Chipping away at that nebulous concept called world peace

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
41

In response to Stuart saying that he thinks he understand what I’m saying. I said this twice now and it came out mangled both times, not as precisely articulated.

If you had a world (and I actually think this is possible to do) where anytime a person moved to perpetrate a physical act of aggression on another person, they would instantly be teleported to a prison cell, then you would no longer have any form of physical violence between humans, all rape and beatdowns and murders would cease to be.

However, you would still have verbal bullying and many forms of unfairness like framing people for things that didn’t do to make them look worse than they are etc… and you would still have social stratification. In this world, the female suicide rates would effectively be ZERO. Because what the female heaven is, is the ability to give most of their sex to assholes and have no killing or rape.

What happens in this scenario is you still have mass male suicides from the FEMALE sexual abuse that occurs right now. Males will still be committing suicide for the same reason they do today, and it is because women are more psychopathically oriented than males. Their heaven set point is on a plane that is more psychopathic than the male heaven set point… because males distribute their sexuality in ways that don’t cause severe existential depression about all of existence on the same scale that women do.

That’s the simulation I’ve ran hundreds of times, and it always solves the same… female heaven, mass male suicides. All that the men are asking for is that women distribute their sex with the same courtesy that they do for women! sigh Give the least bullying males the most sexual choice instead of the opposite. sigh Until women extend men the same courtesy that men extend women to this regard, even what seems like an ideal world, will actually just be heaven for women and hell for the best men.

42

I’ll probably insult you with this.

Some time ago, a member posted his idea of a meritocracy very much like yours. You may be the same person.

The earlier member wasn’t banned that I recall. His thread died through lack of interest, just as this one is dying. No one agrees with your ideas. Most of us seem to want you to go out there into the real world to find a real female. Lots of luck. But if you, by any chance, find someone close to what you’re looking for, I hope you’ll be able to screw her into the ground–then roll her over in the clover and do it again. Then tie her, spread eagled, to a bed, table, floor, whatever, and do it again and again and again.

She’ll probably die from such treatment, as the Chinese women did in the rape of Nanking, but you may be sexually satisfied–for a while.

Good luck. Enjoy.

43

He’s talking about a major cause of death for millions, and I assume that he is thinking only in terms of advocating lawful changes. Basically he’s advocating furthering egalitarianism.

Think of it this way; let’s say there was no welfare for those who can’t work and someone came online talking about all the poor people dying for lack of welfare and proposed that the people who work hard should help. I could insult him by jumping to a conclusion about what his method would be to solve this by saying that he thinks people should be beaten half to death with a baseball bat then have whatever cash is on them stolen for welfare, but that would be a ludicrous tactic. Obviously in that scenario what he would have in mind would be a form of taxation.

Now if you honestly equivocate taxation to the extreme example then I can respect that, after all people do sometimes feel like they’ve been robbed after paying taxes. But basically, I believe you should equivocate virtually everything that the government does for the sake of egalitarianism as an utter violation of people’s rights before you insinuate that Commentary is suggesting the same.

44

Thoroughly enjoyable OP. Good that stuart could de signify the basic Freudian take on the discontents of civilization.

There is a little used Freudian notion which has been neglected where the “Freudian economy” seems to have rebounded as at least an appropriate, albeit little vague idea .

The concept indicates some relevance of economic principles correlating with the I’d.

The battle of the sexes goes on, and the more I read the more I am starting to think in antithetical terms of less being more, small better, as a preferred consumate solution.

Men have a very tough time with identifying themselves as men, and women never had that problem to such an extent, of which both economic and sexual predicates play into. Women were formed out of men’s ideas of what they should be like, and it has been a fairly recent set of events which lead to the currnet crisis in sexaul relations.

,What has caused all the confusion of. Relationsal bonding between men and women in todays society?

Even the economic prowess, heretofore man’s exclusive domain has brought about the necessity of forcing women entering the labour market, reversing stereotypical roles. The armed forces go to great lengths to recruit gay soldiers, while women are going to the front lines of battle.

Some men can’t accept these changes, because they have kept themselves to traditional roles. The economy squeezes the hell out of the I’d. There is only so much that can go around in either way.

Although certain women couldn’t wait to get raped by a brute, with no economic qualifications, and some women become prostitutes, , these long standing cultural artifacts also , have been set up to the benifit of man’s world.

I don’t like to agree to disagree, but there is an emerging hypocrisy in the female camp, within those who feel it’s payback time. Whether a man can love a woman like that, is usually in the negative, there being exceptions here also. Sometimes this type of woman remains dissolute and unhappy, ending up in a lesbian relationship, or becoming promiscuous without becoming tied down In order to be able to dissipate their feeling in a controlling, man like way.
They choose parteners who can understand their emotional makeup, and be able to retain the sense of manhood, and transcend the limitations borne down on them by peer, societal and emotional pressures.
If I were asked if there are men with less ego, being able to overcome such reactions, without becoming numb and impotent, I would have to answer in the affirmative. There a an increasing number of Mr. Moms out there,having a satisfactory sexual relationship despite the aforementioned qualifiers.

45

That’s exactly what I’m advocating, but more than just egalitarianism, I’m advocating an ethical distribution. Clearly the way men choose women is having the effect of decreasing women’s violent tendencies because men give non-bullying women the most sexual choice, and it is sexual choice which is the largest controlling variable for these aspects of human inclination. Men are already doing for women what I’m asking women do for men, and I am far from alone here too… you basically have at least 80% of men who agree with me. Of course women won’t simply just do it for men, so I think society needs to step in and realize that this is how sexual selection works and offer some type of merit system to assure that this is occurring for the male side as well. Women can obviously earn merit for having sex with men as well, but because men effectively satiate this part of women, it’s unlikely they’ll be as motivated to claim such a merit.

You have to understand, that it’s not that men are hornier than women or more visual than women, it’s the men are being sexually neglected relative to women because of women, and this is causing the types of things that often women will consider negative male behaviors when they argue that women are more ethical a gender than women. If men were doing the same thing sexually to women that women do to men, the stereotypes would be reversed, it would be the women who were the major consumers of porn and not men etc…

46

This problem with female sexuality is more severe than I think people generally understand. The problem with this form of sociopathy, is that let’s say in my thought experiment, you really had a world where, when someone went to hit another person, that they’d be warped to a prison cell; none of those psychopathic assholes would feel like BAD people for not being able to mangle, rape, mutilate and torture people, they wouldn’t sit there and stew in their prison cells, “Damn, I’m so evil because I can’t rape torture and mutilate and kill people.” The problem with female sexuality, is that women actually FEEL like bad people for giving non-bullies and the most culturally helpful males the most sex and NOT giving bullies the most sex. This form of female sociopathy is on another scale all-together than what we find in men; and they will feel this way even if they know for a fact, rationally, that the male deserves it and there is no excuse for withholding it. They feel WRONG for doing the right thing, which not even the worst male sociopaths experience, women, unlike the worlds greatest psychopathic males, feel dirty and evil for doing the RIGHT thing.

47

Commentary: hi.

I hate to be simplistic, but it may just be, that women are really put together by nature in a different way. As far as sex goes, women may not only differ physiologically, but psychologicaLly and emotionally as well. Whether these kinds of differences dampen and obscure their being analyzed by a non woman, would be interesting to look into. The reason why men and women have so much trouble understanding each other not to mention their periodic dysfunction in the sac, is because men are men and women are women.
Men are more visually motivated then women, is also a validated fact.

Add to this the perpetuation of sustaining long standing conventional roles, it is difficult to argue against the maternalistic, child bearing nature women have been evolved into.

The human male is lucky. Some species’ females kill and devour their mates after the completion of their lovemaking. Who are we to argue with mother nature?

48

Whether males are more visual or not, clearly, men are better at selecting partners than women are when it comes to how to reduce the most brutality and suffering in the species. I actually seek to crush the myth that men select more shallowly than women do in the myriad of ways people attempt to make this argument… men are giving female non-bullies the most sexual choice, and female bullies the least sexual choice and women are doing the opposite for men. I think the way that women sexually select relative than men is having the most impact on what we consider to be masculine traits as opposed to feminine traits. I think that if you had the same dynamic that occurs in this species in the reverse, women would be more violent, they’d commit more suicides, they’d watch more porn and they’d be seen as the shallow gender that is mostly visual. It’s female sexual dysfunction which is causing all these atrocities, all this suffering, all this psychosis and all of this terrible attempt for men to try to cope with something which ranks so high on the scale of evil that it is number one. There’s not one person on earth who committed an existential suicide because of Ted Bundy, and that man was nasty as hell, there are more existential suicides from female sexuality than all of the concentration camps, gulags, dictatorships etc… by FAR. One behavior is undoubtedly more evil, and that’s not even taking into account that all of those people are products of the female sexual dysfunction.

49 
 Again I am in perfect agreement on All of the above. But even as we speak, woman in parts of the world are totally hidden in black shrouds, from which only their can be seen. Didn't they burn so called liscentious women on the stake?  All this is culturally and historically relativistic to be sure, however some would like a disconnect to occur between simple psychological types, and deeper archetypes.

:those who cannot repeat the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

50

I would simply point out that the mass oppression of women comes from sexual choice, I can guarantee that those assholes that burned women at the stake for so called liscentious behavior got laid WAY more than men who didn’t have this type of oppression mentality. Somehow this is changing slightly, but when the sexual revolution came along, it was no more about what may have been seen as the power of men over women, it was about what FREE women chose, and when men saw the horror before their eyes, that’s when the suicide rates started climbing. Like I said earlier, nobody saw Ted Bundy and said to themselves “Wow, that is so evil, I am suffering so much, that I don’t want to even be here, I am leaving.” But you can believe as sure as the sun rises, that when men saw what FREE women were selecting they were like “Whoa, now that’s evil!!! I’m outta here!!.”

51

Both Obe and I agree with you completely, we just don’t share your narrow focus. I think it would be helpful for us to a have a discussion on such terms as “ethics”, “morality”, “merit”, “egalitarianism” and just the general historical context behind these terms. Once that is out of the way, we may accomplish more returning to your original subject.

But, I don’t mind that much if you don’t wish to temporarily diverge. You may be repeating yourself constantly, but I have enormous respect for you nonetheless because you’re saying things (that while only part of the “picture”) virtually never get said, despite those things being as factually orientated as the best of behavioral theories out there.

I think you should recall that the name of this thread. By chipping away I assume you meant disproving its possibility, but you seem to almost think its feasible; either way all the subjects involved with the idea of “world peace” deserve equal time…

Look back at my earlier posts and address some of the issues I presented if you’d like.

52

Well… it’s tough to get everyone to agree on values when discussing morality and merit. I said “chipping away at it”, perhaps it should have been “chipping away TOWARDS the best world peace we can construct” because the idea of WORLD, and I mean WORLD peace is something like: “You don’t digest bacteria.”!!! There are forms of jellyfish that baffle researchers because the act as if they have a central nervous system, but they don’t actually have a type of central nervous system that scientists can currently locate, and I would go so far as to say plants have these as well, so while the vegan considers themselves more ethical than the animal eater, I would simply remind them that their plant is probably doing the equivalent of screaming the way plants do it, as they’re chomping away. The Bible, perhaps the worst book ever written has the commandment “Do not murder” but people are in such vast denial, that somehow over tens of thousands of years, probably only 100 people figured out that eating a plant is murder, who actually realized, un-narcissistically, that that plant wasn’t born because it’s so happy to nourish us, as the native cultures believe.

So… WORLD peace, no. Is it about not suffering? Suppose I decided to stop eating plants to prevent their suffering? Well… then I suffer!

Clearly there are problems with the idea of world peace. What about a mitigation philosophy? From my perspective, the perfect system makes suicide as easy as it possibly can and has a suicide rate of zero. That’s moral perfection in my book when it comes to humans. Of course I don’t believe in the torture of other animals as well, and other animals rarely abstract suicide, although some certainly have… cats and dogs are famous for refusing to eat food or drink water when their friends die. Although it’s a bit speculative what this represents to them, but clearly animals lower than us are capable of vast emotional variety… I once heard a woman validating her eating of animals by simply saying “Well, they don’t have souls.”… even an idiot can tell when a cat or dog is sad.

People live in vast denial about all sorts of things… the thing I think people are most in denial about is how sexual choice determines behaviors. Because my ideal measuring stick is perfectly easy suicide with a suicide rate of 0, I focus on suicide, and most the suicide in the world, even females ones, are caused by some male asshole getting laid way more than the 1.5 percent of men who behave impeccably. Even the assholes know they are the good guys, the joke seems to be on the women, you should watch how those assholes wink at nice guys when they get laid and the nice guy doesn’t, HA! I bet women didn’t know about that shit! Seriously, as a guy, you can literally walk down the street and ask a million men, (not as a woman because they’ll lie to you to get you to have sex with them) “Do male bullies or male non-bullies get more sex during the male sexual peak?” Almost!! every single one won’t hesitate for a second and say “Bullies” or The assholes get it most", I’m talking 98 percentile or higher… I mean seriously, the joke, which has no humor at all, is on the women, because whatever they seem to be thinking that they’re arguing, men know for a fact is BS.

53

Suicide as the measuring stick of a harmonious society; its not a bad idea. I think you should make a thread with that premise alone and just see where it goes.

As for the issue of vegetarianism, I honestly find it strange that you would even use that as an example, and do you actually feel sympathy for plants as well? I think you’re too kind hearted. Even I have given thought to the suffering of animals from time to time, but I just don’t think the topic of animal welfare has any business being in the same sentence as human welfare.

54

Case in point… and I have asked hundreds of men this question, I was sitting with a guy who lived in a separate apartment where I stay, and he was there with his girlfriend and we were talking about this, and without even flinching, he said “The bullies get way more sex than the non-bullies” and then he looked at his girlfriend and started to squirm from the look on her face, and then tried to pass it off “Well, whatever, that’s what I thought I saw, I could be wrong though.”. The thing is… as women believe they are walking down the street as very upstanding, nice people, is that men KNOW this. At least 98% of them think this thought once a day as they look at women. It is so incredibly traumatic that men try to ignore it, even if they resent their girlfriend who gave 30 assholes sex and then settled down with them, while they had 4 partners at most, they don’t want to talk about it, because they don’t want to lose their girlfriend, or their sexual choice with women. It’s the unspoken understanding of men that assholes get the most sex, the nice girls too, the sweet ones. They get the most sexual variety and men know this. I’m stunned that it even needs mentioning actually, but seriously, that’s how strange the world is, that an entire gender effectively knows something that another gender doesn’t know, and for some bizarre reason, refuses to tell them.

The only reason I’m so passionate about it is because of my moral philosophy of human perfection… perfectly easy suicide with a zero percent suicide rate. If I didn’t have this passion for this moral philosophy, I probably wouldn’t care about this either, I would just do what the other guys do and shut up about it. I do think some guys go too far with their beratement of women and their generalities, but I would simply point out that this pathology does stem from something that is actually occurring.

I suppose I wanted to articulate that further.

55

And I thought you wanted some sort of vengeance. But, it makes sense that you do this out of compassion. Actually, now that it think about it, this subject is getting some attention is the mass media. Except of course they cowardly omit the conclusion; that it’s the equivalent to genocide.

Personally, if I was to be worried about revenge I would be spinning trying to count the number of people I could associate as having harmed me, so I drop the subject. Neither am I compassionate as you are; I don’t care that genocides have been committed and I only care about modern ones for as long as it takes me to get out of the area it’s taking place in (or in the silent genocide through suicide you speak of; I stop caring as I’m not personally suicidal). My interest is the advocation of honesty.

With that said, honestly, the number of other things both genders have been made ignorant of due to egalitarian ideology is very vast, if not comparably worse. Before egalitarianistic thought became as rampant as it has, most women did understand that what they sought was those who were most capable of violence. Society may one day wake up from this horseshit egalitarian ideology, but that will only mean that most women will once again be honest about their desire to reward violence and their apathy towards those who commit suicide; it won’t actually stop the suicide from happening.

So with that said, we must go back to your merit system. I honestly don’t see how it can be implemented, nor do I have any interest in helping the cause, but I definitely would like to hear more about the details. Perhaps in time you can elaborate on the details more and write a hypothetical “plan of action” towards convincing people to accept and help implement into legislation your merit system.

56

It’s genocide to be sure, but unlike other genocides, this one specifically targets people with the most conscience. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that if you had easy, socially sanctioned, instant, painless methods of suicide that the number of men would increase by 2000% to something like 20 million a year, if not more. If not, even, a lot more, and the female rates would go up as well, perhaps by 500%, but not at the same magnitude. I agree with your general statement that women select men who they observe are more prone to the type of violence that is only a form of conspicuous consumption and that they won’t care about the best men in the world killing themselves in droves. I don’t think they care now, nor do I think they would care in such an environment. The only thing I think you CAN do to get at the female conscience is to point out that this behavior causes rape and war, which apparently females don’t want either, fortunately, especially war, because men have sexually selected this tendency out of them, I don’t think they care as much about males teasing and bullying other males, because while they will complain about it, the bullies will be the ones statistically more likely to get their sex, not the man being bullied who stood up for himself, or perhaps shrugged it off. I’ll tell you the truth about men… if they are getting laid like crazy, but everyone is talking shit about them, they DON’T CARE. A whole school could be teasing one male except that he gets all the sex… and then they would stop teasing him and start acting like him.

Anyhow, I think it would be very easy to prove that sexual choice is causal for sexual abuse, and only then, do you have leverage, because women don’t like to be raped either, well most of them, if not, perhaps all of them, even though 46% of them have highly erotisized rape fantasies which subliminally can be very confusing for men, which men only experience as repulsive when they have such fantasies, but that’s very taboo as well. The men who are doing the most to prevent rape, by not trying to turn the female no into a yes, are the men who get the least sex, which is perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this whole thing, that the guys who are doing all the right things, don’t get laid.

I’ll think more about a sexual merit system, though that is a truly expansive topic!

57

Just to comment on this further, this ability to appeal to the female conscience only works when there is still rampant rape and war, not that I’d ever advocate such things, particularly rape, maybe war if it’s self defense. I actually think it might be technichally feasible to implement a system that monitors when people are going to attack others and teleports them to a pre-made prison cell. In this environment, there is no way to appeal to the female conscience, their suicide rates would be close to zero and the male suicide rates, if the environment was more condusive to suicide would still be like 20 million + per year. Once such a system were in place, it would effectively be a world where if a good man was born, he’d commit suicide, which is very much like this one, except you have no leverage to try to appeal to the female conscience, so that would be the way of the world until it’s end. You could try to get at women through technological arguments, that they would get better technology to improve people’s abilities if these men weren’t suiciding, but that might be too long term for them to abstract the value of it… I do think there is a connection between sexual selection and technological innovation, but that’s another topic entirely.

58

Life, if you aren’t doing it right, you will be doing it wrong.

The media has an incentive for poopooing on the idea of world peace; “Since we can’t be in charge and also arrange world peace, then world peace isn’t important”.

So on come the internet drones promoting its insignificance.

59

James, I think you’re out of touch with the mainstream media. The mainstream media does gives the perception that world peace is a possibility and that yuppies and anyone whose white should take the time to help this project by doing donating a pittance here and there and volunteering in useless endeavors or wearing ludicrous ribbons.

Seriously James, when is that last time you watched cable TV or looked through a magazine?

Commentary, I think Minorty Report was the worst movie ever made; ten minutes of that movie would turn anyone suicidal.

60 
I agree Stuart: and besides, who wants real peace nowadays?  Conflict is so built into character that it would be a dull world without it.  It's conflicting to hassle with the 9-5 rush to and from work, so we express ourself through road rage violence, by rationalizing that it's far better than taking it out on the wife and kids. That's one example, and there are countless others.  A better move to watch that makes more sense in respect to today's social character is It's a mad mad world or it's sequel.

We are an angry frustrated people. The only difference between us and our English brothers is, that 2000 years of culture has enabled them to develop a stuff upper lip. We are simply put quite mad and living in a Lewis Carroll inspired world. This is why HG Well and Orwell and others made futuristic plans, the consequences of which we are yet to completely fathom. The media is not the cause, they are simply making a living out of a golden opportunity.