In the Sexocracy, no one has access to guns apart from highly trained, psychologically assessed military, security and police personnel. No civilians get access to guns, especially mentally unstable types like Elliot Rodger, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho. What they do get is excellent mental health care based on their status as human beings rather than their ability to pay. Those individuals were all products of the American rage machine, but Anders Breivik proves that even the most peaceful country can produce terrible individuals. That’s why the only way is total civilian gun control. Fuck the second amendment.
Interest (=> will) is the most important thing (perhaps it is really Kant’s “Ding an sich” - “thing in itself” / “thing as such”). A good example is the “sexual selection” that I would prefer to call reproductive interests when it comes to get ressources (including offspring / children), namely either by (a) dominance or by (b) will to appeal. If a female can’t refuse herself and doesn’t want a male or children, because she is kidded - for example - by feminism or other nihilisms, then she is no longer part of the evolution. End.
I always took phoneutria as an underachiever, but this is way to easy prey. Reach for the heavens baby. Mabey in another life brother, I’ll see you then.
I believe John Berger said something to the same effect, but its not people, only of women.
Men act, Women appear.
“To be born a woman has to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men. The social presence of women is developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage within such a limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman’s self being split into two. A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself. Whilst she is walking across a room or whilst she is weeping at the death of her father, she can scarcely avoid envisaging herself walking or weeping. From earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually. And so she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman. She has to survey everything she is and everything she does because how she appears to men, is of crucial importance for what is normally thought of as the success of her life. Her own sense of being in herself is supplanted by a sense of being appreciated as herself by another…One might simplify this by saying: men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object – and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.”
This is a most singular and odd post. Shame I did not find it before.
There is a major category completely missing here.
Who allocates and determines the status level of any one person?
Obviously someone would have to determine such qualities as “criminal”, or who was "the most respected and adored members ".
The other big question would be why on earth would any SSP, being at the highest level of society, actually want to allow themselves to be fucked by all others. To provide this ridiculous utopia, the SSP would have to be in a state of perpetual slavery.
Although the statement “Men act, Women appear” is largely true, Berger got his causation wrong. Women were not merely taught to be that way by society. The Jungle environment required women to be the way they are and men to be the way they are, having nothing at all to do with society. Women are genetically prone to be self-conscious. But that is only one part of the split persona.
Not only is the mind genetically prone to be divided, but so is the “heart”. The female was genetically formed to be both ultra careful and sensitive of any contact, but also in need of it. She had to be both very defensive and also conquerable.
Blaming society for the state of the female genes is merely a clever way of usurping authority to change it without their permission, nor yours.
Perhaps you would like to learn to think and philosophize. Granted, it isn’t for all people, but then again, this IS a philosophy site, not a playground for mindless social rejects who can’t say anything but ad hom programmed responses (actually more for thinking social rejects who often have to struggle to not spew ad homs).
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. And ILP has more than its share. So consider not adding to the overabundance.
If you were half as smart as you think you are, you might have the balls to defend some of the bollocks that you type.
You see philosophy is a good deal more than spitting out the first belch of feelings that bump into your fore-brain. The idea is that you present your ideas to defend and adapt them as necessary.
That way you get to examine your own ideas through an open and honest exchange to see if they are worthwhile or stand up to criticism.
But you never seem to find your balls, and thus most of what you say is only worthy of scorn.
The latest offering is the usual adolescent misogynistic, teleologically poisonous half digested naturalistic fallacy of evolutionary psychology schtick that can be put down like a 15 year old dog, that has lost to the power of continence.
These people belong to the working category. That… would seem pretty obvious.
To get the highest status and luxury. That also seems pretty obvious. In the real world, people become prostitutes with far worse prospect than being a most respected member of society.
