Consent is well defined and is self evident for all beings (for themselves).
All a being has to do in reality to figure out if it’s perfect or not, is ask themselves if their consent is being violated. If it is, they know that it’s not perfect.
You cannot steal that test from everyone by making it a “contraption”
All contraption means to you is: “how dare you use definitions on me!!??”
Iambiguous, you’re absurd. You’re not a serious thinker.
Many people on these boards think that you’re a troll
Now here’s a fine example of exactly what we were all told not to bandy about, to not bandy about deeming others a troll… just because they either don’t agree with us, or we fail to understand their complexity-induced responses, or both.
The only ones that call others a troll, are the trolls.
Sure, if you assume your own definition of all the words you use in all the threads you post on reflects the self-evident truth, then who am I to deny that this is what you believe? I don’t doubt at all that it is as objective as you have fiercely convinced yourself you need to be in order to establish it as true. Whether it goes back to a comprehensive understanding of existence or not.
And, further, if you believe those who disagree with your definitions are frauds [or trolls], then this too need not be in sync with a comprehensive understanding of existence. That you believe it is true will have to do.
A just-so story is unverifiable.
You can verify that reproduction is physiologically directly more costly to female humans than to male humans, and it is logical that natural selection would select those that behave as though it were true over those who behave as though it were not true.
For nature to select those who behave as though this weren’t true, as much as those who behave as though it was true, there would have to be no reproductive consequences for incurring more cost from reproducing, which requires a transcendence of nature that we’re only part way done with achieving.
At the very least, females are born with finite eggs and pregnancy takes a longer amount of time and uses up more resources than a male has to deal with. At the most basic quantifiable level, it would be on average far more possible for a male to reproduce many more times over than the female. This objectively makes an r-species strategy far more viable for a male than a female. Obviously this doesn’t mean that r-species strategies are always best for males (or even females), as evidenced by the variety of strategies that occur in nature and even that you rightly point out occur amongst humans. By your own logic, I don’t think it’s reasonable to force all the alternative strategies that humans adopt into the k-species model. There are plenty of species that fit far more into the pair-bonding model, with low sexual dimorphism, than humans - and plenty that fit far more into the tournament species model, with high sexual dimorphism. Humans on average probably tend more towards the k-species extreme than the r-species, but they are in between - and as you say adopt either, and sometimes phase from one to another over the course of their lifetime.
Tallness empirically emerges cross-culturally as a signal of male sexual desirability. This is far more than Ecmandu’s other two “objectifications” of money and large penis, which are more concerns of insecurity than fact. Penis size isn’t a sexual signal as it’s not part of the sexual displays before the act has already begun - at most it might have some effect on preventing female promiscuity after the initial act. Money is also limited in its effect on perceived sexual desirability in males, as its more of a symptom of what’s desirable rather than desirable in itself. Women don’t just want money from a male, they want good genetics to pass onto their offspring and a reliable signal that money now will still be money later. Tallness appears to be a far more reliable signal to this end, but whether or not this is part of why tallness is cross-culturally sexually desirable in males, the fact remains that women want a male who is at least taller than them: the definition of sexual dimorphism, even if other species are more extreme in this sense. It’s still true that sexual dimorphism in humans isn’t that pronounced, but it’s definitely there.
I didn’t mean to imply that this means there’s only the one narrow strategy that this most simplistically leads to for males and females respectively, only that the mean tends towards what Ecmandu was saying about his “Three Abuses”.
There is variation of course, especially in a socially and intellectually advanced species such as humans.
r-species strategies are still tended towards more in males, more in less developed countries and more in younger humans. k-species strategies are more socially acceptable and more clearly displayed, though probably still more common than r-species overall.
You will notice that the role of sex here isn’t to have many offspring, but for any given pregnancy to manipulate the maximum nurturing investment to make up for the greater physiological cost of reproduction to the female.
This fits in perfectly with what I’m saying.
The males here are being tricked and prevented from acting out more of an r-species strategy if they wanted to. They aren’t preferring to invest in the woman’s offspring in the case that its another man’s offspring. They might even want to pair-bond exclusively, but are likely being being prevented from that too - over their own offspring at least. There is also evidence of competition between opposite sexes at work here - either benefitting from tricking the other in the best way that they can get away with. This is in addition to competition between members of the same sex to mate with particular members of the opposite sex. The example you gave is in favour of the most physiologically costly female role in reproduction as I explained.
Viable but not necessarily optimal. Pair-bonding benefits the female more than the male - restricting the male to concentrating on just one female’s offspring instead of any others that he could do at negligible physiological cost from the reproductive act, which makes state monopoly over violence an inherently matriarchal institution, much to the benefit of less physically dominant males as well. But the opportunity cost of this strategy is lower than the more “barbaric” tournament species model at the current point in human history. The comparative advantage of higher numbers of less competitive male genes is higher for us than for lower numbers of only the more competitive male genes. For cultures that allow harems, this isn’t so much the case, and the fact that this more tournament strategy of harems still featuring in human behaviour nicely exemplifies how humans don’t cleanly fall into the k-species classification. These practices are more patriarchal, as more dominant males get to spread their genetics further and more reliably, and females get less individual attention from their offspring’s father than they would if the father was only investing in their offspring exclusively.
I don’t mean to oversimplify all variations to a crude homogenous allegiance to only the explicit core of all these variations, there are complications and overlapping distributions indeed - but they all play around the difference in physiological cost to males and females in reproduction, and they do form trends. They have to, or they will fall by the wayside in the face of natural selection. Natural selection only cares about what works, and is verifiably constrained by physiology in doing so. That’s not a Just-So story, it’s a risk/cost/benefit calculation.
Ear plugs. You’re all on foes. Carleas, Ecmandu (when my perception is one of honesty), Meno_(When my perception is not mired in style), Pedro (when you don’t bitch so much) and ET (when you dream) are the exceptions. And I can actually add a bitter pill.
Setting the props in place and the fat lady singing out of key, are the difference between stage hand and actor. That’s a drama metaphor in case there was question.
One good indicator of a just-so story is that it inadvertently explains phenomena that don’t match observation. For example, you explain the cross-cultural preference for taller men by reference to height as a proxy for health. But from what I can find (see pages 7-10), there isn’t a strong cross-cultural preference for great male height: it’s preferred in western countries, but not universally. There’s evidence that height makes men worse hunters, and women in those societies prefer men of equal height.
It’s true that height preference is found in wealthy cultures, but it’s absence in other cultures suggests that it’s somewhat arbitrary; culture might have instead focused around large ears as their preferred costly signal. And the common preference across wealthy cultures may be due only to the monoculture across wealthy cultures.
You also offer explanations for men’s r-species strategy, but across cultures monogamy is the norm. It’s true men tend to be more promiscuous, but the reproductive strategy of most humans, male and female, involves significant parental investment. That’s even true in societies where polygyny is practiced; a few wealthy men may have multiple wives, but most will be functionally monogamous. Men’s strategies are more r-species like than women’s strategies, but moth men’s and women’s strategies are predominantly k-species.
That’s true. That’s true in a lot of human cultures, and in some non-human primates. Doesn’t that make sexual choices somewhat detached from reproductive considerations?
I think this is inappropriately value-laden; neither the men nor women in these cultures know why they have the culture they have, they have prescientific myths to support their practices. The men who participate, to the extent their behavior is genetically influenced, must also benefit, or else their genes would not have been passed down. If this cultural practice persisted over a long time (which I believe it did), it must be a stable equilibrium in evolutionary strategy for both the men and the women who participate in it.
Similarly here. The goal for both is to get their genes into the next generation, pair-bonding is an equilibrium strategy that balances the interests of both parents. And since roughly half of any person’s relatives and descendants are male and half female, over time we should expect the strategies to be neutral, because women are hurt in evolutionary terms when their male descendants are hurt. The fact that monogamy is the predominant form of human sexual relationship suggests that it may actually be an optimal strategy (though this is a bit in tension with my arguments above about height; it may likewise be that this is a cultural artifact of a globalized monoculture [EDIT: thinking more about this, I think it would still have to be neutral, but not necessarily optimal. Please check my math on that]).
I asked Ecmandu this and got no reply, so I’ll try on you:
I’d hypothesize that monogamy makes for stronger groups, and thus groups that practice it tend to dominate, benefiting all their members, even if the practice is suboptimal for individuals (and again I concede a similar argument might be made for height).
This may sound strange to you, but you can call me mr. Natural …
What I mean by this is that “gamy” of course means marriage. I much prefer the term “amoury”.
I ALWAYS tell people that marriage is the conspicuous consumption of relationship proper.
I know many posters have been “around the block” many times like me. If they’re honest, no matter what a person SWEARS to do has no bearing on what they actually do.
Marriage is a sham to this regard.
“So that diverse human strategies work in groups” carleas?
Here’s the deal.
In a self recursive sex dimorphic species, like our own… there are laws. Because of sex dimorphism, male sexual signaling causes much more relative fear than other species. If all women have sex with, is the triggering that relative fear, and AFTER that, women consent, it causes massive psychological problems in a self recursive species that’s sex dimorphic.
Women are basically begging for their consent to be violated.
Mowk asked me what I was doing to reduce our carbon footprint … this is a joke, the least of our problems right now. The biggest problem is poisoning our food and water systems.
That’s not adaptive. It is also the definition of male ornamentation - destroying the ecosystem to pump one more ejactulation into women.
People talk a lot about about survival strategies and evolution - this is bullshit.
Silhouette saw through it. Carleas, do you actually think you’re making the world better for your offspring or your offsprings offspring etc…
Well having a freedom of speech board is a good start.
I think you are using most of these terms in an idiosyncratic way, so that it includes what would in normal parlance be called ‘dating’ and ‘love’ and ‘mutually enjoyable sex’, things that people are open to or actively seeking out (here styled “begging for”).
But you should realize how this reads. Using words that are normally reserved for deeply traumatic things to refer to things that aren’t normally considered deeply traumatic is confusing and counterproductive.
Are you familiar with the motte and bailey fallacy? That seems to be part of what’s going on, where everyone agrees that consent-as-usually-intended is very important, and you use an idiosyncratic version of consent that makes everything nonconsentual, but you still want the moral intuitions attached to consent-as-usually-intended to attached to your idiosyncratic meaning.
No, I don’t. I’m making their lives better, but I am not making the world better. I’m hoping to change that, but right now I’m failing.
That is not an argument against it being a fallacy. It remains the case that the words you’re using usually have a different meaning, and the moral considerations that attach to the normal meanings don’t clearly attach to your idiosyncratic meanings.
If you in judgement of bad, have to regret you’re memories, than what is it really??
I realize now that I could have said to “whatever”, that I could have been a different type of articulation instead of the r word and defined as memories you’ll have to regret, that perhaps we could have started off in a different foot.
Here’s the deal carleas, men say only the assholes get laid. Thus doesn’t come out of a vacuum. They may not know why they keep saying that, but I do.
I explicate it.
Now, the problem here is that they’re projecting onto others what they do themselves.
They are the asshole they hate. “Good guys”, right?
Not even close.
My beef with this is not the brainwashed humans, but with the deities.
The brainwashed humans are a foregone conclusion.
I’ll ask you this: of a being could go back in time and train the humans on how to be a sex dimorphic species with self recursion… none of us would have been born, and this world would be a better place … which implies that nobody in the last 10,000 years would have been born. Would you make that sacrifice?
Then what are you posting here for, If humans are a foregone conclusion?
Train humans? You didn’t say educate, or teach or act as an example for humans. Do you think humans are some pet animal to be trained to walk at the end of a deity’s leash? If you’re going to preach some song and dance about humans treating other humans as possessions then you’ve got to answer the question what gives You the right to ‘train’ a dog to walk on a leash?
Is it OK to own one animal but not an other?
It’s a meaningless question. A “being”? What sort of “being” has that capability? Sex dimorphism is the result of the evolution of sexual reproduction. Why wouldn’t that “being” just go back further in time and prevent the evolution of sexual reproduction? Now if you opened a time portal before, you could do it again and this conversation wouldn’t take place at all. It doesn’t require any of us humans who are foregone conclusions.
If you have a beef with ‘your personal’ deities, (as you seem to be the only one that sees them) take it up with them, and leave us out of it. I’m not sure if your personal deities own you or you own them.
With regard to the carbon footprint question. It is a global problem, that can’t be solved by one person. You don’t address a quarter of my questions, you cherry pick like the rest/best of us.
Poisoning our water and air, is a much greater problem then poisoning human food. Human food is intended for humans. A vast portion of the rest of life on the planet depends on air and water. If you’re not concerned with humans, are you concerned for any life on the planet? Or are you just unconcerned in general? Well I am concerned, specifically.
We’ve landscaped the yard to retain as much rain fall as possible. We plant native plants in our gardens, to clean that rain water, to provide the local wildlife with food. We plant young trees near old trees to replace them when they get too old or are damaged by storms. We have rain barrels we use to water our gardens. We don’t use pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizers. We use biodegradable products to wash or cloths and dishes and floors. We compost as much organic material as we can, and use that compost in our gardens. We promote all the little critters in the soil that help breakdown the pollutants that are fouling our lakes, streams and oceans. The plants that grow here are scrubbing the air of it’s pollutants as well. We recycle or reuse as much building material as possible. We generate as little waste as possible. We respect life all life, and don’t treat it like our property. We have a couple rescued cats, and we haven’t trained them to do one trick. We conserve water, electricity and fuel.
It has next to zero effect on making the world a better place, but we don’t own the world. It has made ‘our’ little tiny piece of it better, and that effect spills out and around just a bit. If you wish to exhaust your time on the planet fighting deities and demons that no one else sees or experiences, go for it. You say your beef is not with us. Then you’re being a hypocrite cause we are the ones getting all of your ‘beef’.
That’s where the consistency in your argument breaks down and becomes irrational. You aren’t going to make the planet any better, you aren’t going to make the world any better, you are going to make us any better, you aren’t going to make life any better, and you haven’t made this forum better either.
How long have you been at this gig trying to make Your deities better? That’s just made us all a looser. Shit you haven’t even managed to make yourself any better.
And that is where it All begins. Get your house in order, before you come bitching about a little dirt in the corners of any one else’s.
Clean up your demons first, that is after all, who you say your beef is with. You’ve stated it a dozen times. That’s the irrationality of your argument. It depends on deities and demons only you see, only you experience. Your anecdotal experiences prove nothing.
Are you certain you’ve gotten yourself out of that hell yet? It sure doesn’t look like it from here.
Mowk, the deities speak through all of you, that’s why I post on these boards.
Yes, humans need to be taught/trained how to be a self recursive sex dimorphic species, why they should be that way.
I’m doing the teaching right now, but I don’t think it’s good enough.
Obviously, I lay out very simple reasoning - the psychological effect of approach escalation in a sex dimorphic species – and you just complain – just like the deities speaking through you are complaining.
Can these deities control every sexual selection to make us no longer sex dimorphic, yes, but because we’re a self recursive species as well, they are addicted to romantic love through us.
In some dimensions of existence, everyone is in everyone.
I’m trying the best that I can to negotiate these terms.
This is grist … which is why I post here.
I’ve been working on my language since 2008, to this regard, my understanding. I’ve had bizarre obstacles over the years. But ! I actually explain this stuff better now than I ever did.
Perhaps both ways of argument cam be shown to have modicum of mean ing.
The very possibility of great literal spunt about the inception of existence is primordial to the questions raised.
If every person were to comment concemt to their existence, before being begotten, of would be a case where the question would sum up into 0. There would occur a negation prior to existential predictions.
Everyone is everyone, concurrence of opinion on this regard would not occur, everyone would simply know what is meant, and future generations naive interpretation would always concur, everyone would say I to being born, no negatives could ever be discerned.
Existence after begotten calls for the judgement of the gods, or the God, would need to be invented in order to escape the nihilizing effect of creative choice.
The absolute identity inherent in a perpetual cosmic creating force can not be interpreted as having some issues with consent , because the predicate of an absolute identity precludes such communications among another, who have an absolute instinctive cohesion based on trust for each other, and they do not realize yet, but such trust is all inclusively a hyperphenomenal mirror, one which preceeds into itself .
This self realization is borne out by religious and philosophical historical notions, along the way, that is why the ’ ‘to be, or not to be’ epithet has become belabored and dusty.
Nothing is violated, it is only an illusive attempt to divide a closed ring, a ring which determinedly violates the question.
Damnation of Faust is inherent here, for it tries to recreate an incessant eternal return, but such is only of the imagination, a useless artifact to support a logical uncertainty harboring existential fear.
But if, the absolute identity is presumed, and every body is increasingly aware if families of resemblances approaching the non discernable difference, then, the preoccupation equally approaches a triviality which gets lost within the confines of the grains of similitude , within the frames of reference into which and , by which it can not help to be recreated.
The two levels of argument echo each other through the ages.
The deities are speaking though all of us? Well there you go again, still stuck in your own little hell. With your own demons, projected onto others, when no one else sees them or experiences them. How convenient for you.
You know there is a difference between the two, don’t lump them together as if they are the same thing. We train “our” pets to perform like circus animals, we teach our young to think for themselves. It sounds like you’ve got a few ownership issues yourself. I asked a question about whether if it isn’t OK to own one animal why would it be OK to own another? You’re still not answering my questions?
You’re not teaching anything. You are preaching. You believe in deities, that’s what people who believe in deities do. They preach.
Your reasoning is dependent on deities. That’s not simple reasoning. It’s worse then Catholicism.
You can’t hang a claim of rational thinking on the existence of deities. Well obviously you can try, but It’s not going to come out rationally.
Says who, your deities? Well when that dimension becomes this one, we can discuss it then.
I don’t want you negotiating for me. I didn’t ask you to, and it’s sort of creepy you think you have that right. Like humans are your property to negotiate as you will. Leave me out of it.
That’s is also an opinion and experience you alone seem convinced of.
No it’s not ever going to be enough until you deal directly with your deities, they are yours and yours alone. If you hear them speaking though me, that is also in your experience alone.
It’s like you’re a freaking religious zealot. “Repent your evil ways”. You are standing on a street corner preaching on a box.
Preachers don’t answer questions either, they simply respond with more preaching.
As long as you are going to hang this all on “deities”, I’m maintaining my position as a staunch atheist. Even while I can agree to some extent with Meno_ thinking that it is an existential question. I’ve seen the dualism playing with itself, the left and the right? If we knew ahead of time what sort of shit bag experience this would end up as no one would volunteer. I have no experience of being asked to join this rat race. BUT I find myself here all the same. Everything gets the same rights to exist as I claim for myself. I am here on this rock, with a lot of other life that showed up on this rock. If I wish any respect from it I’ve got to demonstrate that respect first. And I fuck that up a lot.
Deities can go fuck themselves for a change. I don’t recognize them as individual, not many, not one, not any. But I don’t know it. So I choose to deal with my demon personally. If I believe IT’s fucked up, I let IT know and WE work it out, and that’s how this story is going to end. And if after my last breath on this planet leaves my lungs and I take another, I’ll guess again.
I ain’t training to be shit. I’m lucky if I can get a tomato to grow. I’m just arm wrestling for my sanity like the rest of life is. Don’t give me that soldier shit. I’m a conscientious objector of all things soldier. Clean up my house first, and it ain’t ever going to get clean enough with everyone else shitting in it. Keep me out of your twisted thinking, I’ve got plenty enough of my own.
I can’t even get IT, to provide a few maple boards to finish my floor.