[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvY2ScZBCtQ[/youtube]
What happens to those who cut their own legs off if there is no system to support them? Are their chances of survival increased or decreased in the objective world, outside of human sheltering social constructs?
So it’s either go on a killing rampage or feminine passive aggression. Com’on Auty, think beyond the dichotomies.
You know what your problem is, Tucker? You know what it really is this time? ( 
) You’re a leach. Here you are, preaching this really hardcore conservative/republican/KKK philosophy as though that’s what you stood for. But you don’t. You stand for everything that’s wrong with America. You’re the reason people hate Americans. Not even Turd respected you. You see, at least a real conservative believes in the core principles of conservatism–right-wing politics, minimizing government–which isn’t all that bad as far as I’m concerned–whereas people like you are just racist, sexist, and homophobic. ← That’s what you stand for. You wish you could go back to pre-emancipation America. And you know that out of the two dominant parties in America, there’s one who’s more likely to support you than the other–guess which one–but that’s only because they stand for tolerance. Real conservatists, like Ucci, like Eric_the_Pipe, aren’t racist. I don’t even think they’re sexist. They just say a lot of racist, sexist things. But they disapprove of racists and sexists just like everyone else. You’re not a real conservatist, you’re a leach. You hold onto the Republican party and the conservatist label, like a blood sucking leach, draining it dry of any good reputation it might otherwise have. You are the reason they have such a bad rep.
While I can’t say I know where all this misplaced aggression comes from, I’m going to venture a guess that your dad was a racist too and he probably beat your little boy ass on a few occasions, left a few shiners for the kids at school to see ← Idunno, I’m just guessing. But I’m willing to bet the farm your upbringing wasn’t a pleasant experience. I don’t think you ever rebelled, did ya. I think you were too afraid to, too afraid of what your elders, your peers, would do to you if you did. So you just stayed where you were. You justified it by calling it “tradition”–came up with all the good reasons you could for why it was the right thing to do–deviance is “degenerate”, it destroys society. You did the right thing by not rocking the boat. You’re a good little Christian, aren’t ya boy? A good racist, sexist, all-round-American Christian. Ain’t ya? Too afraid of another woppin’, deep down inside, to change. So you devote your life to carrying on the tradition–the ancient, archaic, dying tradition. The cycle of violence. Hey, it’s all right. Don’t worry. Your papa may have beaten the will to resist right out of you, but don’t worry, you’ll get to do it to others in turn.
^ But as I say, that’s just a guess.
Gain means you have more than you did before. Happiness simply means you are not sensing any loss. Therefore, you can lose and feel happy. Unhappiness is only felt while you’re losing. Once the process of loss is complete, unhappiness ceases. In the same way that once a suffering person kills themselves they no longer suffer.
You subscribe to loser philosophy the moment you put happiness on a pedestal.
Ancient peoples didn’t worship pleasure. If anything, they worshipped pain, because pain tolerance is a proof of strength. Back then, people actively competed who’s going to tolerate more pain, certainly not who’s going to have more pleasure.
Are you going to tell me that you know better than these ancient peoples? How can an anti-traditional, starting-from-scratch, do-it-yourself, zero-experience, experimental freak such as yourself know better than these traditional, build-on-top-of-previous-work, do-the-tried-and-tested-method peoples who inherited their experience from their ancestors and utilized it to its fullest?
You are basically a child with a rich vocabulary. Nothing more than that.
2+2=4 is a definitional truth. 2+2=5 is wrong because it violates definitions we have accepted.
What exactly is objective regarding definitions?
Interests, like definitions, aren’t objective but that doesn’t mean they are arbitrary. They are genetically inherited from your ancestors.
Interests can be repressed. Think of a man who got rich only to realize he didn’t get what he really wanted. He only got what he THOUGHT he wanted but not what he REALLY wanted. This is because he repressed, he ignored, his true interests. He had poor self-knowledge. Though he managed to achieve certain individual goals, he failed, and not only failed, but also made sure, by fixating on one goal, that he failed at other goals.
Progress is judged in relation to what you, and your ancestors, were in the past. Otherwise, you can call anything progress.
Finally, none of that is relevant. You are merely diverting your, and by extension our, attention away from my point which is that HAPPINESS CAN BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY KIND OF BEHAVIOR.
Lower organisms are happy to he lower organisms but if higher organisms were forced to become lower organisms they would be unhappy.
Happiness means little. What matters is the behavior that is associated with it, basically, your actions, what you’re doing while you are being happy or whatever, in comparison to what your ancestors, of whom you are a copy, were doing during their lives.
But this is precisely what you do not want to do. I wonder why. I would say because you’re a degenerate, a ruin in your instincts, who is so degenerate that he has no patience for, no tolerance of, his ruined self. So instead of regenerating, of striving to put his broken instincts together, he looks forward to a new beginning . . .
Gib, why bother? You already know that these guys are basically stuck clinging to the security blanket of their ridiculous views. They’re not going to let go. Some people are just destined to fail at adapting to the world, and they’re bound to live in frustration. You can’t save them, and you shouldn’t want to. Look at how sad and lonely he is. Watching every day, just hoping that someone will say his name, so that he can come running here and do his little dance. He’s a basement dweller who’s reaping what he’s sown. I don’t like him, or his mini me. So I’m glad that they’re frustrated and lonely. Sometimes you just have to sit back and enjoy the win.
You are projecting your own feelings onto me. It is not me who is frustrated but you. You become frustrated the moment you introduce the idea of having a family in your mind. That is how pathetic you are. This is also why you have to bother with us – all the while preaching the opposite, how you do not care and how noone should, basically mere ideas yet to be put in practice – because the moment I say something as simple as FAMILY your degenerated instinct pops into your mind and causes you to feel pain. You fight against me, it appears, but really, you only fight against your degenerate self.
I don’t need studies when I have instincts, you moron. Experiments are for people who have no experience. You lack the instincts that I have, and in your jealousy, you want to diminish their worth and replace them with experiments, basically with something that can be understood by people without experience. This is an egalitarian sentiment . . . inability to admit that some people are more experienced than others and that these others cannot catch up with the more experienced people within any arbitrarily chosen period of time. Experiments are designed to bridge this gap . . . what it does is it levels people’s experiences. The more experienced are forced to pretend they are less experienced . . . simply because they cannot provide justifications, reasons, studies, etc.
Oh, Pandora is a bitch alright. 
You’re equating an alpha-female to desirable female (a relative judgment), and this implies an alpha-female-by-proxy, which is true in many cases. Many human alpha-females (like Melania Trump) are alphas by proxy, or through a man (or a system). Another way of saying this would be for a (an alpha) man to say a female is an alpha because he chooses her (not that she is one on her own), so her alpha identity is dependent on him. It is also true for many hierarchical animals, like wolves. There was a doc on wolf pack I watched once, called Living with Wolves, and I remember the part in which the alpha male, to the surprise to the scientists observing the pack, chose the Omega female to be his partner. Granted there were a limited number of females available, his choice was still surprising, considering the other female was more outgoing and more suited to be alpha (personality wise). My point is, the chosen female (Chemuckh) only became alpha because of alpha male’s choice. This is not to say that there could not be an alpha female on her own. In the She Wolf doc (also about wolf packs), the female became alpha by pairing with inexperienced males and creating her own pack in which she was true and sole alpha. It was not the ideal arrangement, as most of the burden was on her (hunting as well as raising the pups), but she was forced to become one due circumstances.
No it wasn’t the family part. It was the degenerate part where you want to put yourself over me in your fantasy hierarchy bracket. Its insulting because you’re clearly an inferior mind as evidenced by your inability to spot the issue in this exchange.
It is absolutely true that anyone with an interest in raising a family is by that fact alone already above you.
That isn’t a fantasy land, that is reality. Consider that that’s exactly how every single one of your ancestors lived his life.
What you’re doing, on the other, is a fantasy land brought on by your inability to stay true to your self because it has become too difficult to tolerate.
You are a delusional freak.
So, I am an American Christian traditionalist who holds onto the Republican party and was beaten by my father who was a racist and I hold the beliefs I do because the environment around me forced them unto me and I never rebelled.
In reality I am not American, not Christian, not traditionalist, don’t care about the Republican party, my father never beat me and he’s not a racist, the environment tried to force liberalism/cuckservatism on me (mostly liberalism) and I ended up rejecting them both in favor of my own beliefs. Pretty sure this makes me a rebel and yes, an outsider.
Zero points for you, gib. You’re as wrong about my personal stuff as you are about everything else.
Pandora, the entire concept of alpha doesn’t make much sense when it comes to human females. “Alpha” has the connotations of dominance, and though some human females can be kind of dominant, the male alphas - the top 10% or so of men are easily more dominant than any female.
And yes, the quality of one’s partner is typically reflective of one’s own quality, which is why alphaness (representing reproductive success) is closely connected with the quality of the partner one reproduces with. This applies to both males and females.
Really? Looks can be very deceiving, gib. You might change your mind if you saw this woman in action having to defend or save her child from a predator.
Aside from that, you would have absolutely no idea who she is as a person. Could be a philosopher, doctor, lawyer, future astronaut lol or some other being who you definitely would not be bored with.
You have children. I’m rather surprised that you would not find this image beautiful and appealing.
Unfortunately, perception would seem to be everything, wouldn’t it? Transcend it, gibster. 
It’s a combination of pride in my own thread (they’re shitting all over it) and an insatiable urge to troll (they make it so easy). It’s an addictive combination.
Take this for example:
This is just begging to be trolled. He’s basically saying he doesn’t need science. He just knows.
There’s also the fact that here at ILP, I like to get to know people. Until I dig my heals into a conversation with someone, that person’s just a face among the crowd–almost indistinguishable from everyone else. But once I dig in–whether that’s a friendly conversation or a real nasty one involving insults and trolling–that person is all of a sudden unique in my mind–they stand out with all their quirks and idiosyncrasies. ← That’s something I like about people, even the despicable ones. I had no encounters with AutSider before this, now I have, now I know him a bit better.
I have no idea what this person is like in real life. The picture was brought in to symbolize something–the traditional baby-making wife and mother. AutSider and Magnus see a woman who is not a philosopher, doctor, lawyer, astronaut, and who definitely needs a big strong man to protect her and her children. ← That’s what I’m responding to.
And the difference between these types of women has very little to do with being a mother, at least for me. That’s something AutSider and Magnus are bringing in. They’re trying to contrast the girl in the image with the images I posted in the OP of goth rock chicks. I’m saying I’m attracted to the latter (tough on the outside, mushy on the inside). AutSider and Magnus are the ones who are contrasting them with the traditional mother, suggesting that if a woman chooses a career as a goth rock star, she can’t possibly bear children, or if she does she’d be a terrible mother. I see no reason to believe this. I don’t see why the goth chicks in the OP (those ones in particular since I detect a sweet, mushy, almost mother-like quality to them on the inside) can’t also be loving mothers at the same time. I’m barfing at the idea of the traditional female roll of wife and mother… nothing more than that, nothing exciting, nothing interesting, just dull.
Imagine if we had to conduct a study for every single decision we had to make in our lives. We would get nowhere.
You are simply unwilling to entertain the possibility that some people simply have confidence in their knowledge, grounded in the accumulated experiences of their forefathers, and thus little need to conduct studies in order to justify themselves to people like you.
You are a typical perfectionist who expects people to be either extremely rigorous or to give up on their opinions.
You accept nothing in between. Only absolutes. Either perfect ignorance or perfect knowledge.
This is how levelling is done. Since nobody can meet the extremely high level of standard you’ve set, everyone is forced to admit ignorance and by extension equality.
Either you’re a God or you’re one of us. Nothing in between is permitted.
You’re strong on words but extremely weak in actual thoughts.
Keep pretending you’re more than just a faglet.
You doing philosophy? Or preaching ideals?
What would be in between linking us to a study and talking out of your ass?
This is essentially what I was saying. For a male to call a female alpha is like saying “She’s alpha because I say so” - it’s relative and dependent judgment. This was my comment to your photo. Now, I don’t know the quality of the father of her child in relation to her, but I can say that in relation to her child(ren), she is certainly a true alpha female. The female might not have power over the males, but she certainly has power over the young, hers and sometimes others’. I know that in certain rodent species (meerkats, ground squirrels, etc.), which live in a harem-style communities, it is a common practice for the alpha female to visit the dens of other females and kill their young. It is presumed that this infanticide by alpha female is due to limited resources, and to maintain hierarchy structure. This seems to be the norm.
Now, like I was saying, it is possible for the female to be an alpha without the male partner, but she would have the added burden of own survival and the care of the young; and her alpha status would be in relation to her own group. I am sure there were cases, even before the advent of social protections, in which the females were left to be single mothers, but if we are talking about survivability, this would certainly not be the ideal arrangement as it would lower the chances of survival. A sole alpha female would be rare because the probability of her survivability and success would be much lower. This also depends on her environment and available natural resources (food, game, predators, shelter, etc.)
Not quite so. There are certain objective measures that can determine the truth of such a statement. By “alpha”, I mean dominant and aggressive. It’s certainly possible to observe the behavior of a particular female and assess objectively that she dominates certain groups and that she is noticeably more aggressive than others around her.
And in regards to a woman being “alpha” compared to an “alpha” male, I think most of the time she would come off as rather “beta” (although obviously there will be exceptions). But I’m not comparing such women to men (as if we could compare her to her twin brother who shares the same “alpha” gene), I’m comparing her to other females on the alpha/beta spectrum.
