No, I demean your romantic idealism concerning marriage and monogamy.
Respect is based on anxiety…where there is no anxiety there is no respect.
Mating is not rational…lust knows no reasoning…
You describe a relationship based on reason…and reason recognizes necessity.
Necessity can be a product of imposed limits.
Take those away and necessity evaporates.
Protect the animal from the consequences of its own actions, and you liberate the beast.
I reference the real…not your ideal romantic delusions.
You were in the military, correct? Is that what they taught you?
Respect is based on a deep appreciation for someone and an unwillingness to fail them. Such appreciation is often earned for good reason. Not anxiety-based or the result of fear tactics.
What I’m discussing goes far beyond mating and lust. Many seem confined within those parameters. Some are not.
Most boys, out there, will never find what you were fortunate enough to find…
They lack the looks, the money, the charm,…whatever it might be.
Feeding those boys false hope is cruel.
There’s only one tried and tested way that goes back thousands of years
Anxiety not to lose them, not to lose their support, their presence.
We respect teachers because we fear they might withhold their guidance.
Grow up.
I ground everything, including morality/ethics on what makes you uncomfortable…raw reality.
Morality is based on selfishness.
We are compassionate becasue we identify with the others plight, fearing that we might experience it…hoping that our support will be reciprocated.
Why do mates remain loyal, even after the lust, the passion, has gone?
Because they fear they will not find a replacement…the known si preferable to the unknown.
Convenience.
I’ve written on the only kind of monogamy…
concerning female promiscuity and their hypergamy impulses.
High IQ females, of average and above attractiveness, need to find someone on their level or higher - preferably - to feel feminine…to submit to sexually, because sex is intrusive.
The higher their IQ the harder ti is for them to find such males - especially in a society enforcing monogamy rules.
If such a woman finds a high IQ male - who is also relatively attractive - she tends to be unable to justify leaving him, for any reason, given the odds of finding another like him.
Weininger had the formula right…
Masculine/Feminine traits harmonize with those who are inversely proportional.
He neglected to include the factor of self-love, which is fundamental.
Self-love, and the over-underestimations that may ensue, adjusts the Weininger formula.
Are you aware that Japan has a problem with young males not being interested in women?
Are you not aware that marriages are dropping, divorces rising, and western males are not losing their virginity…as they once did.
We appreciate what we’ve got…but dream of something more…always.
We fail to act because we fear our dreams and hopes will not be realized.
We fear what the world will say…we fear what the one we appreciate will think of us.
Age is also a factor.
Age…libido…attractiveness, self-esteem, masculinity, ego…all of it.
They did an experiment once and injected testosterone into birds that were monogamous, by nature…the one injected abandoned its mate.
That’s why Negroes tend to be more promiscuous, and if they are not religious, tend to not establish families for long.
This is the model we’re supposed to imitate…as the ideal democracy.
This is who we reference to believe that race is a social construct…and so is gender…and all biological identifiers contradicting their American individualism.
The vote of these people determines the fate of mankind.
The map you posted is insultingly low-res, but the dots look pretty sparse in other countries as well, Canada, Western Europe and other places look really sparse as well. Probably a lot of people in western nations don’t know where Iran is?
And your criterion is where it is on a map? That information is relevant because? If it was a sci fi society and there was other planets, do voters need to know how to map the star charts, to have a political opinion?
What matters is this
" 56% of Americans say they disapprove of President Trump’s handling of heightened tensions with Iran, according to an ABC News poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs.
Why it matters: 52% of Americans said the Trump administration’s decision to kill Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani in an airstrike makes them feel “less safe,” despite assurances from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top officials that the U.S. is safer with Soleimani gone."
56% don’t approve. That’s what matters. But we don’t have a democracy we have a Republic.
Anyway I agree the american political system is garbage and needs an overhaul, no more first-past-the-post voting systems, no more duopoly, less bribery in elections, etc.
Therein is the problem. You speak for a group of which you are not part.
What is your goal here? By repeating tired racial commentary? Do you have any original material?
We get it. Or perhaps I should say I get it. Most people are irresponsible and thoughtless. That is not news. Reminding us of this each day will not improve it.
American politicians are openly admitting that their defense of Israel is biblical…but noooooo, it’s the Qataris and the Chinese…an d those damn Russians controlling the US.
It’s the Pope…and those Catholics behind it all.
Tell me what group of people is protected from criticism, in such a way?
It’s not a foreign lobby…
What lobby group has such a privileged position in the US, where it does not have to register as a foreigne lobby group?
Nooooo, it’s the Catholics…you know the Catholic lobby’s power?
Yes…and the Chinese and their powerful lobby.
Which senators show such biblical passion for china and Catholicism?
“Blessed are those who…” defend China?
Defend the Pope?
Defend the Vatican?
You claim to speak to a majority, you claim to hold up a mirror to reflect their degeneracy in hopes of evoking change. Yet by your own standards and statements the mindless masses are unable to alter course.
The brainwashing is yours, which you attempt to disseminate through quasi-philosophical means. You have been heavily indoctrinated by the Military Industrial Complex, the largest criminal organization in the world, to the point of distorting basic concepts such as respect and disrespect.
You’re ridiculing one of the very things that separates humanity from the rest of the animals. Sophisticated romance and expression. Most other animals just stick it in. Actually that’s what most humans do.
How strongly do you support humanity, really? When you seek to denigrate the very things that make humans what they are?
You strangely assert that respect is rooted in anxiety. No, respect is rooted in appreciation. Anxiety relates more with disrespect than with respect. Anxiety acts in response to perceived stress or in preparation of perceived conflict.
Respect is positive, not usually associated with anxiety. Disrespect is negative, often associated with anxiety. This is basic stuff. Propagating nonsense serves no benefit. With your approach you’d have people interpreting disrespect as respect. Not good.
You do not seek to advance or improve the species. You seek to complain.
