That’s not true… if most suicides are homicides (which they are) then they get to move on to a better place either through death, or by removing themselves from an abusive environment. Assuming the cosmos is ethical. If it’s not ethical, then it really doesn’t matter one way or the other.
Well… anyways, I have to work on a ranch for a few days, so I’ll be out of touch.
Point is people living in your “utopia” won’t know that. They won’t believe suicide is a gauranteed cure-all for their problems, nor will they blindly assume the universe is ethical. Therefore, their lack of suicide is not necessarily reflecting a sense of internal joy or love of life.
You’re saying that this population won’t abstract suicide? They’re sentient beings Trixie, the abstraction of suicide is what defines sentience. Non-sentient beings don’t abstract suicide, and thus meaning. Of course it is, if they didn’t love life, they’d just leave through a suicide clinic. It’s the threshold that defines utopia.
I already explained that. You expect people to religiously believe that suicide will gaurantee them a better life. Though it is popular with Americans your utopia will not gaurantee rational minds will not put blind faith in it.
Therefore, lack of suicide cannot be reliably or scientifically correlated with actual contentment or happiness with life, because there is a such thing as rational minds, who don’t put blind faith that suicide will cure all of their problems.
There are people who are non-psychopaths in a world of 7 billion psychopaths… when you’re in an abusive relationship, you walk out the door, the only way to walk out of that abusive relationship is suicide… it’s perfectly rational. If some man or woman is beating you all the time, you leave the relationship and they stop beating you, very simple logic.
Let me put it this way Trixie… if someone is a beater, the statistical odds that you’ll keep getting beaten is 100%. But if you leave the relationship, it is no longer 100%. If the entire world sucks to you, the odds that it will suck to you are 100%, but if you leave that world the odds are no longer 100%.
So yes, I’m right and you’re wrong, and I have to leave for the ranch now.
You’re arguments are retarded. Number one you state women crave abusive partners. So why would they even walk out the door on one?
But the second argument is when the sillyness begins. Most people don’t believe the world sucks 100 percent, and a rational mind would not leave it because there is no gaurantee “in writing” that the next world would suck any less. It would be a gamble, an the rational mind would rather change what he or she could about this world rather than gamble on the next one, which might even be worse than this one.
You cannot judge the quality of life of a utopia, by means of suicide rate. All you can ascertain is the complacency of life. And to do that you would add the values of total suicides+total activists and divide that by the population, to get the percent of non-complacency. (100 percent being zero complacency, and maximum misery, 0 percent being vague, either total happiness or total misery (but with complacency) or a mix of both.)
Some women crave abusive partners, others just crave assholes who aren’t physically abusive. Well… the second argument isn’t silly, because you’re dealing with 100% for sure to perhaps less than 100% for sure. You are wrong, I am right. I am not retarded, nor is my argument retarded. Complacency is a nonsense word to describe this discussion… people who stay have a vitality for life.
You cannot judge the quality of life of a utopia, by means of suicide rate. All you can ascertain is the complacency of life. And to do that you would add the values of total suicides+total activists and divide that by the population, to get the percent of non-complacency. (100 percent being zero complacency, and maximum misery, 0 percent being vague, either total happiness or total misery (but with complacency) or a mix of both.)
Equation
(total suicides+total activists)/population count=percent value
1/1=100 percent=maximum misery
0 percent is ambiguous. It does not neccesarily mean happiness, it could mean subjugation, laziness, fear of death (the unknown) or complacency.
You cannot have subjugation when the suicidal tension is zero percent, and complacency would cause suicide when the suicidal tension is zero percent… the only thing that would survive is vitality for life… and let me make this clear, it is evil to have high suicidal tension, and it is evil to do things that facilitate suicides with low suicidal tension.
Zero suicidal tension doesn’t mean that laziness comes into account. And your last, fear of death or the unknown, can be figured out through probably of how abusive you think life is (just the the wife or husband that beats their partner). You were wrong about approach stratification not causing suicide, and you are also wrong about this… but in light of this discussion, it looks like I’ll have to make a video part 2 for this topic. Sometimes it’s so obvious to me, that i forget how little people actually know about this.
Approaching zero percent. Youll never have a world with zero activism or suicide.
You could have a low rate if people, having rational minds, knew there was no gaurantee that they would have a better experience after death. Or if people were simply too stupid and lazy to do any activism, the equation result would approach zero percent. While less suicide usually indicate a better quality of life, it is not a scientific and measurable gaurantee that life, is in fact, better. This is what you fail to understand, and what you also fail to understand about sexual stratification.
Suicide is due to a variety of factors, and sexual stratification is only one factor.
Second example you should probably understand is a real world example: Living in the desert. Someone might live in the desert, miserable alone and scarcity of resources, but because it is the wild, he wants to strive on, because keeping oneself alive is humanity’s natural instinct. A man living in the wild, alone and with scarcity of resources, has low quality of life, but high drive to survive. Your methods of determining absolute quality of life are not absolute nor are they grounded in science or reality.
You have to at least resemble the masculine gender in composure and the sort of actions you’re inclined to. Women like men with cars because they know men like cars. They know if a man has a car, he’ll be happier and less of an asshole. Or perhaps simply more gallant, which works best in combination with being overbearing and a bit of an asshole. They have to now you’ll spank the kid if he’s hurt her feelings.
That is not why women like cars. They like it because “OOO! Shiny”, because it feels fast and gives them a thrill to ride in, and because car rides are romantic. It’s also a status symbol and makes them feel socially superior to others. Also it has practical transportation use.
Those are all peripheral issues. The main issue here (not in a discussion about women owning their own cars) is that the car is an attribute of the man, an extension of his body, of his power, and thus of his ability to provide comfort to the woman.
But generally speaking, cars are cool, regardless of how this fact fits within any psychology.
This is my first mobile message, so apologies if it comes out weird. Sexual stratification and the asshole problem is the leading cause of suicide in the world, it even indirectly contributes to female suicides, and even the existential angst of not seeing a terminal illness to the end. That’s why it’s critically important to address the issues of sexual politics, because suicide is the only rational metric for health or sickness of a species.
While that’s true, it’s not reflected in your original message.
presumably you mean ‘there’ not ‘here’.
Wow, thanks, Gamer. Everyone has their own intellectual landscape. In my life I’ve been very stupid many times. I’ve done two very stupid but thankfully fairly inconsequential things in just the last few days. But I’ve become the greatest genius that has ever lived and I hope to demonstrate this with the book that I’m writing which I hope to have completed and published in 2016.
I want sex with beautiful young women. I’ve made them laugh and that does not lead to sex in my experience. The Sexocracy is about treating sexual beauty as a precious resource that needs to be exploited for the well being of humanity, for men and women, gay and straight.
The Sexocracy is not about changing society just so I can get ‘pussy’. It’s about creating the optimal society for human beings where war and poverty are eliminated and crime is greatly reduced and where all the systems of society are superior and the health and happiness of human beings worldwide is greatly improved. To maximize the happiness and minimize the suffering of all sentient beings. I wont be getting involved too much in this thread anymore as I’m concentrating on my book. I just saw the new additions and thought I’d say I’m still around.
Sexocracy? Pussy isn’t free. Never will be.
We cannot have an equality of the sexes in that inequality of the sexes is a very lucrative business for one sex concerning social biological reproductive investment.
Can’t stop that secondary income money maker! Pfft!
Laughs in the background