Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
NotCranky
ParticipantLast night was a big social event , it was very interesting going with my consciousness sort of in an altered state with all these threads we have been having lately.
Anyone else have the same thing?
I have always kind of thought that if you saw a man at a casual event with jeans that are just a little different than any others you normally see and he wears hard black fairly dressy loafers he was the rich one in the crowd. I saw some of that.
Which one of you is that guy?I really favor the looks of females, I think what most people consider to be average women to be quite attractive, so most couples to me seem to have a better looking female partner not an equal one. I could see a few cases where even the kids got the good looks from the dad.
I was alone and that got that hackles up on one guy who’s wife I was talking to. They went away for a minute and came back with him smiling and calm so I think they talked. It is an interesting dance we do. Best looking couple at the event IMO.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=zk][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]
Maybe there are ways that there is less imitation and no big problems moving on if we change the predispostion to negativity about anything but a nuclear monogamous household and don’t teach our kids it.Like you said we are wired differently than we think does what we are doing really respect that or are we respecting current family dynamic religion and happier if we do because we are stupid. I know I am can’t handle anything different either but admit it could be stupidity at play too.[/quote]
wel, yeah…but im talking more about just living in the world the way it is…not the way it could be…[/quote]
In my opinion, the crux of the problem is this: We are not wired to live in a nuclear family. We are wired to live in tribes. Tribes where the whole tribe helps watch over our kids after they reach a certain age. Today’s family arrangements (and the similar arrangements in most cultures since civilization began) are not really compatible with our wiring.
We can’t go back to living in tribes. So what do we do? I don’t think there’s a good answer. There might be a better answer. (Better than the one we have now, but still not good.) And in order to find a better answer, we’d need to first be honest with ourselves about who we are. About how humans are wired. With religion in the way, it would be pretty difficult for any such understanding to get any traction. To become widespread. Religious people only want to hear about how god made us. They don’t want to hear that we evolved in bands and tribes and therefore we’re not wired to live in their god’s preferred arrangements.
Of course, religion isn’t the only problem. I think that any large-scale, thoughtful, cooperative, realistic, non-judgmental reconsideration of the basic family unit is beyond the ability of such a combative species, with or without religion.
In the meantime, the best we can do is try to figure out how to best live in the world as it is, not the world as it should be, (as scaredy said), while being honest about our wiring (as Russ said).[/quote]
but be careful, because excessive honest regarding wiring can lead to a shortcircuit…[/quote]
It’s o.k to know as best you can his and her wiring, but tread very very lightly on the entrenched cultural paradigm of the day. For instance it seems to me that our society is designed to spread females out to the most males and to respect that. But that’s not how we are wired necessarily. I wouldn’t try to mess with it too much. Not sure if its good for genetic variation or if it waters down our species. It’s where we are at.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]My bad, when you say you want to see something or hear something I assume it means you want to apply some amount of wisdom to it and maybe assimilate something new. When you consistently don’t, I think you lied. Definitely my bad.[/quote]
in trial advocacy class at law school, we learn never to call a police officer a liar (or any other witness either) unless it is absolutely, unequivovally the case that the jury knows for certain they are intentionally not tellign the truth, with t he sole purpose to deceive.
and even then, it is alsways better to find a way not to call someone a liar, and let the jury draw its own conclusion, even when the evidnece seems to support no other inference but the telling of a lie.
we need permission from the jury to do so, because the word itself is so inflammatory and distasteful. it is ok to claim that what they are saying is not the truth, and perhaps even that the officer knew at the time she said it that she was not telling the truth, or was misguided, or misled, but the four letter word liar, this word must be kept under lock and key, and sonly very very rarely deployed, for it is the nuclear weapon of trial…and people dont like the offhand deployment of our nuclear arsenal.
we like to assume our fellow citizens are acting in good faith, and have not come to intentionally lie. its difficult to get anywhere when we call one another liars, because it is fighting words.
it never impresses the ultimate factfinder because it is up to the factfinder to determine the credibility of witnesses,a dn it is always betetr to give the reasons leading up to the conclusion that one is a liar, rather than the bold conclusory statement that one is a liar.
that way, the factfinder has the facts at hand to draw the conclusion himself…and that, that is far more powerful in terms of persuasive argument.[/quote]
Yes, I blew it in that exact way.
What was that saying about not mistaking something else for Malice?
I do think letting things like Men are abandoners and other such claims fly is dangerous. That’t what dialectic is for( without the accusations of lying). Thinking of the Salem Witch trials, though I am not sure it fits. Seems like it does.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]My bad, when you say you want to see something or hear something I assume it means you want to apply some amount of wisdom to it and maybe assimilate something new. When you consistently don’t, I think you lied. Definitely my bad.[/quote]
There you go again…
Evidence, Russ! How about some logic? Wisdom, perhaps? Is there anything useful that you can contribute, or is it always going to be one personal attack after another, while never really addressing the topic?[/quote]
Time to back off that wild animal trapped in a corner…
Goodnight.ParticipantMy bad, when you say you want to see something or hear something I assume it means you want to apply some amount of wisdom to it and maybe assimilate something new. When you consistently don’t, I think you lied. Definitely my bad.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]without this tyepe of dialectic civilization itself ceases to exist…[/quote]
We are kind of posers at dialectics, though I can’t see that there is no value to civilization, Warren Farrell is the real deal.ParticipantI positively objectify bilingual people.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]I wrote a post about divorce …splitting the family that got lost in the upload.
Want to get it out a little.
While I said good job on your post scaredy, Sometimes I think what you said is only true because or our stupidity.
Doing something different that standard family dynamics is so loaded with self fulfilling doom proficy because we get so entrenched in the current cultural norms. Kind of like people get entrenched in religion and there is no way they will see any other way. We put this in our kids because kids are basically made by the time they are 7.
I think the logistics of sharing kids from separate houses is painful enough to want to avoid it but I am not sure they can’t get used to having two houses pretty easily if we weren’t brainwashed and hadn’t done it to them.
Humans have had many social patterns for raising children over the year and I am pretty sure there will be vastly different ones from what we have in the future. Culture is G-d.
Plus we can blind ourselves that our marriage is better than a separation easier to do once we have culturally made it so the kids will suffer from a split.
This just stuff my enemy mind thinks of from time to time…not an argument.
By Kenny Loggins about divorce I think:
“I did for you and the boys and because love should teach you joy and not the imitation that your mommy and daddy tried to show you” I see a lot of imitation, loneliness, and as Brian likes to point out , mutual dependency built on confidence in the current system. Carenters argument is really an adaptation to mutual dependency established by marriage vows(promises), which she feels is scary. I am right there on the scary part. We wouldn’t have the argument without the dependency.Maybe there are ways that there is less imitation and no big problems moving on if we change the predispostion to negativity about anything but a nuclear monogamous household and don’t teach our kids it.
Like you said we are wired differently than we think does what we are doing really respect that or are we respecting current family dynamic religion and happier if we do because we are stupid. I know I am can’t handle anything different either but admit it could be stupidity at play too.[/quote]
wel, yeah…but im talking more about just living in the world the way it is…not the way it could be…[/quote]
We probably can’t make the leap in a month or two maybe really smart people could like savants at this kind of stuff if there are any…kids maybe could with the right leadership.
Yikes , sorry about the missing commas, it’s ok to spell terribly but not miss so many commas.
ParticipantI think you mentioned white privilege , CaRenter.
That’s a good one because your whole paradigm is built on it. Of course you and all women were forced into white privilege and never would have allowed for it yourselves otherwise.ParticipantI wrote a post about divorce …splitting the family that got lost in the upload.
Want to get it out a little.
While I said good job on your post scaredy, Sometimes I think what you said is only true because or our stupidity.
Doing something different that standard family dynamics is so loaded with self fulfilling doom proficy because we get so entrenched in the current cultural norms. Kind of like people get entrenched in religion and there is no way they will see any other way. We put this in our kids because kids are basically made by the time they are 7.
I think the logistics of sharing kids from separate houses is painful enough to want to avoid it but I am not sure they can’t get used to having two houses pretty easily if we weren’t brainwashed and hadn’t done it to them.
Humans have had many social patterns for raising children over the year and I am pretty sure there will be vastly different ones from what we have in the future. Culture is G-d.
Plus we can blind ourselves that our marriage is better than a separation easier to do once we have culturally made it so the kids will suffer from a split.
This just stuff my enemy mind thinks of from time to time…not an argument.
By Kenny Loggins about divorce I think:
“I did for you and the boys and because love should teach you joy and not the imitation that your mommy and daddy tried to show you” I see a lot of imitation, loneliness, and as Brian likes to point out , mutual dependency built on confidence in the current system. Carenters argument is really an adaptation to mutual dependency established by marriage vows(promises), which she feels is scary. I am right there on the scary part. We wouldn’t have the argument without the dependency.Maybe there are ways that there is less imitation and no big problems moving on if we change the predispostion to negativity about anything but a nuclear monogamous household and don’t teach our kids it.
Like you said we are wired differently than we think does what we are doing really respect that or are we respecting current family dynamic religion and happier if we do because we are stupid. I know I am can’t handle anything different either but admit it could be stupidity at play too.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=FlyerInHi]scaredyclassic, I like your writing. Is discrete sex outside of marriage ok?[/quote]
Thnx for compliment. I’m better at oral argument than writing.[/quote]
Maybe that is where you are like a woman too, scaredy, the verbal stuff. Maybe being like a woman in some way is good for lawyering?Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]O.k. Good argument on the family staying together. Well put together.
I agree about the appearance of dog piling but CaRentter is debating pretty badly too. Has yet to admit where she has been wrong anywhere. And she has been plenty, maybe you could call it hyperbole but she is completely sincere in her claims that sociology proves men are worse than women and that other crap. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know.[/quote]
Please clearly point out where I am wrong. Please explain — very clearly, and without utter nonsense like “you’re being whiny,” which proves nothing — which points I am missing. And please do not do what UCGal did, where she claimed that I said something that was neither stated nor implied.
As for the notion that “men are worse than women,” I’ve never said that; what I have said is that men have oppressed women throughout history…which is why, IMHO, “women’s work” doesn’t carry the same status as “men’s work,” and why people insist (even to this day!) that it has little/no value, either monetary value, or value to their families or society. If you have some evidence to share with us that shows otherwise, I’d love to see it.[/quote]
I have showed you how male privilege and power isn’t, I have shown you how what you call abandonment is expulsion. All your errors of perception and wrong conclusions are where your “oppression” comes from. Men and women built culture together with the animal differences we have. We either grow together or we don’t grow together, but holistically speaking there is no catching up to do.
You lie about what you want to see. That gets old.
ParticipantO.k. Good argument on the family staying together. Well put together.
I agree about the appearance of dog piling but CaRentter is debating pretty badly too. Has yet to admit where she has been wrong anywhere. And she has been plenty, maybe you could call it hyperbole but she is completely sincere in her claims that sociology proves men are worse than women and that other crap. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know.
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=Blogstar]
It’s a beautiful day to have the freedom of a sahp ! I wonder what those cubicles that all those power mongering workers are sitting in are like?[/quote]
This!
I’m getting ready to pick up my kids from school and then run a First Lego League robotics meeting. While waiting for them – I’ll have the car doors open, nice music playing, and a book being read. Definitely better than cube-life.[/quote]I put a vending machine down the hall so I would have the choice of making a huge fresh chef’s salad or getting the peanut butter crackers.
True story though. I loved going to Joann’s and getting fabric to make my little guys caveman suit for halloween and sewing it. Stopped at starbucks to get my special me drink of course(on the way there and back!). Made a cool oversized club from a stick and a milk jug. Paper mache over it. BOYS ROCK! Very expensive, model maker, seamster, designer….don’t stop me honey I am getting rich.
-
AuthorPosts
