In Response To The Brain Thing

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/what_we_still_dont_know.htm

Sigh.  In THIS universe, perhaps. That would be the optimal size and functioning capability. In another universe the governing rules would be quite different. Again, you are applying the rules for this universe to _another universe_.

I know what you mean -- the surface area-to-volume ratio.  It is the reason that cells are so small.  It is why more ripples ridges surface area leads to greater exchange of O2 and nutrients.  It is why reptiles cannot be too big and it is why mammals can be any size they want in homeostatic range for species; because of heat transfer to inner body pulp.

The philosopher/German guy at 36:00 seems to be saying, or at least what I deduct, is that our evolution will lead to our own destruction.  If we replace body parts or microscopic cells with synthetic parts, this will eventually kill you.

And if we still feel a frenzy incessant desire push to make neurons snap by faster, to keep ourselves from aging ever, this seems incredibly shallow, a desperate need to cling to youth.. If that's all that evolution is ultimately leading to, well, that is an incredible disappointment.  It seems the only purpose of evolution is to perpetuate shallow unnatural ideologies.

At 37:03, oh wait, are you talking about the ability to truly understand others?  To empathize, perhaps, to the point of being able to guess what they might do next.  Are you talking about psychic powers?
((Somewhere, do the video reviewer or TV show lover who wrote, "she's not actually psychic, she's just so smart that she understand people's psychology and motivations better than they do." and this really made a lot of sense.  I went to see the movie dick and jane.))

At 39:18 -- interesting. Perhaps we ARE merely a computer simulation or imagination of the fancy from another species. Or biological experimentation.  Like set up an aquarium in which one is growing new DNA testing species or something. Maybe they did not mean to create a world of death and destruction.  I doubt they did. 

Then that means what they did create was bacteria. They wrote a simulation program that would evolve the bacteria into more sophisticated creatures. And it eventually evolved into us.  Version 3.0.  Humans.  And this computer game simulation got so out of hand - "it evolved to the point that it wondered why it had to take orders" (The Incredibles).  So-called sentience, self-awareness, free will as opposed to basal instinct, whatever you want to call it. You know, orders which are morals, basic rules of human existence, laws.  I'm thinking that it lost control way before humans were actually invented.  I'm thinking somewhere around the monkeys, that's when it lost control.

This could bring up some discussion of emotions, feelings, etc. also. in addition to the sense of desperation and frantic despair of feeling that one gets when lost control of an experiment, also have to go through the emotional roller coaster of having to go through this all over again. Geez, we already went through all this with our own species, now we have to watch another one go through the same damn sh?  The same suffering?

Similar to how parents have to watch their growing children go through the same trials, tribulations of growing up, the painful encounters and experiences that they the parents would love to forget, but are now forced to face again because their child is going through it.  Like I said, this could bring up some discussion but I'm too damn tired.

Then again, all this crap has already been thought of by science fiction writers, cults, paranoid people, ad ilk.  I really, really hope the truth does not rest with those morons.

As to the questions posed at 43:30 -- are we real?  Is it all just a simulation?  Is reality just a set of predetermined equations set with governing rules and parameters?  Is all of collective humanity just fake, just a make-believe set of experiences that do not actually exist?

Should a person just commit suicide because it's all fake, just a simulation, what's the point, anyway?

I say, NO!!  Dude, that's what reality _is_.  Look, if all that this philosophizing arrives at is the conclusion that it's all just a simulation in which we live -- well, that's what we already know of the universe, anyway.  Who here disagrees that reality is simply what one perceives?  That's just life.

What you're not getting is, here is an instance in which two people are actually agreeing with each other, but neither one of them realizes it.  It's like if two people are arguing with each other and they don't realize that they are both saying the same thing, agreeing with each other.  Wait, no it isn't...  The point is, if all it is, is "simulation," well, that's all we have.

You can still make it beautiful, you can still make it meaningful, you can still make it real.  So don't leave it.  Spend time in it, value it.  There's nothing else out there for us.  Okay there, is, but not yet.  I can imagine a storyline in which somebody is bored or fed up with this fake simulated life.  And so they decide to end it.  They then talk to the big creator, who tells him, "Well, what else did you want?"  That was your life, why did you end it?  And the guy is frustrated and despaired and says, "I ended it for nothing??" now he's mad because he didn't know what he had and he ended it way too quickly before even being able to complete, to enjoy the experience in its entirety.

What makes us think we are real?  If we are all just a computer simulation/experiment... well, we are aware that we are here.  We are self-aware, we are sentient creatures.  We perceive our existence in this reality.  Our computer games don't.  Because we are aware of it, and able to ponder our existence, means we are real.  Oh, wait.  "I think, therefore I am."  René Descartes, approx. 400 years ago, so never mind.

Not just 100s or 1000s of years.  Humans have been pondering their existence since the beginning of time.  How do I know this?  Because humans did not know anything.  They did not land on earth after being dropped from a different planet in the sky, get up, shake off, and say, "Well, a supreme being put us here, let's get to work."  They did not wake up _knowing_ where they came from and why they are here.  They did not know anything.  But they did possess the ability to learn.  So they must have got to thinking and wondering, why the hell are we here?  And they came up with the theory that an omnipresent being must have put them there.  Boom -- pondering human existence.

And they ran with it.  They did not say, well, "I don't see any reason to be here, let's just all commit mass suicide."  No; they lived life, they went through everything, hellish as it was.  They made it real.

Student Loans And Another Realistic Solution

Continuing on that, young yet grown adults think they are owed a college education.

No, you are not "owed" a college education, and certainly not for a useless liberal arts major.

I just realized.  You know what would help with the looming, ominous, threatening-to-collapse-the-world-economy-and-the-stability-of-the-free-market student loans that are threatening to sneak into college graduates' closet doors or under their beds and sneak up on them in the middle of the night and scare the hell out of them?

Apparently, student loan debt in this country is growing like a black lagoon monster.  It rivals only credit card debt as a debilitating flesh-eating disease that is causing the national economy to teeter-totter dangerously and volatilely on the edge of a cliff.  It is a horrible debt that severely cripples people's spending power, people's ability to get a job, people's ability to afford a decent living.  it turns people into slaves of the federal credit system.

I have written previously about a reasonable solution.  Students who don't know what they want to major in or who want to pursue a wishy-washy major like psychology could attend community college.  They should get their two years' of general education requirements done at community college, many of which have a two-year transfer program.

Next phase.  Scrap student loans from the equation entirely. 

For students majoring in science, math, engineering, or technology:  end the [[[process__ custom, requirement nono,, customary ritual ]]] of making them take out loans that have to be paid back.  In that stead, give those students grants that pay for those students' entire college education, and which those students do not have to pay back ever.

This would be genuinely investing in this country's future.  This would contribute to actively keeping this country at the forefront of the world's innovation and progress.

Having an entirely-paid-for education would encourage more students to enter the science and mathematics fields.

A kid would have to declare their major during the first semester of college.  Actually, that is being too [[[soft, forgiving,_]]].  To be totally honest, I think the kid should have to declare their major before they even set foot in college.  The kid could meet with different advisors for different majors before enrolling in classes.  They could look at the degree requirements for each major, see what sort of subject matter is going to be taught, and pick their major accordingly.  Once the kid declares a major, they would be enrolled in courses, all of which are of course required for their science/math major, including the general education to some extent.

Hmm.  Let us suppose there are a large population of recent high school graduates that really, really want something to do after high school and refuse to work.  Or parents really, really want their recent high school grad kid to do something with his/her life and refuse to make their kid work.  I think you can visualize it.  Perhaps the parents want the kid to have some taste of the college experience.

I suppose that even for dumbasses that don't know what the hell they want to do with their lives, at least some modicum of education is important.  For that reason, the nation could give those undecided kids some access to post-secondary education.

The same grants being awarded which never have to be paid back can be given to those undecided-and/or-liberal-arts students.  But there is a very strict limit.  The grants would only be paid for the first two years of education,

And only to community colleges.  Note that community colleges have a quality of education that compares easily and realistically with that of traditional colleges.  So the kids still get their quality post-secondary education they desire.  But this way, very little federal money, or taxpayer money, or tax dollar money, or etc. is wasted on kids that are liberal arts or undecided on their major.

I'll be even more honest.  Colleges could actually scrap the first two years' of degree requirements from the liberal arts majors altogether, without negatively affecting libarts students' education in any way whatsoever

Hopefully this would encourage students to be a lot wiser in choosing the path their lives will take.  Students -- and parents -- would know that a kid that is just going to college because his parents want him to, won't cut it.
Students would no longer have the option of going to college just to drink and party and go on spring break and be in date rapes.

Students and parents would know that no one is going to pay for a college education just to keep the kid occupied and out of the way for the next four to six years.  Students and parents would know that if the kid expects to survive, he or she will have to get a job.

Sigh.  I really hope that were this implemented, it would produce the desired results of grown kids either working in jobs right out of high school, or grown kids attending college to study something useful.  I really, really hope this would not backfire by way of mushrooming into a disintegrating mess of hookers and strippers and drug dealers.  You know, because the kids were too goddamn lazy to do something good and positive.

The Subjects Of Fat Cat Embezzling CEOs, Wall Street, etc.

I have a confession.  I have very little sympathy for stockholders and investors that lose money. 

Do all these stockholders really think there is a magic formula that makes money materialize out of thin air?  They seriously think that by dint of having some money, they will be rewarded by being given even more money.  that is basically what investing is; it is putting up some money in the hopes that it will get bigger.  What is the possible justification for being this delusional, this greedy, this unrealistic?  It is really no different from gambling in a casino.  Gambling in a casino is probably better because at least that way only a day or two is wasted.

But this is not gambling, some might say.  It is investing in the future of a company, some might say.  There are actual financial formulas for gaining the most investment return and maximizing profit and getting the product out there, marketing to the most likely buyers, some might say.  I say, oh, really?  That sounds like complete crap.

In trying to learn more about these companies and their profiles, I am left wondering, what the hell is it that they sell? I have yet to find a straight answer to this.  Is it actual products or quantifiable services that can actually be seen and gauged for worth, clocked in hours for the amount of time and work needed?  Can you actually name it and describe accurately in ten words or less what it actually is?  If more than ten words are needed to describe the product/service/etc. that the elusive "stock market" metes out to the public, then it is probably a load of hogwash.

Contrasting to software engineering, which in some __bizarre___ opinions may be taken as abstract rather than concrete objects.  it might not be solid, tangible, physical object such as pharmaceuticals or car engines being fixed.  It all mostly exists in a digital virtual world.  Yet by all sane definitions, digital products are still tradeable goods.

Motor Makes And Microsoft

I find it slightly exasperating when government imposes federal regulations onto manufacturers of a product, especially an important product such as motor vehicles.  I might be the only person on the planet who is not a CEO of an automotive corporation who feels this way.

There are all sort of of safety regulations and inspections they have to pass.  The auto manufactures have to pass muster on whatever whim the government thinks up in its fancy to keep itself busy and keep up public perceptions of it being worthy.

For goodness' sake, auto manufacturers are creating a product!  They are already working so hard, so tirelessly and so enthusiastically to deliver a vital resource to the American people.  They are contributing a vital piece of___ for the nation's infrastructure.  They are contributing a commodity that improves the American way of life, that improves standard of living.
for goodness' sake, isn't it enough that they do all this?

This is why this is frustrating to me.  Look at all those engineers, assembly line workers, skilled laborers-- laboring endlessly to deliver an end product that genuinely exists in the tangible world.

Yeah, I know safety regulations are important.  I agree with you there.  Such as anti-lock brakes, seat belts, quality control so that airbags don't spontaneously deploy.  But you notice something?  All those truly important checkpoints that ensure that a finished product is safe for humans --- they have already been covered.  __already been well-established.

Anything else beyond that that might lead to a manufacturer recall on a particular lot number -- is a matter of safety inspections failing.  It is a matter of quality control not doing its job.  Here is what I'm trying to say -- it is a matter of people not adhering to and upholding safety rules and regulations that are <already on the books.>  It is not a matter of there not being enough safety regulations currently in existence.

Do you understand?  The auto manufacturers simply need to make sure the existing laws and regulations are being followed.  It is an idiotic response from the government to say, "oh well they're not following existing regulations, let's punish them by adding more regulations."  If existing regulations are not being followed, what the hell good is it supposed to do if the govmit simply signs additional regulations?

This is what I'm saying.  Do your damn job in the first place.  Uphold all standards.  Standards of production, standards of regulation, standards of each part in the assembly working optimally.

As for the government-mandated air quality controls for vehicles -- enough with that 3h+.  The hippies' agenda is, believe it or not, not everyone else's number one agenda and focus.  The customers don't necessarily care, and the manufacturers don't necessarily care.
environment.  air purity

Like when they tried to break up and disperse Microsoft back a few years ago.  they tried to chop it down into bits and pieces.  This was very aggravating to me; yes, I actually took this as a personal slight to my values and sensibilities.

If govermit **really** wants to help the American public, they need to rein in the goddamn stock market. 

[[[[[credit card companies.]]]]  Talk about a corporation that is useless because it is a figment of the imagination!  all it is, is just a concept in the imagination.  they are making money off of an insubstantial daydream mind-wandering of a bored rich white kid who did not study something useful in college and now has nothing better to do.__]]

Evolution Being Taught In Schools

And with the liberals insisting that evolution keep being taught in schools.  Oh, Christ.  Roll eyes, then sigh.

This incessant whining by the liberals that evolution be taught in schools -- let us be truly honest here.  This evolution is not truly going to help the average American high school kid.  All this is going to accomplish is knocking down their heroes and ___ [role models]] off their pedestals.

It is not going to have any positive or practical effect.  One little evolution course module is probably not going to inspire them to pursue medicine.  It is not necessarily going to impart to them any desire to want to unlock the secrets of the universe.  It is not going to [[inspire]]] any of them to aspire to great heights in lab research or clinical research.

One little sequence in evolution is not enough to prepare them.  They will not magically be ready for the intense demands of any of the college majors that adequately prepare a given student for medical school.  You cannot just keep harping on only one topic in the vast field that is biology without also making sure they have the whole story.  Evolution is only a small part of the picture.  There is also general chemistry, organic chemistry, cell biology, genetics, physiology, biochemistry, plant biology, animal biology, ecology, and a bunch of others that i am forgetting to mention right now.

And those are only the sub-topics of biology alone.  There is a full complement of other subjects that are required of students that want to become scientists.  You pro-evolutionists [[[[  cannot]]]] simply be content with giving them a little bit of knowledge and then think that you have done your job as social activists.

Now, I can tell you right now that the caliber of the majority of students in the United States will not be able to handle this.  With the pathetically below-par education they receive in grade school, and the quality of college students they turn into, most kids will not be able to handle science or technology education in college.  This is training that should be received by someone who has had the proper individually-attended, lifelong training in research and controlled experiment procedures that we know students are supposed to receive in mathematics and science.

Okay, just let me level with you here.  Look at these people.  Look at these idiots.  Do you honestly presume to tell me that these morons could handle biomedical research work?  I'm just being honest and straightforward with you here.

Look, I'm sorry, but with their caliber of *cough* intelligence *snort*, they cannot handle math and science being taught to them.  What are the actual chances that the average American high school kid is going to actually do anything useful with this fountain of knowledge?

Look, none of these dips are going to cure cancer.  They are not going to be attending medical school.  They definitely are not going to go into biomedical research.  Asian kids are going to be doing all of that.

Let me tell you something.  Do you observe where the global economy is going?  Cause it ain't staying here.  If anyone is going to discover a cure for cancer, it will probably be the Asians.  Or the Switzerland people.  One of them.  No American kid is going to cure cancer.  So realistically, what is the harm in letting them choose not to study evolution?

Teaching them evolution is not going to do a damn thing for them.  It is not going to help them at all.  They do not possess the intellectual rigor required to pursue a degree in science or mathematics.  All it will accomplish is making their parents mad.

So what's the harm in letting them continue to go about in their happy little lives thinking creationism or intelligent design or whatever, is the true story?  So for goodness' sake, let them have their happiness.  Let them enjoy their planet that is only 5000 years old.

Evolutionary Psychology And Women Raising Children

Some liberal males still try to insist that even in this ever more complex society, females still have no need to be intelligent and evolved.  They try to shove down people's throats that females only need to be hot sperm receptacles.

So if a baby factory is hot,
is that going to teach your kid manners?  is that going to teach your kid to plan well and to be financially responsible?  financially pragmatic?  Is that going to teach your kid to take care of herself?

Is that going to teach your kid to be a productive member of society?  Is that going to allow your kid to grow into a good human being who contributes positively to society?

The best arrangement for the health and well-being of society is the standard two-parent home, the nuclear family.  In most cultures and societies around the world, the bulk of raising the children and maintaining the household is the responsibility primarily of the mother.  The maternal parent is the one who teaches kids to read and count, teaches them manners and respect, helps them with their homework.  She is also the one who cooks food and maintains everyone's schedules.  The father tends to work a job outside the home to support the family and also has the task of maintaining security, upkeep, and protection of the home.  The family is benefited best if both parents are intelligent and educated.

another argument:
echoed in http://www.audiowebman.org/love/articles/dan_quayle.htm
... that is complete BS to compare a human child to young of another species.  a human child needs immense social rearing and training.  A human child cannot fend for itself, and a human infant certainly cannot.  it cannot arrange its own shelter,

The human brain takes an enormous amt of body's oxygen, nourishment, and blood supply.  I read and learned more about this, and I quickly realized that it makes sense.  Homo sapiens has the largest brain, in proportion to body mass, of any animal on the planet.

We are more evolved.  It makes perfect sense that our brains would require this much sustenance and support.

The pregnant mother cannot handle more than two fetuses at once; maybe at most three fetuses at once.  When there is more than one, each individual fetus suffers.  Each one rarely reaches a birth weight above four pounds.

A similar analogy exists in the instance of a woman constantly getting pregnant one right after another.  The human body cannot feasibly sustain that many pregnancies.  The body needs time to recuperate and replenish its resources.  It also needs time to raise the current born baby, possible through breast-feeding.

There are also basic concerns like simply taking care of the baby.  The mother will not be able to devote the time and attention necessary to growing a first baby if she soon becomes pregnant with another one.  Changing diapers, feeding it, bathing it, getting it to adapt to a sleep schedule, keeping it alive.

This is all common sense.  Humans make a voluntary, willing, conscious effort to do this.  We voluntarily make an effort to invest time in a child if someone brings one into the world -- because that is the right thing to do.

Human parents do not simply make a kid and then cast it out of their minds, setting it out to the wild, letting it roam around and be fed to the wolves.  We are not lower animals. We are Homo sapiens.

This is what I mean as an example among other things, that humans have transcended the basal biological evolution that still rules and dictates animal behavior.  Humans have gained consciousness.  They have gained the ability to consciously decide for themselves whether or not an action is morally right.  Humans know that it is not okay to just stop caring about a biological child once it is born.

Lower animals think that they have fulfilled their biological duties of simply creating an offspring unit.  They think they have fulfilled their roles in this universe.  They merely act on the biological part of continuing the species, with no regard for the life, health, well-being of that offspring once it is hatched.  They simply bring forth offspring into existence on this planet, and they think that is the extent of their responsibility.  Well, to be more accurate, they don't think, at all.  Not about the responsibility of raising children, not about how to raise children, not about the consequences of engaging in the act of physical reproduction.

Human beings are not like lower animals.  They must invest all of that energy, effort, time of growing a baby into one baby at a time.  To create the most optimal offspring.  Create one baby, then invest intelligence, hard work, patience, into turning that one baby into a good person.  Raise that baby into a human being, using human traits that have transcended the basal minimum requirements of mere physical contribution alone.

"The human body is not meant to carry litters."  Interesting analogy.  I feel that this ties in excellently with the fact that humans have to raise each child as an individual human being.

We are a socially-oriented species.  We grow and survive by *learning, not by instinct.  A child cannot reach a few years of age and then suddenly have instinct kick in to be able to hunt down its food.  This learning must be contributed by both the female and male parent.

So if these so-called evolutionary psychologists try to insist that a human male parent can simply sire a child and then skip town and call this "evolution," they are hopelessly ignorant.  Here's a hint:  if dogs and pigs and gorillas do it, then it is probably not evolution.

Human Sexuality vs. Pseudo-Evolution

human sexuality is inextricably linked to emotion and psychological well-being.  it is phenomenally ignorant to claim otherwise.  human sexuality is a complex aspect of humanity.  it is as complex as happiness or love.

atheists and extreme liberals insist foaming at the mouth that s-x is purely a physical act.  that emotions should not be considered, that morality should not be considered, that comfort level should not be considered.  they adamantly maintain that s-x between two people, any two people, should be casual, any time, any place, any how, any why.  that anyone who objects to this is a puritan, religious fundamentalist, s-x-hater.

hogwash.  that is as ridiculous as claiming that the only purpose of s-x is to reproduce.  void of any enjoyment.  if you see that s-x has purposes far beyond procreation, then you must also concede that sex is far too meaningful to do with just anybody.

to say that sex is a purely physical act, with no ties to a person's emotional health or identity, is as supremely ignorant as saying that the only purpose of sex is reproduction.

You are saying that sex is a purely physical act?  You are alleging that it has no emotional connections whatsoever?  in other words, you are making the claim that the only purpose of sesss is to reproduce.   yes, in your own words, se is only physical.  it has no emotional purpose at all.  so why would anyone engage in it except for the express purpose of reproduction?

aha.  so *now* it appears that you are saying it is NOT just physical.  it has an emotional component as well.

well, guess what.  if it can be used for emotional validation some of the way, then it can have an emotional requirement all the way.

if we can acknowledge that sex affects emotion part of the way, then we can acknowledge it all the way.  it is immoral to claim that sex is innately tied in to a person's happiness, and then to NOT claim that because of that, people should be more choosy about whom they choose to have sex with.  if they choose the wrong person to have sex with, yet sex is innately tied with human emotion, then you would be unhappy if you had sex with a bad person.

it is illogical to state that regular sex can lead to better elevated mood levels and general release of tension --and then-- not to state that if this is true, then there might also be more profound emotional effects of sex.

if you can use it for emotional health part of the way, then you can use it for emotional health all of the way.

liberals seem to think that humans were not meant for monogamy.  they think that from an evolutionary perspective, is that humans were meant

well, hell if you are citing the trail of human history as evidence for what humans should and should not do, then humans also were not meant for peace.  humans were not meant for the different races to get along.  humans were not meant for abolishing slavery.
if you are looking to the past for clues on how to react, then go ahead and take your cues.

Externally-Imposed Self-Respect

Since there is no longer an external, imposing, domineering authority figure anymore -- they then simply stopped being moral.

Since no one is lording this concept of morals over you any more, there is no reason to act in a moral manner.

Suuuuurrre.  Certainly not for yourself.  Certainly not because that is the right thing to do.  The healthy, best choice.  Certainly not because the history of facts, statistics, figures, and outcomes have already evidenced as to what the best course of action probably is.

Maybe This Goes Deeper And More Practical Than I Thought (re: Fake Badassery)

Perhaps there is another more profound reason as to why middle class white kids try to be badass in their choice of entertainment.

Perhaps it is not so simple as wanting "approval" from cool liberal hollywood people or cool alternative-indie crowds in the usual sense.  Maybe the real reason has more sinister origins.  (Not sinister on the part of the middle-class whites.  But in fact, what they are responding to is sinister.)

But that fear is still there.

And since they are not allowed to say that they still instinctively are genuinely suspicious of blacks, they still do not trust violent blacks, they would feel uncomfortable being the one white guy in a room fool of low-class, criminally-intent blacks -- they must turn to other sources of comfort.

How can they make themselves feel safe?  How can they reassure themselves that they could defend themselves from violent crime if the need arises?  What if they are just going about their day, and then, through no fault of their own, they are confronted by blacks that feel a collective sense of "vengeance" towards a random white person?  How can they assuage their fear, discomfort, the impending threat of possibly becoming a victim of a violent black?

They could maybe tell themselve3s that they are badass.  They could convince themselves that "they still got it."  They could try to reassure themselves that they are still capable of striking back and fighting back and standing up for themselves.

I think a lot of it is subconscious fear
=> ya know, like... they are scared, they are fearful that they might be overpowered, overtaken.  by a bully.  so in order to dispel any chance of that happening, they try to lodge a pre-emptive strike and fend off bullies at the pass.]]]]  They yearn for the feeling of being in control.

[[[they also yearn for the feeling of being involved in something big that would cause an ((explosion)), bombshell))

 I think what really going on is that you are getting back at society. You are exacting revenge by shocking and horrifying others.

Talking to you directly now.  Hopefully you all know who you are (although in all honesty, you lack the self-awarness to recognize yourself in this description.  Once again, people are not good at assessing themselves.)

You were shocked and sickened, you had your senses violated.  Your own sense of emotions, comfort level, decency, expectation of decency from others, personal space, expectation of psychological morality and people not being disgusting has been broken, demolished pulverized.

So now, you are getting back at the society that hurt you.  Remember my article years ago about complimenting a beautiful artwork or essay by writing something beautiful about it, therefore giving back?

This is a much more cynical, hopeless take.

These fake badass-wannabes tend to say... "ohhh well if you can't reason through your opinion, then it’s not a valid opinion and you have to discard it."  Notwithstanding the fact they evidently think they have a right to tell you how to think, how your cognition should function, what your opinion should be.  They seem to think they have a God-given right to be a thought police to you.

Notice that they insist on everyone else — their designated pre-judged pre-decided opponents — to play nice, behave, be polite, use critical thinking, et cetera.  Everything that they so conveniently never expect from themselves.  They very conveniently do not hold themselves to the same standards.

The funny thing is that they are, between the lines, very painfully acutely keenly aware of the fact that instinct, emotions, gut reactions are very strong driving forces for human beings.  The human reactions recoil and disgust are strong indicators of type of activity that is happening.  Notice that they are simultaneously constantly, consistently trying their damndest to shock and disgust people.

I spent a number of years trying to decode exactly why a person would consciously, voluntarily want to treat other people like this.  Why these sickos want to simply provoke a reaction such as this.  No other discernible purpose other than to simply shock, disgust, anger other human beings.

This is what I've come up with.  These are broken individuals.

Most likely there is a certain resentment residing within them that others are not as broken as they. "Why do I have to be miserable and corrupted while others get to live life on relatively neutral terms?"  So they spend their every waking moment with an obsession to tear down others to their level.

Notice that they are always trying their damndest to insist that their actions are motivated by ‘logic.’  That is a favorite go-to stock argument amongst these types, that their motivations are driven by logic and reasoning, rationality, levelheadedness, ad nauseum.

More Trying To Impress The Alternative Crowd

Meh.  And of course you have the requisite American middle class white kids that pretend to understand foreign language art house pr--.

They usually come out of the woodwork when a pr-- graphically intense indie arthouse artsy fartsy movie comes out.  They then accuse people who don't like this movie of "being afraid to take risks, not in touch with their dark side, not being attune to their psychopathic murderous tendencies, you are not a strong capable indie in charge of your own life," or some shit like that.

Just be honest.  You don't have any clue what the eff is going on.  And to be even more honest, you probably did become incredibly uncomfortable.

But you <do> want indie credibility.  You desperately want to fit in with the goth or punk alternative cool crowd.  Since mainstream youth culture has established that anything mainstream is inherently uncool, you want to be considered cool by the "truly" cool kids.  You just want to sound cultured and world-class.  You are trying too hard, desperately trying to seek approval from the ironical jaded alternative non-mainstream crowd.

You know what?  I think it is time we stumbled upon a new truth.  So, some background first.  We all know that just because something is established and mainstream and popular and normal, doesn't automatically make it good, blah blah blah.

However, I think that now we have been witness to enough pop culture to make the following declaration.  Now we can safely assert that just because something is counter-culture – *also* does not automatically mean it is good, either.  Truth scabs, son.

Fake profundity and badassery

more boring middle class white kids crp where they try to act all deep and profound__
That is why they all reflexively, automatically tear down traditional movies.  They all have delusions of being renowned, acclaimed alterna-current movie directors._

existentialism
they love to debate the merits and ponder the deeper meanings of goddamn hollywood movies, for goodness' sake.
this is why they love spewing philosobablbe about the matrix, the coen brothers, and AI.  (okay, so admittedly I really liked the matrix and AI also.  But at least I did chores at home.))

they would rather talk about random crap completely irrelevant to their actual lives, than ever lift a finger and actually get involved.  volunteer work, local community stuff.
--^^
it's like how I rememb a lot of kids back in high school would [[dribble spout,__ ]]] endlessly [[ceaselessly]]] about saving the rainforest or saving the whales or some sht.  yet these exact same kids couldn't get along with their moms bc they were too effin lazy to help wash the dishes.

They would talk [[[expontentiall, endlessly abt censorship, about aids hysteria etc., about how nailpolish is a symbolismsymbolic of oppression or freedom]]] but they were too lazy to study for their classes in school.

[[[___]]]] but they did not call and talk to their grandmothers once in a while.
[[[[____]]]]] but they were too good to mow the lawn or take out the treash when needed at home.
[[[___]]]] but not that many of them held after-school jobs.

People who say, oh you are so closed-minded why don't you want to watch movies that have violence and creepy disgusting subject matter?  Heh, you are a laughable dumbass.

I am taking you to task on this.  I am demanding that you put your body where your mouth is.

you want to discuss violence..... ?  let’s discuss violence...
I am guessing that you do not watch the news very often.  do you keep up with current events around the world at all?  slavery still exists.  did you know that slavery still exists?  buying and selling human beings, human souls,
do you ever watch the news?  no of course you don't, because you are a dumbass.

***I have noticed that when people talk about freedom of speech in movies and TV and video games and stuff… --- it is almost always because they are too damn scared to actually practice freedom of speech in real life.***
It’s usually because there is something preventing them from truly practicing freedom of speech.  They are not allowed to seek the truth, they are not allowed to get at the heart of the matter.  They are intimidated, bullied, scared into staying away from the actual truth.  For example, the sopranos.  Why are you foisting this trash on the American public, glorifying violence and making money from drugs and p---?  You say I am the weak one, that I am the one who is afraid of creativity, of "freedom of expression," of "expressing yourself," blah blah blah.

Oh, yeah?  Well how about you report on the REAL mafia?  And not worry about this fake controlled environment sound stage filming studio.  What’s stopping you?

*Or, they are afraid and are too engulfed in liberal dogma and manifesto to admit that if they were really to come right out and say openly and honestly what is on their mind, they know that no one would listen.  So they have to couch it and disguise it in this mask that veils what they are really trying to say.  They know that they are not truly allowed to speak their mind.  So they have to dress it up and slap on the pancake layer makeup until it is really not recognizable anymore as the original message they had wanted to convey.

You want to discuss violence..... ?  Let’s discuss violence...
This stuff that happens in the movies?  It exists in real life.  human mutilated, maimed.  little girls -- children -- being subject to torture and mutilation.

I am guessing that you are a middle class white kid, are you not?  Hmmm...  I notice that there are no dark-skinned people from a poverty background saying the stuff you are saying.  People who actually have to live this every single damn day of their lives.  You just say all of it because you are ignorant of the fact that you do not know what true pain is.  Hell, I’ll be honest, I don’t know either.  But at least I'm not sitting here fake-badassing my way through a goddamn computer screen.

So go back to your fake "[[[[[ the phrase the person used to make themselves feel better-____]]]]  controlled movie sets, soundstages, ____
And convince yourself that you have stretched your worldview, broadened your horizons, and are an open thinker who is not afraid to take risks.

--
I think this is simply another manifestation of that.   ((of rather talking a big talk
these stupid mcw kids, er young people, whatevs, yearn a desire to feel renegade and trailblazing and breaking ground b
having street cred, being hood, gangsta, being "real" by secretly harboring the desire to produce/write/direct/etc. a controversial independent movie.

Men's Mags Featuring Sore, Pathetic Losers

I am reading a lot of the “reader comments” on mens magazines message boards on the internets, like askmen and 3h!+ like that.  A lot of guys, it seems, seem to have been heartbroken by what past females in their lives did to them.  Due to this, they have degenerated to seething with vitriol and fury and just plain intolerance and hatred for all females.

Now they exact revenge on the remainder of the female species, by cheating and screwing and turning them into women scorned.  Okay, fair enough.

But how long are you going to keep blaming those few females in your past, for all the crap that you are putting yourself through now?  For the shti that you are doing to your own damn life.  Grow the eff up.  Take some goddamn responsibility for your life.  Have some accountability.

Are you really that shitty of a judge of character?

Did you not realize that if she was that kind of ""ohmigosh, so much fun!!!""  flashing people at random times, that she probably was not possessing of any stronger moral fiber when in private?  She was getting drunk and high with complete strangers.  First of all, getting coked or stoned at all, or getting piss-drunk is very bad judgment.  But then going so far as to doing this dangerous risky behavior around strangers??

You thought it was cute.  You thought it was sexy.  You thought it was hot.  You have only yourself to blame, for not taking a step back, looking over this with a clear head and with all the blood being present in your brain, thinking critically about this.  Thinking with your big head, the one that believe it or not, commands the most of your nourishment and blood supply at most times, and not just when you want a quick fix.  You know the one that supposedly houses the cerebral cortex, the lobes for critical thinking, and the cerebellum for finer more complex layers of cognition.

Guess what.  If she acted that way around you when she first met you, a veritable stranger, then she is that way all the time.  You chose to accept this.  You ignored the signs that were evidence of how she would continue to act in the future.  Yes, including how she would act if she were supposedly in a monogamous, exclusive relationship with you.

The indicative signs were there.  And you chose to ignore them.  You dug yourself into your own damn hole.  ___And now you are mad at her because ____ [[[[[use the same line as the buyer's remorse of woman scorned]]]]]


*******
A word to the self-proclaimed wise.  Males,,,, this time.

Put the line abt how, it seems that a lot of guys sleep with some stranger chick at a frat house party.  Then schocker of schockers, it turns out she is underage.

And he is brought up on charges of statutory rpp.

I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.  Have you not read my previous written speeches??  I [[[preach, lecture women on not sleeping with strangers.  For the very obvious, self-evident common-sense reason that they are strangers.]]]]
You should have heeded this advice also.  This is kind of one of the dizzying myriad of reasons that you do not sleep with strangers.

Just in case the logic is not crystal clear, the reason you do not have sexx with strangers is precisely because they are strangers.

Then of course the guy, in all his infinite wisdom, intelligence, judgment, and acumen, [[d[d[d[____]]] is all offended at the notion that he should have verified this stranger’s age, date of birth, blood type, legal status, ovulation cycle, etc.  How dare I suggest that he do a positive identification on the person before engaging in coitus??  Oh, the humanity!!!!  Oh is there no common decency any more!!  Oh is there no courtesy towards fellow man any more!!!

Yes, there is, dumbass.  You violated it.

or shees flighty and flaky, a nightmare girlfriend. first she moves in iwht you , then she moves out,. thten its on agian, then it's off agian. making your head spin, mostl from headache.

she sleeps with all your friends.
then you complain about how she has no loyalty whatsoever.  how women do not hodl up to their word.  that women are not as good as their word. that their word does not mean squat. that women don't have nearly the loyalty and good-for-their-word as men do.

look, I agree. which is why if I were a guy or a gay girl, I would not have goen out with her in the first place. what the hell did you expect? that she was going to be wild and crazy when she met you but then magically would follow the straight and narrow once she would realize how good you were to her and that she loves you and then she would magically stop sleeping around?

look, you're the one who was only being nice to her because you hoped you could get into her pants. and now you got your wish.

Aftermath Of Cohabitation Arrangements

Following hot on the heels of the "living together" essay.

Regarding abortions.   I'm reading a lot of comments and opinions on the internet where these females are stating things such as the following.  "Oh you don't know, oh you can't, oh you don't knoww the amount of pain and suffering [she] has been through; you don't know the amount of pain [she] went through in making the decision to get an abortion.  they say stuff like, "you don't know what it's like to be in a horrible, horrible heart-rending breakup and [she] knows she can't possibly cope with this alone, [she] knows she can't raise the child on her own, she doesn't want to go through pregnancy on her own, so therefore [she] has an abortion."

So basically this just even further reiterates and further highlights all the things that I've been saying are wrong with modern dating in the first place.  They had an insincere relationship, they had no actual commitment, no actual emotional commitment, no practical commitment of any kind.  They're just shacking up, and that's it.

Then when the- then when it came down to an actual important huge major issue like this, such as, you know, pregnancy, then all of a sudden they bail out. the- the- then all of a sudden they, what's the word, they, they pick up the tail or whatever it is, they pick up the pace, they haul, haul butt, haul A-Z-Z, out of there.  That's what is happening.

-for second essay _ another line in there continue, where she said oh you don't know how hard it is, oh gosh you don't know what it's like to be in that sort of heartbreaking situation, oh don't judge them, don't judge them unless you're in their shoes, don't judge them until you're in the exact same situation.

These are just some more points to add regarding the topic of abortions in modern-day dating.  Basically, the circumstances that surround most of them seek quite bleak and dead. It's like they just abandon any semblance of hope. It's just more and more social afflictions and diseases that simply highlight all the problems with modern dating in the first place.

Abortion And Dating: More Of The Same Old, Same Old

That title is probably shocking.  That is what I intended because I was shocked and disgusted when I found out that modern-day dating problems stoop this low.  This is a____ gutter-sewer that is plummeted six feet under.  The depths to which this seedy underbelly reaches know no bounds.  These depths are a cavernous gaping maw, a cold, dank, dark place that is filled with mildew and disease and fungus.

What I am seeing is that a very large number of so-called relationships go on [[half-heartedly for a few years.]]]  The participants approach this non-relationship non-romance with a sagging, flaccid, floppy, dead-on-arrival type of regard to life.  It is a pathetic travesty and _____ their own health and well-being.

So they implement abortion as a solution to a crappy dating relationship that has broken up.  Two people are in a pseudo-commitment with each other.  They are shacking up, dating, sleeping together for a long time, what have you.  The point is that they did not make any sort of genuine commitment.  There is no actual commitment to each other.

So in [[the vein, in the essence, in the pattern of this ___, they eventually break up.  This is as predicted by relationship models [[generated in simulation labs that have software models of relationships,,, with the usual patterns observed repeatedly.

This is science, folks.  This has been culled together from years of ___ again, this all highlights what I have been saying for years about relationship crap.  Too much sxx, not enough commitment.

Look, I'm not saying abortion should be illegal.  Abortion still needs to be legal, safe, and accessible for victims of rp, abuse, child abuse, incest.  There is a lot of nasty vile stuff in this universe.

But it is flabbergasting that abortion also is seen as a solution by a disturbingly large number of people -- in workaday <dating> relationships.  They consensually, casually chose to have sxx.  And they consensually, casually chose to have an abortion.  This is beyond disgusting. 

Granted, at that point it is not a human life yet.  Speaking in terms medically and biochemically, it is only a potential human life.  But this whole situation is still sickening.  It is sickening that any of this has to happen at all.  This is all the same self-destructive crap of horrible life management.  We already know there are alcoholics, drug addicts, crack addicts, STD addicts, etc., and this is essentially the same thing manifested slightly differently in the minor trivial details.

Wouldn't it be a far better course of action to avoid all that mess in the first place?

Even if you did get an abortion and so therefore it's like the whole sh'tty relationship is wiped clean out of your reproductive tract.  Even if you could, why would you want to go through all that filth at all??

It's like drug rehab.  Sure, eventually your system will be clean of all toxicology reports.  Or going to jail for armed robbery.  Sure, eventually you would serve your sentence and you could rejoin civilized life outside the penitentiary system.  Sure, in a way it is like the slate has been wiped clean and you get a re-do.  Sure it will eventually be in the past.  But why would you want to go through that hellish experience at all??  Actually, no it is really not like the slate has been wiped clean, not at all.  You still have to live with your past.  You still have to live with what you did and what you put yourself through.  You still have to wrangle with all of that in your conscience.

This is the biggest issue that I cannot comprehend.  Why would you consciously choose to do any of this to yourself?  Why would you want to hang your life in effigy?  You simply disregarded the fact that you have a conscience and a responsibility to yourself.  Your conscience should be guiding you so that you do not destroy yourself -- *for* yourself.  This is for your own damn good that you should refrain from screwing up your life.

No one else will benefit nearly as much as you would if you make smart, healthy decisions for yourself.  You would benefit the most.  And that is the utmost point.  It is okay to put yourself first and to consciously prevent yourself from screwing up your life.

Are you simply incapable of making rational, healthy decisions?  Are you simply incapable of doing the right thing for yourself that will improve your life and lead you to a healthier, better station in life than you are now?  Prevention is the best cure.  It is certainly true in this case.

Evolution, Promiscuity, And Abortion

So the media keep saying that males are promiscuous due to evolution.  That is the allegation.

The allegation is that males are spreading their genes around as widely as possible.  The theory is as follows.  According to de-evolved behavior of lower animals, simply churning out sheer numbers of offspring with no regard to the offspring's' survival or well-being is considered evolutionary fitness.  Also, male gametes are plentiful and cheap to produce, house, store, nourish, and distribute.  Procreation does not require much investment from the male donor.  It does not cost the male organism much to reproduce in terms of health, food, water, shelter. 

Both those theories together appear superficially to lead to the theory of male whorishness being due to evolution.

First of all, this is not evolution.  I have spent a great amount of time explaining the reasoning from a moralistic, philosophical standpoint.  Now I am also seeing quite a bit of compelling physical evidence that this is not true.

All over the internet in addition to women's rags and lad rags all say pretty much the same stories over and over again.  Males are promiscuous two-bit whores.  That is well-established in the general consensus of popular psyche.  The evolutionists have taken this lowest-common-denominator brand of behavior -- and turned it into their cause célèbre`.  They are trying their gosh-damnedest, straining and [[twisting and warping their logic processes to try to excuse this behavior.

Now here is even more evidence as to why promiscuity among male humans cannot be due to evolution.  Let us refer again to those first-hand accounts that lad rags and female rags grace us with. 

Pro-evolution is supposedly synonymous with pro-reproduction.  However, promiscuous males and females are getting abortions left and right.  Last time I checked, abortion cancels out reproduction.

An even more shocking revelation is becoming apparent in all these stories.  It appears that males are more in favor of abortion than females are.  A lot of these promiscuous males learn that a one-night stand person or a girlfriend person is pregnant.  Then upon learning of this fact, the male demands she get an abortion.  This [[experience, instance]]] is repeated with very minor variations throughout the internet and dating magazines.

They are consciously choosing to terminate the fetuses.  Now, how in the hell is promiscuity supposed to be pro-evolution, i.e., pro-reproduction -- if those promiscuous males are doing away with the products and goals of said promiscuity -- the offspring?

In the course of typing this, I have stumbled upon a strange [[[theory]] as to why this might be the case.  Remember that male gametes are cheap and require no great investment of time, energy, calories, metabolism, or biochemical input from the male to produce.  Nor to reproduce.

It appears that human male slutss approach this selfsame theory from the opposite angle.  Since they do not have to expend any energy nor time to house a pregnancy, to carry a pregnancy to term, to see the growth and [[production,, creation]] of an offspring through to the end --

This also means they do not have to expend much [[[moral __hemming and hawing,, to arrive at the decision to terminate a pregnancy.  No moral quandary to have to struggle through.  It would not require much work to create it, and it did not require much work to destroy it.

It appears they have no moral qualms towards the gruesome act of terminating a pregnancy.

Creepy, Disgusting, Useless "Nerds" PII

I was in the books and magazines section at Walmart, and there was a selection of comic books/graphic novels/whatever the hell you want to call them.  Yeah, I hang out at Walmart sometimes.  So sue me already.

Out of morbid curiosity I decided to look through some comic books.  There was one I found where some characters were discussing the following (good God, I wish I were making this up.)  They were casually discussing whether or not one of them should marry a twelve-year-old girl.  And this one was worried that a twelve-year-old might not be a virgin.  Then one remarked that there are ten-year-olds that are already, um, used-up prostitutes, to put it politely.

What in the f---...?? 

This is the world that creepy, disgusting nerds inhabit that they think is so superior to mainstream entertainment??!

I somehow doubt this was some very rare comic book that has been shunned by most of comic book fandom for being creepy and disgusting.  I have a sneaking suspicion that more comic books than I care to count come from writers that see women this way.  by no means was this some obscure, hidden away, inaccessible hovering-on-the fringes-of-comic-book-society pariah.  this was at freakin Walmart.  This was mainstream comic book society.

I hope I'm not confusing you with my use of the words "mainstream" and "counterculture" to describe several different strata of entertainment.  There are the following:  normal human beings, then football player aholes and hollywood with its sex objects, then creepy disgusting nerd culture, then fringe super-disgusting nerd culture if it exists.

Let me remind you that the comic book inhabits a completely made-up world.  Someone in this modern day and age had to sit down at a desk and think this up.  Evidently, comic book authors have such vile, nauseating hatred of women that even in this fake world, they succumb to their sickest, darkest criminal tendencies.  These are tendencies that they should have just kept secret from the public and instead should have revealed only to their therapists.

Comic books are not real life.  Comic books are not news reports, not journalism.  The purpose of comic books is not finding out the disgusting truth about backwoods caveman cultures in real life where they murder young girls who are rape victims and call it "honor killing."  Or where they think toilet paper is a myth.  A comic book author, or video game creator, does not have to follow any plotline that mirrors real-life news discoveries.  They do not have to adopt facets of a real-life remote village in Afghanistan where they force little girls into being r-ped by much older males.

Everything, and I mean everything, about comic books and video games came out of a figment of someone's imagination.  That means a comic book author has the freedom to create whatever kind of universe they want.  They can make people's personalities be whatever they want.  They can create a culture that has whatever values the author thinks are important to humanity.

And yet they still, without fail, fully consciously, fully voluntarily, fully of their own free will, choose to crap out a world that treats women like sh!t.

Oh, wait a minute, I see now.  It turns out I have already talked about this also, albeit in a different permutation.  The perverted disgusting comic-book/video-game types think that because it is outside the mainstream, and they must be somewhat intelligent; after all, they like playing with video games.  Therefore by dint of being out in the counterculture, it must by necessity be better.  They think that simply because they have a different opinion on entertainment than what the mainstream's opinion is, they must be better by default.  Because it is outside the so-called "conservative" mainstream, they think that it must be liberal and therefore by default it must be better.  No questioning or dissenting opinions allowed.

They genuinely think that social and moral conservatism is somehow worse than the horrifying videogames where they
violently dismember women and then individually rape each of the separate severed limbs.

There is a bullspit oft-repeated argument that, "oohh they're just releasing their tension and anger and stress with the world."

Guffaw.  Tension and angers and stress?  Really?  You do realize we are talking about are middle-class white kids that live in the western first-world.  What in the hell do they have to be tense and angry and stressed about?  They have clean safe drinking water, running water at that; it is not water that needs to be pumped; vaccinations; free primary and secondary education; a fairly good economy; job opportunities, most deadly diseases have been eradicated.  Releasing pent-up tension and anger?  That's a good one.

Creepy, Disgusting, Useless "Nerds"

Actually, I am not sure what to call them.  They do not deserve the honor and privilege of being ordained true "nerds."  We nerds are good people.  We actively contribute to society, with all our geekiness and our love of science and mathematics.  I do not wish to tarnish the good name of "nerd" carried on the proud shoulders of our forebears -- Isaac Newton, Maud Menten, Antoine Lavoisier, Niels Bohr, a whole bunch of others I am forgetting right now.  Oh -- Pythagoras.

I personally am a huge sci-fi fan.  Yes, I admit it.  I totally loved The X-Files, Jurassic Park, and Outbreak.  I am a huge Michael Crichton fan.  There was once this movie called Mimic that I don't think anyone remembers other than myself.  It had to do with aliens or bugs or alien-bugs or something.  I tend more towards the biological disaster type of sci-fi, such as the aforementioned, rather than the futuristic technology brand of sci-fi, like Star Wars or Star Trek.  I did used to watch Captain Jean-Luc Picard and crew, but I'm not such a rabid fan of Star Trek that I would consider myself a trekkie.  (Hehe, I'm suddenly reminded of a scene from Sabrina The Teenage Witch.  Sabrina told her aunt, "I'm really worried about Valerie [her best friend].  She's fallen in with a bad crowd."  And her aunt, equally concerned, asked, "Trekkies?")

I suppose that by some stretch of the imagination, video games and comic books might be considered sci-fi.  Only by a very long, loose stretch of the imagination, like when you pull melted cheese out of a tortilla and it stretches out two feet and then snaps.

Anyway.  These sick f'ks I would like to address here are not nerds.  I had been hoping that only the mainstream privileged athlete types were frat boys, aholes that saw women as sex objects.  The drunken football player big-man-on-campus types have drunken party-girl frat-whores that hang on as their harem.  They go to college just to be typical spoiled middle-class white kids that think they are spoiled rich kids, still having their parents support them and do absolutely everything for them -- pay their bills, pay their tuition, do their laundry and cleaning, do their cooking and grocery shopping.

But nope.  Now the seedy underbelly of the supposed haven for the socially destitute has revealed its true nature.

People seem to mistakenly think the nerdy guys are sweet, awkward, nice guys who are more interested in tech gadgets and toys than they are in anything remotely related to romance/sex/dating stuff.  They are shy, maybe a little socially awkward, but generally still good guys that respected women.  And plus they are supposedly intelligent, or that is somewhat how they present themselves in the public arena.  They are smart and therefore they would have better judgment, better morals, they would know better how to conduct themselves.  This is the general impression people seem to have.  People are gravely mistaken on this very large account.

Sigh.  Let me be completely honest.  This phenomenon of geek males being creepy, perverted aholes is not truly, genuinely, honestly all that surprising.  I have already talked about other cultures in other countries being *worse* even though they are "multicultural" and might very well approve of technology.

You see political commentary op-ed pieces all the time wherein the writer is astounded and flabbergasted that primitive third-world cultures embrace cell phones and other technology, and yet still manage to be violent, amoral, misogynistic neanderthal caveman subhuman creatures.  Op-ed writers find it perplexing that those cultures apparently have the intelligence to handle operating relatively high-tech infrastructure like an internet connection.  But they still somehow lacked the evolved moral behavior that would allow them to treat women like fellow equal human beings.

Erm, are you freakin kidding me?  Being able to upload a streaming video to the internet does not require that much intelligence.  It really does not.

But more to the point, what does one have to do with the other?  The ability to use a computer to surf the internet, even if it does require a smidge of intelligence, does not have any bearing on whether a person regards women as fully-formed human beings who should be treated with dignity and respect.

I have also talked about the fact that self-proclaimed liberal society, that of the counterculture outside the "conservative" mainstream, is extremely disrespectful towards women.  They see women as little more than sex objects.  This is the biggest problem I have with liberals.  They insist that females that degrade and demean themselves are "empowered,"  and that women that want to be wives and mothers and devote time to taking care of their families are the ones being degraded.  Wtf?

Hollywood is obviously extremist liberal and by some accounts it is outside the mainstream of normal human beings.  It is no secret that in typical Hollywood pop culture, women are objectified to a sickening degree.  A side note that needs to be made clear, and this is a concept that goes over too many people's heads:  these females are objectifying themselves.  They convinced themselves that this trash is empowering and liberating.  Men did not make them do this; don't go blaming men.  The females chose to do this of their own volition -- and therefore it is their own fault if people call them on their BS.

What does any of that have to do with disgusting, useless "nerds?"  I'm building up to that.

The case studies that glomp onto video games and comic books, especially the misanthropic species in circulation nowadays, evidently pride themselves for not following the rest of the "sheeple" (that's a favorite word of theirs) down the lemming cliff or something.  They consider themselves rebellious, original, free-thinking, and unconventional indeed.

The common consensus among most normal people is that the type of individuals drawn to comic books and video games are undoubtedly nerds.  They were bullied and harassed by the popular athlete hot guys.  They were oppressed by mainstream culture.  In somewhat related news, women have also been historically oppressed by the alpha male hot guy aholes.  As far as entertainment goes, hollywood is of the same stripe as the alpha male aholes, in all its sexually-objectifying-women glory.  (Okay, I'm with you so far.)

Here is where people's wishful thinking leads them astray.  Therefore the unpopular nerds might be able to relate to and associate with women.  They should by logic be more empathetic towards women, since they possess less of the low-evolution traits that commonly characterize the hierarchy of high school society.  You know, the hot dumb guys supposedly have more physically prowess, both in looks and in muscular strength, and tend to lack higher intelligence characteristic of more evolved creatures.

Nope.  It turns out that, all that the creepy nerds wanted was a subdivision of culture in which *they* could be the big men on campus and casually regard women as sex objects.  The creepy nerds were denied any girlfriends because hot chicks were always snapped up by the hot guys.  So they decided to create a world in which females are the creepy nerds' sex slaves.

Recall those video games where they violently dismember females, and then rape each of the individual severed limbs or something like that.

These losers immerse themselves in a fake world.
T heir every waking moment, every conscious thought is consumed [[devoured]] by this fake eyesore.  They lambast the Christian religious right for believing, [[for waging their well-being, for placing their hopes upon ] the existence of a world that only exists in fairy tales.  The useless nerds' words, not mine.  They criticize Christians for __ consciousness, __ occupied.

This is how the useless disgusting nerds' logic goes.  First, some background.
1. Christians believe every word in the Bible (this is the useless-nerd perception).
2. The Bible mentions nothing about aliens, unknown planets, alien universes, modern-day technology, intergalactic space travel, evolution.
3. Actually, more specifically, perhaps the Bible forwardly states that those things do not exist and that anyone who believes in that stuff worships the devil.
4. Space travel, planets other than earth, and technology all do exist today.  Useless nerds claim to embrace this stuff while Christians allegedly do not, making the nerds have ample reason to fly in the face of old religion.
5. Therefore, by dint of being more realistic and more accepting of modern day, the useless nerds can feel they are smarter, more realistic, more able to navigate the modern world.
6. Therefore, the useless nerds are superior to Christians in every way.  The useless nerds reject the Christian Bible's take on technology, and similarly the useless nerds can reject other major angles of the Bible such as social structure.
7. Namely, the useless nerds claim to regard women in a more respectable, respectful, dignified, polite, courteous, civilized manner than Bible religious types approach regard.
8. etc.

That sick, vile comic book.  I don't know if it was a comic book; I do not know exactly what it was.  Maybe it was a subscription publication for useless-crap-enthusiasts.
Star Trek naked alien babes
violent video games
comic books
Dungeons and Dragons, thought I cannot figure out if this is a comic book or video game or what.
This is their free-thinking, liberal, cast-of-the-shackles-of-an-oppressive-regime world wherein they claim to respect women so much more than religious fanatics do.

Let us think about this for a second.  [[[contemplate, analyze]]]  This is entirely made-up.  __So they had time to edit it, and revise it, and it is freely sprung from your conscious choice and your own free will.  The, er, "creators" willingly hand-picked every aspect of it.  They supposedly did not allow society's enslaving and oppressive rules to dictate anything for them.  And yet they STIll manage to be misogynistic as all get-out.  They still sit there fantasizing about this.

And the godforsaken satan-of-entertainment-spawned sh*tfest genre that is a meld of sci-fi and horror.  Oh, dear lord, no.  Whyyy?  Who the hell actually bankrolled these multiple piles of crap?  There are weird giant alien bugs that rwepp women.  I don't rent any of these movies.  I just happen to see the movie cover and then have to hold back my regurgitation.  I know they consider themselves sci-fi because I read the description on the back; I just couldn't look away, I had to pick up the movie cover packaging out of morbid curiosity, it was much like watching a train wreck, it's so gruesome but so captivating in a horrifying manner that you can't look away.

Okay, enough excuses.  Deep cleansing breath.  Breathe in through the nose, exhale through the mouth.  The above-metnioned sh*tfests are an insult to genuine sci-fi, especially the few ranks of the genre that are genuinely intelligent.  Intelligent sci-fi is out there if you care to look for it.

Repairing Broken Vase, Putting Pieces Back Together

Perhaps I should offer a rejoinder to my previous essay.

Real evolution is something that we should be trying to achieve.  It is truly something that we should focus our energies on.

and yeah, I am aware that a lot of people think that no violence=lots of random se- with random strangers.  happenstance meetings, chance occurrences.  liberals are quite predictable.  they seem to think that__

Evo psychologists have it all wrong.  They have both factors completely wrong- what motivates females is wrong.  And what motivates males is wrong.  [[summarize reiterate why they think,, ''the female is hardwired to be faithful to one male but males are hardwired to sleep around."" **also explain why this last part is not true.]]]]]

Both sides have strong incentives to demand fidelity from the other.

This is a brilliant hypothesis and I wish I thought of it myself.  But alas, I cannot take credit for it.  I found this idea on the internet.  Both males and females have an evolutionary drive to want the other to stick around.

Female wants the male to stick around and be monogamous to her.  So that she can have all his resources.  Food and shelter.  Male wants female to be monogamous to her so that he is assured that she is bearing his and only his offspring and not that of another male's.

Stunningly, it actually fits perfectly in perfect harmony and balance, the physical and sexual evolutionary drives for greatest reproductive success.  Perfectly integrates this with higher-animals' advanced psychosocial development.

Hehe, it is kind of funny in that both parties monitor and police the other's reproductive behavior.  This is a far cry from the evo psychll's insistence that each sex is hardwired to follow its own behavioral governance.

Physical health -and- providing n protecting the family are no longer the same thing.
aha, yes-- write that in great detail,, exactly why and how physical looks n health n strength are no longer indicators of a successful happy life for a male.  Nor, certainly, are they indicators of a happy, successful life for a female.

---here, talk about human civilization and how as the human race progressed, had to take a further and further [[recline,, backseat]]] to genuinely evolved psychosocial characteristics.  new personality traits began to emerge as humans lived through the eons.  new personality traits


[[[[[[    include a picture each of two people for comparison.  list their lifestyles and accomplishments. ]]]]

Here are two people featured for comparison.  I have purposely chosen two people who are both African-American, because that always manages to cut through the BS and shoot right to the core of whatever the hell everyone is arguing about.

*This gentleman is married, has a full-time job as an auto repair shop manager, and he and his wife have two young children, which they both actively participate in raising.  His wife is a nurse.  They were married since at least nine months before their first child was born.

*This other gentleman demonstrates all of the traits that evolutionary psychologists insist are characteristic of successful "evolution."  Hopping from one female to the next, impregnating many random females, not bothering to stick around to raise those offspring.  All the women he has fathered children with-- are as staunchly anti-marriage, anti-commitment as he is.  They say they "Don't want to be tied down to a man."  And surely, why should they be?  They get everything they need from the state.  Housing, medicaid health insurance, food stamps.  The government gives them whatever they need, by taxing those forms of sustenance away from other unrelated citizens.  They do not need to work for nor earn any of it.  Most of these females have other children, which are fathered by men other than this particular one, producing a strange web of descendants and blood relatives spread amongst the neighborhood.

Just some FYI.  This second gentleman began reproducing before the age of seventeen.  The female consorts began reproducing before the age of seventeen.  And the vast majority of their offspring in turn began reproducing before the age of seventeen.  None of these reproducers are married to their gene-exchangers, nor were they ever married.  Of these descendants and indeed of the consorts, the majority of them did not finish high school.  They are barely functionally literate at a sixth-grade reading level.  (That is the level of reading difficulty at which most newspapers publish articles.)

According to the proponents and promoters of "social evolution," the second man is more fit evolution-wise that the first man.

However, sticking to one spouse with one stable family is not, according to you, evolution.  Yes, we can totally see that things worked out quite well for the second example.  After all, they have practiced your brand of evolution.  They have chosen quantity over quality.  Therefore I concede your point of course.

Discarding The Ooga-Boogas

I have been reading over my previous essay and I have decided to keep the "Keeping up with ooga-boogas" as it is.  Yes, it is weird and strange and doesn't make that much sense.  And also it contradicts itself with every other sentence.  First I claim that a female is constantly scanning the horizon for a better-looking, more physically fit male.  Yet I also claim that females do not have any reason to keep the male around at all.

How do these both possibly make sense?

perh- readily enthusasitically admit that my previous essay didnt make much sense.  I now know it is becaseu I was grappling with two contradictoy ideas in my head (use first sentence up above!))

It is because I was making an argument against a common notion in evolutionary psychology.  The common notion is that females want safety and security, they desire solid, constant, established shelter, and therefore females want a male to stay around permanently for this reason.

I was demonstrating that this is no reason at all for a female to need a male to stay monogamous to her.  Or indeed to desire a monogamous relationship at all.  All a female needs is a source of food and shelter and resources, full stop.  In this day and age especially, there are plenty of avenues for any female to acquire food, shelter, and resources without ever needing a monogamous male.

Keeping Up With The Ooga-Boogas

I think I need to revise an earlier essay that I wrote regarding evolution-determined gender roles.

I think I was incorrect in my assessment.  Female members of a species probably do not have as much of a motivation for sheer uninhibited promiscuity.  This unfortunately does not necessarily make them better.  The shallow, morality-free angle that they do harbor and exploit is golddiggery.

Unfortunately in the labyrinthine maze that is romantic crap, men are assholes and women are dumbasses.  In that Laura Schlessinger book, she claims a woman "is just doing what her natural biological urges are telling her to do."

Huh?  Who gives a crap what those "biological urges" are?  Biological urges very often, very pointedly, point someone in the wrong direction.  So what if that's what biology dictates?  Do you only possess biological urges, with no accompanying sense of morality, no judgment, no sense of right and wrong?  And that is only the beginning.  What about doing what is right and healthy for you as a human being?

What about growing as a person who exists in this world, contributing something positive to society, actually participating in it?

If that is the brand of "evolution" these scientists are using, then you would have to use an analogous version of "evolution" for females.  Females out in the natural world are very materialistic and shallow.  They have about as much motivation for sticking with one male, as any male has for sticking with one female.  It might not be sheer promiscuity being the driving factor, but it is something equally as shallow and abhorrent.

I will preface the rest of the essay by stating that I am not endorsing a single iota of this behavior.

The purpose of this essay is that I am trying to hammer home a point.  We are Homo sapiens, which by definition means "wise man."  We cannot and we should not allow ourselves to succumb to the same absence of virtue that defines lower animals.

Lower animals are characterized by  the following:  lack of judgment, no stable two-parent homes, being slaves to biological urges, extreme and often deadly violence, the list of things that humans call "soulless" goes on and on.  Even though the Latin "anima" means "soul," they are still lower animals.  They do not possess the arsenal of empathy, compassion, the concept of future-planning, a grasp of consequences -- all of which are supposed to set us humans apart from them.

but by coddling and encouraging the worst [[_excesses]] of human behavior.  _what the hell kind of society would this create if people just decided on doing whatever their fancies impulsively dictated?

Whatever their whims, whatever their fickle, irresponsible hearts' delight__   What would happen if people simply decided not to use conscious, voluntary reasoning and good judgment anymore?  What would happen to society if people did not step bakc for a minute and think, "wait a minute, maybe I should consider the consequences before jumping in the saxk with a complete stranger?"
utilize critical thinking and say, "maybe I should forego a few minutes of pleasure and instead think for the long term?"
I'll tell you what kind of society.  The kind that this one is circling the drain towards.

Provisions, rations, vittles, resources, whatever you want to call it.  Females out in the wild in modern-day primates as well as females of our own primate ancestors are mostly opportunistic gold digger whores.  They appear to always be constantly keeping one eye out the door for a bigger, better male that might come along.  They always keep one foot ready out the door for a male with a bigger habitat, better access to food, and an assumed better ability to fight off natural predators.

Females of early hominid species, and indeed, of all dioecious species, also have as much of an incentive to always keep one foot out the door.  If not to sleep around specifically, then certainly to latch on to the next eligible male. 

*protection from predators -- mastodons, sabretooth tigers, dinosaurs, etc.

Not all males are equally capable of wrestling down a mammoth with one's bare hands.  A female is more likely to choose a male that is physically capable of protecting her and himself from natural predators.  neither are all males equally capable of utilizing weapons for killing enemies.

with the advent of tools such as the bow and arrow, this reason pretty much became obsolete.  a weapon such as this can be fired from a distant range, without needing to___ Females can be as skilled at using a weapon or tool as males can.  But if a female is not capable of firing a weapon for protection herself, this still hardly levels the playing field for males.

Those types of unevolved females, the ones from whence too may evolutionists derived the word "evolution," are mostly shallow golddigging whores.

Are you familiar with the concept of co-evolution?

Two mutually beneficial, but distinct species will evolve in cooperation with each other.  so that if one develops a trait that benefits it, the other species will adjust itself and develop a trait that allows it to "keep up" with the first species.

It turns out the same thing is true with human behavioral evolution.

The female does not in fact necessarily require a male that would provide "security, safety, and stick around for the long-term in order to help with the raising of the children."

As a matter of fact, it turns out that all the female truly requires in order to provide security and safety for the children is a whole lot of money.  Regardless of where that money comes from.  She does not necessarily need the male to stick around for the long haul to help raise the children or anything like that.

This is true in the wild.  It turns out that females are constantly on the lookout for a better, more fit, prime optimal specimen of male.  if she finds one, then screw the current one.  the current one is the one she chose because it was the best option in the immediate vicinity.  but if she happens upon an even better male specimen, then pshaw.  screw the first one.  As all scientists know, the female's contribution to the existence, upbringing, and well-being of offspring is enormous.  why should she waste her time raising your sorry, punk-ass second-choice genes?  she would spend her time rather growing a fetus that houses the more fit genes.

Anyway, the female does not necessarily need the male to stick around for the long haul.  she just needs a source of money.

This is true with the poverty class.  We see this all around us.  The female reproduces as often as possible.  As soon as she finds an ideal male, she will ditch reproducing with the current male, and she will reproduce with the most recent and better option.

We also see this with the wealthy upper crust.  Do women stay married to rich men for all eternity?  No.  They marry them, then divorce them to get half their junk.

So if you want to continue talking about this and to pretend that this downward spiral back down into primordial ooze is headed in the right direction, then I can continue on all day.  I will put you where you belong.  But if you would much rather admit that this is all detrimental to our species, then we can work.  If you would just realize that this is all very harmful, then we can cooperate and be a little smarter.  And we can be more evolved.

The Evolution That Isn't

There has been a lot of humdrum as of late that exclaims to the world that man-whores are doing the right thing evolutionary-wise because they are spreading their seed.  What I find interesting in a bad way is that the endorsers, supporters, and people dancing in the street celebrating this sociological "breakthrough" of evolution are seeking every excuse possible NOT to be evolved.

Let us look up "evolution" in the dictionary.  The definition in Oxford Standard Modern English Abridged Version, c/1999, is the following:

However, according to you, "evolution" conveys a mindset that has not matured past a certain line of demarcation in the long-past formational history of our species.

If we are going to tag the word "evolution" with the evolutionary psychologists' take on the word, then we must apply this same broad brush all across the board.  Consistency is always important.  Evolutionary anthropologists are postulating that evolution leads all males, every last one, to chase as much tail as possible.

Wrong.  Evolution states that only the Alpha Male is able to chase as much tail and spread around his seed as much as possible.

Less brain power, primitive, no social skills.  No conscience, no morals, no culture, no history.  No sense of moral conviction, no sense of social responsibility.  These unfortunate tendencies, wherever they might spring up, are bad no matter which they come from, males or females.

That is misuse of the term "evolution."  Promiscuity, sleeping around, refusing to make a commitment -- yes, all of that did happen with early hominids.  That is precisely why it is not evolution.  It is primitivity, de-evolution.  It is not evolution, it is not improvement, it is not moving the human race forward.

First, a little reminder, and this is one that modern males would do especially well to remember, only the alpha male got to sleep around.  The less physically fit, slower, duller males that were worse at taking down a mastodon would not be given the time of day by any females.  The eager-to-reproduce females would be much better off ___

I was going to write that early females of hominid species have as much of an incentive to sleep around and not be particularly faithful, but this has never been proven to be the case. There were several females in the very late 1990s that for some reason or other strained and squirmed in vain to try to prove this point.  In my observation they failed miserably.

I can immediately think of reasons this would not be.

For one thing, to be completely informative, just because a female sleeps around is no indicator that she would even get pregnant.  Many females, especially younger females, are unable to tell when they themselves are most fertile.  They have no idea when during their own ovulatory cycle they are most likely to become pregnant.  Sleeping with several males that are in varying degrees of physical desirability is no guarantee that the female will only become pregnant by the one that is most physically fit.

Women often can't even tell when they themselves are most fertile.  Some have learned to identify this phase, but the majority have not. So just because she has sex with a bunch of dudes doesn’t mean she would get pregnant.  And it definitely doesn't guarantee that she would magically only get pregnant by the alpha-est of the group.  That debunks the assertion that a female has any evolutionary incentive to sleep around.  I’ve already talked about why the article and so many others like it tried claiming this. It was a pathetic flaccid attempt at claiming that everything men do is automatically better than anything women do.

Which all leads me into my next argument against this.

Second.  Medical science has proven that outward signs such as waist to hip ratio, breast size -- offer little in the way of determining whether a woman is fertile.  Ovulation in humans cannot be determined by outward visual cues.  Or by auditory cues, or any sort of nonverbal communication.  Simple observation of signs and symptoms offers very little in determining when or even whether a female is fertile.  Males and even females cannot determine when any given female is most likely to get pregnant.  A female human can know when she _herself_ is most fertile, but without verbally communicating this to other members of the species, no one else can tell.

Ergo, just because a male sleeps around with a bunch of different females, this is no guarantee that any of them at all will become pregnant.  As I already stated, the vast majority of humans cannot identity if any one given female is fertile or not, given any external cues.  This includes any males in the vicinity.

Third.  Now, females might not engage in ongoing promiscuity, as in simultaneously banging several dudes at once.  But they are definitely shallow individuals that are instinctively motivated by the same factors that drove cavewoman behavior.  Cavewomen were constantly on the lookout for a fitter, harder-bodied, better-looking male.

Cavewomen were constantly on the lookout for more superior male.  She would definitely trade in the current one for a superior, better, more advanced model upon encountering one.  If a more physically fit, better-looking, taller male comes along than the one the female just slept with, why should she waste her time growing the first one's kid?  Her energy and time would be put to much better use growing the progeny of fitter, hotter genes.  And it is possible that even after that, she might still happen upon a more fit, sexy male.  So the cycle continues.

Let me repeat, this is not true genuine evolution.  This is not improvement, this is not moving forward.  This is nothing more than degeneracy.

Many females in the modern age are promiscuous, but this has little to do with evolutionary drives.  It is simply a lack of morals.  Also, as I have discussed before, this is a matter of females trying to keep up (keep down?) with males' black hole bottomless pit brand of sexual mores.

Reasons that a female would supposedly have an evolutionary angle to stick around the male.
*as well as the notion that a woman would want to stick around so that she may use the male's resources for raising the offspring.  Kids are expensive, after all.

For the case of this modern day and age, this is also debunked.  There are numerous social and economic balustrades in place that ensure that a female and all of their offspring are provided for.  There is no reason for the female to need the male to stick around for the purpose of gathering food or resources.  All she needs is a source of food and resources, period.  There is no compelling reason that it must come from the male.

Welfare and government housing programs ensure that a female and her offspring are provide with a continuous source of food and shelter.  Completely regardless of whether the offsprings' biological fathers are still around or not.

In public welfare housing projects, women often are pregnant from several different men.  I have even witnessed several poverty-class women stating that they refuse to ever marry, because they see marriage as somehow being stifling.  in these situations, the women have no problem obtaining living quarters, food, shelter, and provisions on which to raise their offspring.

At the other end of the economic class spectrum, we see rich Manhattan divorcees.  A woman would be a serial marryer.  She marries men for their money and then divorces them a short while later, taking their house and half their money.  she does this several times in sequence to ensure that she has sufficient resources to support whatever lifestyle standard she chooses.

There are in fact entire countries that operate on the notion that there is no significant reason for the biological mother to want the father to stick around and raise the kids.  The Nordic countries -- Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark all have in effect a veritable welfare state.  Salaries and wages are redistributed in the form of benefits, including medical insurance and college education, regardless of parental marital status or even geographic proximity.  This effectively turned every individual living in these countries into a welfare queen.

Again, I am absolutely not endorsing any of this.  This sort of arrangement breaks up families, encourages children being born out of wedlock, creates dependence on the government to bail them out, and discourages employment.  I am simply making a point that "evolutionary" history does not dictate that the female stay with the male.

Protection from predators -- mastodons, saber-toothed tigers, dinosaurs, etc.  Actually, if we are going to continue this line of evolutionary psychology thought, then protection, safety, and security are very good reasons for the female to want the male to stick around permanently.  Indeed it is a good reason for the male himself to want to stick around permanently.

This is a pretty good reason for the female to want the male to stick around.   She would want the male to exert his energy and effort towards protecting the female and the offspring.  Interestingly, it is also just as much reason for the male himself to want to stick around.  After all, what good is siring any offspring if they are all killed and eaten by predators?  If a male impregnates a female, a one-and-done encounter and then immediately sprints off to impregnate another female, there is no guarantee that the previous female even got pregnant.  Indeed there is no guarantee that the fetus, if it was truly conceived and successfully implanted, will survive to term and be born as a healthy, viable youngling.  And after it is born, it needs to be protected from external threats.  The male would need to stay right there to ensure that his progeny survived and remained healthy.