Shieldmaiden, there is no more “letting go” of children. This is a globalized, emasculated, domesticated world. There is no more “letting your child go into”. There is no more wild. The whole earth is “home” of humanity. There is no outside the house, anymore.
But some of them will understand you better than does the so-called human animal.
No, you don’t But some of these animals you might have to fight until they themselves run away whimpering like a little puppy.
I don’t see that in her. But under special circumstances, we can all respond like that. But I’m rather surprised at you. You and she used to be good friends. That goes to show - never figure to know a person in his/her totality. You’ve only touched the surface. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket and don’t have high expectations - mostly have no expectations but see plausibilities and be open to anything. After all, we’re human animals.
I cannot believe that you ARE who you are. But welcome back. Hope you’re well.
Was that from Pinker? I think you are alluding to Steven Pinker’s “The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined”. Traversing from pre-history to hunter-gatherer times to the present, Pinker concludes that we are living in the most peaceful time in history. Compared to our anarchic beginnings, levels of violence are at an all-time low.
Whether you believe the world is more peaceful depends on your frame of reference and statistical choices.
When we talk about letting our children go, we don’t mean into the harsh wilderness where they’ll be eating by wolves and tigers. We mean playing at the park, in the back yard, climbing a tree, splashing in a river.
Are you tell us globalism and modernism has taken away trees, backyards, and parks?
97% of money is completely intangible and exists only on the screen of a computer or in a bank balance. No debate there. The 3% which is actually cash (is being phased out and) is a symbolic representation of labour at an agreed upon value. It is literally the best example of a widespread abstraction that you could ever have. This is hardly a difficult point. Take your line of work for example. When you go to buy your blunt wraps and Young Thug albums you don’t actually have to suck a sailors d**k at the place of purchase, you have already done this and have been remunerated in legal tender. But you know, when you look down at Mr. Hamilton, the salty trials and tribulations that put him into your hand.
You see how it works bro? Look:
“abstraction: the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events.”
The idea is that you and others have accepted a piece of paper or digits on a screen as acceptable recompense for a task/duty/event, which is the only thing that gives the paper itself any value at all. The event itself is between you and Seaman Hugh Johnson, but the guy who gives you the Big Mac totally has no idea about any of that and just straight up serves you what you ordered and takes payment. Understand? Take a few deep tokes and read this 10 or 15 times and it’ll sink in dawg. Don’t stress.
I agree with you here but sheesh, try reign in the emotional content little bit, you are sort of undermining your own point. Especially when you use pussy as an insult
The probability is not high but also not zero that some ILP members with more typically male usernames are females and some ILP members with more typically female usernames are males.
The only ILP example I know for sure is the one who claims to be a relatively young woman but is a relatively old man.
No levy, that is a lil joke. As you may be aware, I am female.
You might have read “the rules of the Internet”, as written by anon. If not, google it, it is amusing.
Not only is he married, but sometimes, he does the podcast with his wife.
I find it amusing that you are such an apologist for any and all women that even their irrational and insane behaviour deserves your ire and white-kinghtery. Do you protect women in this manner because you feel they are unable to be moral and rational like men? Rather sexist no?
And who created this situation?
As you have pointed out, the only women that benefit from this situation are the young and beautiful. Where does that leave all other women in your eyes? Without any value at all?
Why is this attitude ethical in your eyes?
