Shit writers who immediately latch onto a supposed victim group with a petty anecdote as if that is a flawless mathematical proof that the world is exactly how they imagine. Instead of empty rhetoric. To use imaginary people from another victim group and getting offended on their behalf just makes you a cunt, frankly.
Most gay people aren’t into LGBT drama. Suck it up, cupcake. They don’t wanna be victims so they aren’t.
The premise of her anecdotal argument for example implies that homos are innately weaker than heteros (there was no need to bring sexuality into this discussion and the show cited actually has a nice portrayal but fuck logic when it’s an SJW on the warpath trying to sound deep) which is, as you can guess, totally baseless. Where do they get this from? It’s like how tumblr judges how to rate your argument based on your race and sex. More openly than a KKK member. They’re the most racist and sexist people alive and they’ll judge you on it to your face. Or they’ll make assumptions like I bet a white boy said this. It’s sick. No wonder they’re on meds.
As an aside, if you bring up a political debate without knowing the rational issues on both sides, you are the bigot because of course there are valid reasons on both sides that’s the whole reason it’s a current controversy. If you can’t play Devil’s Advocate for both sides equally, you don’t understand the topic and any conclusion is invalid. What a vapid twat.
Coincidentally there is this almost autistic lack of self-awareness;
But it’s a fair though. I mean, “good vs. evil” is usually an “us vs. them” type of argument. Most people don’t actually ask themselves “Are we the baddies?”
Except people with autism would perform better.
If you think your belief system is flawless, you’re in a cult.
Her stone-kicking conclusion is postmodern in the sense that she condones evil because it doesn’t really exist and moral relativism means we should learn from and embrace everyone.
I’m guessing that includes paedophiles and other rapists. Proof you can sit an SJW through a really epic portrayal of abuse issues and they’ll side with the sickest person in the show (Jessica Jones was raped, Tumblr writes fanfiction about her being into this ‘relationship’ and the abuser as sexy). No, they aren’t misunderstood. You’re dumb. They are actually evil or the term means nothing. There are plenty of retarded people who can finger the Bad Guy so I don’t know if there’s a word for it. Terminal stupidity? A milder, female form of William’s Syndrome? Pathological altruism fits best but, Future Darwin Award Winners? Comparisons don’t cover the sickness and twisted nature of this pseudologic.
In case you think I’m being too hard on these people, this train of thought has real-life tragic consequences.
They’re the type of people to defend criminals, proven in a court of law criminals, blaming society for their actions as an excuse to release them onto us again.
They enjoy hurting people and always will, it’s that fucking simple. You can see it in a brain scan, it’s undeniable. And idiots like this are helping them, enabling them, and should be suitably shamed for it. They’re supporting the real rape culture. They know their apparent solutions don’t work and they still try to turn a Beast into a Prince. Grow up.
Prison had the purpose of 1. keeping society safe from them, 2. limiting the damage they could cause while alive and, crucially a mix of the two, barring them from the gene pool. It was a genetic death sentence, hence it was a humane replacement to the literal one!
Btw, Restorative Justice, in practice? I’ve seen it. Victims are forced to deal with their abusers for years or the system supported by people like this blames them for refusing to put the abuse behind them (and ultimately say on legal record all is forgiven, under duress and harassment) and to consider the needs of their abuser to follow the treatment plan they wrote, so the offender can be released fully, and in turn have the full freedom to hurt them again. Or others, that they will feel guilty for. That’s how it ‘works’, or more to the point, doesn’t to anyone with a conscience. It’s systemic abuse and it’s disgusting. People like this like the idea of ‘redeeming’ evil like God himself because it makes them feel good, powerful, makes people cry (they get off on it) and costs the taxpayer a lot more money because of the trouble the criminal continues to cause because the RJ system enables them, nay, encourages them.
h/t AC, he’s right, it is white genocide as a weapon, but rape has always been a genocidal weapon. That’s why it was punished with murder and sometimes killers were not. Creating a life without permission is far worse for society than taking one.
A woman doesn’t fear murder as much as rape.
They know this, so when I say this type of person should be shot, I’m being the moderate one. This is not even a laughing matter, unlike you’re laughing in shock and appalment.
p.s. yet another man pretends to know evobio and deliberately implies something about female lubrication that any woman could correct him on, if he listened. He just admitted to being bad in bed. No, a biker with tattoos, or whatever your idea of ‘rough’ is not going to get every woman in the vicinity wet, that’s ridiculous. That’s like arguing any girl in a dress can pass the boner test, whatever her looks, weight, height, the ugliness of dress…..
That’s why Brits (and many Europeans) are such pushovers, aggression has been bled out of us en masse. Years of painful torture and executions (interesting history) will do that to a gene pool. Especially the Islanders (Queensberry rules, chaps) who seem to naively believe the rest of the world gives a flying monkey’s about our imagined standards.
The whole purpose of prison was a genetic death, where they weren’t allowed to further contribute their genetic material to future society, depriving them any legacy (including voting); giving them conjugal visits and their spawn State assistance (doing their role of Provider better than they did) entirely defeats the point. This is why they were sometimes released – if they were castrated.
This is so wrong I’m not going to bother attempting a full breakdown, it would be a book. Suffice to say, this is why evolutionary psychology exists, but sure, ask a philosopher on a subject they have zero qualification for. What about the Calhoun experiments, which his site has documented? He must be either joking or too stupid to see the connections.
Clue is in the name, Natural Selection, the 19th century term, applies in a State of Nature, an 18th century term that Darwin was referencing. A state of man, as in The State, will change variables e.g. land resources (housing), cost of living/unemployment/benefits, mate availability (cultural). Each culture reinforces a different reproductive strategy: Europe (white-majority) has future-time orientation (reinforced by cross-cultural studies of time perception), we reach an equilibrium with the amount of resources we have (now economy, used to be sheer territory for agrarian usage). We avoid tragedy of the commons, and genetic (racial) homogeneity allowed us to cooperate with our kin into prosperity (most of our history, Christianity was a useful meme for this). Low time preference.
He seems to think humans should be this constantly replenishing organism like a virus (let’s leave 8 children per woman in Africa, huh?) but we used to have those numbers because few would survive to adulthood. Technology and crucially, MEDICINE, have allowed us to invest more as parents (Trivers) to compete in a high-IQ demanding society. Quality of children is vital in the First World. As long as we don’t mess up the Malthusian trap by say, letting in African ‘boat people’ en masse or destroying the successful host culture until it breaks, the developed world will be stable.
Has he even read On Origin? Descent of Man? Natural Selection? Nope. He’s going by what school taught him, how redpill…..
Another point I need to make;
Female animals DO use drug contraceptives or otherwise control their estrus (hidden in humans) all the time, e.g.
Those neoliberals and SJWs are already genetic dead-ends. Reproduction is a genetic arms race. They have lost. Anti-natal policies will do that. When evolutionary pressures come back into play (they always do: war, famine, epidemic, etc. all the old favourites) what will happen? The victor experiences a ‘Baby Boom’. When those selection pressures occur, on an infinite timescale it becomes a question of WHEN, what do you think happens to the human mind? Do you assume it just stays the same in your infinite wisdom of grosser biology?
Everyone is nice when resources are plentiful (Hence I reff’d r/K), it’s the ‘fat and happy’ stereotype of the glut (yes, that’s what that is). When resources become scarce, fight or flight become a reality. The nicest sweetest kindest neoliberals with a heart of gold would gut the granny next door if they were starving, the mindset is totally different, primal and beyond conscious control.
Many people seem to believe that we human beings never arose from nature the way every other living thing did, that we are somehow “beyond,” removed from, nature. But this is a very unfortunate – even a tragic – misconception. Like all other living things, our ancestors were sculpted by Darwinian evolution to survive, reproduce, and thrive within a certain kind ofenvironment. And when we live in environments, such as modern cities, that are drastically different from the environments that we’re biologically adapted for, we become subject to various “evolutionary mismatch” effects that can be extremely detrimental to our physical and emotional health.
Research in animals and humans has revealed some of the structural, functional and molecular changes in the brain that underlie the effects of stress on social behaviour. Findings in this emerging field will have implications both for the clinic and for society.
European history, for instance, is filled with instances of shipwrecked crews and passengers who resorted to cannibalism—even if it meant murdering someone. But, those who were rescued, including the ships’ officers, never had charges pressed against them, as long as they assured the courts that a lottery had been held to determine who would die for the sake of the larger group
The classic example being: if you were in a plane crash would you eat the dead if it meant you could live?
Everyone’s answer is yes if they’re honest and self-aware.
When the axe is to the grindstone, your “fairweather friends” will leave. Humans doling out charity means nothing when they aren’t hard up themselves. If they can afford to give, what is the value? It becomes another trinket and status signalling shows us this, a vapid ploy from arrogance. This is a part of the Bible people misinterpret, it recognised this biological reality.
The people who eschew children would generally make bad parents (no instinct for example) and they choose to spend those resources on themselves, the ultimate in short-sightedness as children are the original pension (they look after you when you can’t work, maybe you babysit the grandchildren, a model older than the State and found in other primates). As it is, since the Sexual Revolution, pro-feminist anti-natal generations have encouraged the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_trap and have only themselves to blame when there aren’t enough tax-paying kiddies to pay their Social Security and other pie-in-the-sky social projects. (Boomers: You failed as humans, you failed to have enough kids to carry things on. It’s basic and you failed. Nothing else matters if there’s nobody to hand the baton to before you die.)
If evolution was in effect, it would have been impossible for the “veneer” of civilization to develop.
Civilization developed from pockets of successful tribes, we know it’s possible because we’re here, doofus. Humans are social animals, and one theory of intelligence is that it developed to enhance our ability to lie. Deception keeps civilized society afloat (white lies).
There is no veneer specifically made for humans.
Humans have a thick cerebral cortex. Birds? Not so much.
The stories of man can’t help but include a puppet master that is controlling all our behavior. Before it was god, now it’s genes.
The brain’s prefrontal cortex is thought to be the seat of cognitive control, working as a kind of filter that keeps irrelevant thoughts, perceptions and memories from interfering with a task at hand. Now, researchers have shown that inhibiting this filter can boost performance for tasks in which unfiltered, creative thoughts present an advantage.
Any concept based in evolution is unfalsifiable if you demand a fucking time machine before you believe anything. Good methodology in evopsych rules this out.
“Evolutionary psychology” is an approach and a set of theories, not a single hypothesis, so no single experiment can falsify it, just as no single experiment can falsify the theory of evolution or the connectionist (neural network) approach to cognition. But particular hypotheses can be individually tested, such as the ones on the relation of symmetry to beauty or the relation of logical cognition to social contracts, and tests of these are the day-to-day activity of evolutionary psychology. Journals such as Evolution and Human Behavior are not filled with speculative articles; they contain experiments, survey data, meta-analyses, and so on, hashing out particular hypotheses. And as I mentioned above, over the long run the approach called evolutionary psychology could be found unhelpful if all of its specific hypotheses are individually falsified.
They aren’t. They’re fodder for other subjects like genetics and neurology.
Yes, you wasted years of your life running after skanks and no decent wife material would touch you with a bargepole. You made that choice and must live with it (player burnout). You sneered at beta males off having kids. That door is probably closed to you now, in triple digits. #RedpillRegret