature.[/quote]
Might makes right has worked since the beginning of time, and it will continue working until the end of it. It is simply the way things are. A state of nature. It is not any sort of moral ideal that can be striven for or shunned.
If you beat your kids tonight, some cops will beat YOU tomorrow in a jail cell. And this all fits perfectly into the current social hierarchy/power structure. Simply put, you are at a higher level than your kids, but you are not at the top. The cops are at a higher level than you, which is precisely why they are able to exert their influence over you. The fact that humans create laws and societies changes absolutely nothing about natural hierarchies. It simply adds a few more variables into the mix. Now, interactions are not merely limited to single individuals, but there is an “individual vs society” dynamic that is introduced. Nevertheless, every single human still acts like the primitive animal that he is. He acts in what he percieves to be his best interest, within the framework of the current social hierarchy.
[quote]pookie wrote:
What a load of crap. We aren’t animals. We don’t live under the rule of the strongest of the herd. When a cop stops you to give you a ticket, do you evaluate whether you can “take him” and beat your way out of a fine?[/quote]
Yes we are, and yes we do. Only, the “strongest of the herd” is now no longer a single individual, and it is heavily disguised under a bunch of man-made fictions, such as laws, governments, institutions, etc. If you took a bunch of animals with all of the conventional animalistic behaviors applying and put them into a modern social structure, they would behave exactly the way that everyone behaves now.
I don’t try to beat up cops because I know that they are mere representatives of a social power hierarchy. Thus, they are not treated as individual entities, as would be the case in a more primitive setting. I know that I must beat the system before I can beat the cop. If the system crumbled, cops would immediately start getting the shit beat out of them. The laws of nature are always in effect.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Do you beat your girlfriend into doing what you want by saying “Sorry honey, I’m just stronger than you are…”? Maybe she can stab you to death in your sleep or poison you to assert herself? But don’t feel bad as you’re going into convulsions, you’re just a product of nature being retrograded to the bottom of the ladder.[/quote]
Same thing applies as with the cop, although you confusticated the issue by tossing in the notion of altruism, or kindness. First, if I beat her, I get arrested. That’s because I’m above her on the ladder, but I’m not at the top. There are people at the top who could, indeed, get away with beating and worse. Just to give you an example, the head of practically any Government can order the death of almost anyone in the world and get away with it. I may not be able to beat my girlfriend, but George Bush could have her tortured and executed, if he so desired, and he would get away with it. For example, have you considered that when any government official authorizes any military action whatsoever, he is basically signing an anonymous death warrant for, at the VERY LEAST, hundreds of people? He’ll never be punished for it, he’ll never know who has died as a result of his signature, he’ll never meet the victims families, and he’ll never have to apologize to them personally, even if the operation turns into a disaster. So what’s so bad about murder, anyways? For all the talk about manners and niceties, the corpses are still piling up, fast as ever. Faster, even. The 20th century was the bloodiest in all of human history. Somebody’s gotta be signing those death warrants. People aren’t spontaneously keeling over and dropping dead.
Second, it may not be in my best interest to beat my GF. Dominance comes in as many forms as there are individuals to exert it. So I may not wish to exert dominance over my GF by beating her, but by fucking her at my leisure. This also works within the context of natural laws and the social hierarchy. If I treat her nicely, I know that she will be more inclined to do the same to me. Thus, I am more likely to avoid the nasty fate which you ascribed to me. Again, I’m simply doing what I percieve to be in my best interest, within the confines of the current power structure, and so is she. The rules are exactly the same as if we were living in a cave in the stone age. Only the starting conditions are different.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Might makes right has worked since the beginning of time, and it will continue working until the end of it. It is simply the way things are. A state of nature. It is not any sort of moral ideal that can be striven for or shunned.
If you beat your kids tonight, some cops will beat YOU tomorrow in a jail cell. And this all fits perfectly into the current social hierarchy/power structure. Simply put, you are at a higher level than your kids, but you are not at the top. The cops are at a higher level than you, which is precisely why they are able to exert their influence over you. The fact that humans create laws and societies changes absolutely nothing about natural hierarchies. It simply adds a few more variables into the mix. Now, interactions are not merely limited to single individuals, but there is an “individual vs society” dynamic that is introduced. Nevertheless, every single human still acts like the primitive animal that he is. He acts in what he percieves to be his best interest, within the framework of the current social hierarchy.[/quote]
Son, you are full of shit and need to take some biology courses, a genetics course and an ethology course.
It doesn’t work that way.
[quote]gojira wrote:
Son, you are full of shit and need to take some biology courses, a genetics course and an ethology course.
It doesn’t work that way.
[/quote]
Uhhh, what I wrote is precisely the way it works.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Would anyone even listen to Mozart today if he just came out with his first CD?[/quote]
If they liked classical music…yes. Plus the genius label applies more to the young age at which he started composing,etc…most people in the know(not me truthfully) say Bach was a better composer.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
gojira wrote:
Son, you are full of shit and need to take some biology courses, a genetics course and an ethology course.
It doesn’t work that way.
Uhhh, what I wrote is precisely the way it works.[/quote]
You are sorely mistaken.