For the luls why else.
whatever trixie, you’ll read up on it when you’re ready. I’m not saying it has to be flawless immersion, I’m saying it has to be only good “enough” to make it a better proposition. Again, there’s a convenience, safety, comfort and versatility factor. As the tech gets better, the incentive for reality will be reduced on an ongoing continuum. But i guess it’s easier to think in binary terms for every fucking thing, pun intended.
equal my friend, jesus. Look. Scientists, philosophers, artists, visionaries are wrong all the time. I think Newton was wrong about a few things. Einstein was wrong about a few things. Aristotle. Hume. Kant. The list of these geniuses being wrong is endless. But that doesn’t mean I’m not impressed by the way you think, how creatively you think, how quickly you think, and how well you argue. Your system is novel, sophisticated and well developed. I don’t have to agree with it to think you’re a genius. Neither of us have the hard data to support what we’re saying. If we did, we wouldn’t need to debate it. At this point we’re debating on intuition, making analogies, hypotheticals. I don’t think Karl Marx had a huge amount of data. He was a genius. He was also wrong. Freud, genius. Probably wrong.
@ equal2u.
You believe in reincarnation. Okay. But that does not justify your „sexocracy“. You do not want to be frustrated. Okay. But that does not justify your „sexocracy“. The reincarnation and the frustration are the false premises, the „sexocracy“ is the false conclusion.
“Sexocracy” will always show a bad situation, much worse than the current one.
Your „sexocracy“ lacks too much of what human beings are with all their hopes, fears, desires, dislikes, and so on. Humans are more than sexual beings.
I have read some posts of this thread and picked some of them that also show some aspects of the reasons why your „sexocracy“ is based on a proton pseudos:
In the following way some posts from the woman with the lovely kitten:
[tab]
[/tab]
Some other posts:
These quoted posts do not show all of what your ideology of „sexocracy“ lacks, but they show the most important aspects, namely those I also mentioned in my posts:
Your „sexocracy“ lacks too much of what human beings are with all their hopes, fears, desires, dislikes, and so on. Humans are more than sexual beings.
you can say this to Marx about communism, or plato about his republic, you can say it to obama about his left wing ideology or reagan about his right wing vision. you can say it to arafat and gold meir. you can say it to hitler and MLK.
all these people are outliers, and with the exception of hitler, geniuses. all of them were wrong to some degree, and they were wrong while still being intellectually honest. they weren’t wrong in every way, and they were right about a lot, too. i am not comparing failures like marx with ethical figureheads like MLK. I’m saying that a well-meaning genius can be wrong.
on a forum like this, i actually would rather have a genius be wrong than a simpleton be right. EQUAL2, I think you’re an asset to the community. Even if you’re wrong, you’ve brought up so many great issues, and your debate that has yielded so many interesting points.
for instance, you made me realize and admit that lack of fulfilling sex with attractive partners is a kind of hell, you forced me to rethink just how important sex is, it’s quite nearly a human need, almost like food, medicine, shelter.
Sex is unique. Other than reproduction for species survival, it’s not an individual survival requirement, but it’s also not merely a want.
It’s in my opinion somewhere between a want and a need.
For this reason, and you made me realize this, it’s the PERFECT thing to debate with regard to whether the state has a moral obligation, and an economic incentive, to play a part in fostering the fulfillment of this thing that is somewhere between a need and a want.
I think it’s a bold hypothesis. I think your only misstep perhaps is your tone. You have repeatedly been curt and inflexible. You have compromised your credibility, because I now know that I can set my fucking watch to you disagreeing whole hog and in a smug way with every single thing people say. You act as if you’ve thought of everything and that nobody raises good points. You don’t seem to think anyone has anything useful to say. You’re not really looking for a collaboration.
You have a belief and you’ve become this guy with a rifle who picks off anyone who comes near it. You refuse to acknowledge the potential of your own bias, the fact that your theories are thickly, densely colored by the very real pain, neglect and alienation you’ve felt, losing your hair and having trouble finding love. You are the ayn rand of institutionalized fucking – and every bit as arrogant and unyielding and cocksure. Like Rand, you completely disregard empathy for your dissenters. When people tell you they experience sex differently, you tell them they are WRONG. I assume you know you’re being a dick and that it’s kind of a fun act you’re doing. But maybe you don’t realize it, so if this comes as a shock, I’m sorry. And if you think I’m wrong…well, i might be. This all might be my own insecurities talking. I don’t think it is, but I’m open to the possibility. But in my experience, the more secure I’ve become in life, the less i’ve believed and acted the way you are.
The people here actually could like you if you’d let them. I know you enough by now to know you’d say being liked is not your goal. But it’s true anyway. You could be liked, respected, and have a bigger impact that way, here, and in any book you write. Because you are so much more than just some bitter horny guy who’s way smarter than most people know. You’re more than the 2-dimensional guy that you’re coming off as. And this sexocracy idea is more than just a two-dimensional dream of govt issue sex. That’s why I’m here talking to you.
i also care about the problem – the problem that YOU have brought to my attention. I care about the solution, too. But I think real solutions can best be found as a team.
PS: sorry about the hair comment. it sucks when it first happens, but show me a guy with a hot chick and i’ll show you a guy who doesn’t give a fuck how he looks. just saying. and don’t give me this weird head shape bullshit either. nobody notices your head shape except you.
I know humans are more than sexual beings. Sex is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the Sexocracy. The Sexocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises sex.
Obama is a left wing genius? I’d say he’s a right wing idiot, just a standard American President.
Generally people need it to be happy.
The Sexocracy is about making a better world for everyone.
None of those people you mentioned are geniuses. To be a genius you have to make a breakthrough. Darwin was a genius, Newton was a genius, Einstein was a genius, Crick was genius, Oppenheimer was a genius (although he brought us something we would be better of without, but the breakthrough was always going to come from someone sooner or later). They were all geniuses in their fields. Crick and Darwin in biology, the others in physics. There has never been a genius in morality (and there has never been a genius in politics and economics, because to be a genius in politics and economics you need to be a genius in morality) until now. I am the first genius in morality, and morality is the most important field of all, that’s why I am the most important human being that has ever lived. We live in a dangerous world, because Oppenheimer’s genius in physics arrived before my genius in morality.
I wasn’t intending to get involved in this thread again. I didn’t think it would restart. I intended to concentrate on my book. But writing my book doesn’t provide the instant gratification a discussion forum does, so I get drawn to this thread rather than my book. However this thread doesn’t make me money. My aim is to make money from publishing my book so I must concentrate on that rather than this discussion forum, even if the forum is more fun. So I’ve set myself a deadline. From the 1st of September my participation on this site will end completely until my book is completed. So if anyone wants to communicate with me here they need to do it this month, because after that I’m gone for a while.
I am the first genius of morality. I thought of Sexocracy when I was a teenager. I figured it wouldnt work out because of social and cultural circumstances.
Humans are more than sex. That is the point of Sexocracy, to get people to stop obsessing over sex and focus on their true potential. Once they are sexually satisfied they will stop putting sex on a pedastal and have more freedom to explore other things.
Needs aren’t independent from other needs. So if you want to sexually satisfy a man you must also satisfy all of his other needs. Sounds weird?
If you want to sexually satisfy me you must give me a good wife and a good family and a good social circle then I will be sexually satisfied because sex will have much deeper meaning than otherwise. Otherwise, you may satisfy this one need, but you will leave me feeling empty afterwards.
You are a genius, period. A genius of everything and anything. No bigger genius ever lived nor will ever live, we all bow down to you, blessed be the name of Trixie.
wikipedia.
i guess we’re both right.
It is like saying: (1) “Money is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the plutocracy. The plutocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises money.” (2) “Work is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the workocracy. The workocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises work.” (3) “Love is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the loveocracy. The loveocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises love.” (4) “Music is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the musicocracy. The musicocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises music.” (5) “The Demos is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the democracy. The democracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises the demos.” (6) “Nobility is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the aristocracy. The aristocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises nobility.” (7) “A king is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the monarchy. The monarchy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a king.” (8) “A drug is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the drugocracy. The drugocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a drug.” (9) “War is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the warocracy. The warocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a war.” (10) “Machines are the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get them. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the machinocracy. The machinocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises machines.” … And so on, and os on. … The world is full of such examples. … It is always the same error - and always based on a proton pseudos.
Sex is not the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s not the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s not why it’s called the sexocracy. The sexocracy does not fulfill all human desires, it just does not prioritise sex. … It is just the same old ideology with the same old old error - based on the same old proton pseudos.
And by the way, equal2u:
Equality is not the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s not the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s not why it’s called the egalitarianism. The equality does not fulfill all human desires, it just does not prioritise equality. … It is just the same old ideology with the same old old error - based on the same old proton pseudos.
The forces of evolution have primed our sex drives to be extremely powerful. The more powerful the sex drive the higher chance that the organism will pass on its genes. That’s why sex is a fundamental desire. Evolution has made sexual desire powerful, not work or love or music or money.
There are other “drives” and desires that are more important than sex. Do you not know them? Do you not breathe? Do you not drink? Do you not eat? Is there no metabolism in your body? If not, then you are no living being. 
And there are many people who prefer, for example, work or love or money, not sex.
There are even people who hate sex, for eaxmple Anna Nicole Smith who said “I hate for men to want sex all the time. I hate sex anyway”.
And Pandora even thinks that the “straight male … will end up below a gay man-whore”.
That you would write this just proves you are not reading what I write properly- see next post.
I’m not responding to you anymore Arminius. It is a waste of time.
You are the one who does not read what other ILP members write in this thread. If you had read the text of other ILP members, then you would have learned a lot. But you have not. … Pity.
That is nonsense. There are many other desires where you don’t actually die without it. And if you had read my posts properly, then you would have known this. One of my posts (try to read it properly):
Equal2u, I am afraid you will never learn the right basics.
Are you again frustrated, my boy?
I have given you all the informations you need in order to understand that your “sexocracy” is nonsense - based on a proton pseudos.
Other humans desire money, work, love, war, lierature, music, sports, machines, a healthier life, a happier life, and many other pleasures - but not or not necessarily sex.
Are you from the UK? If so, then - please (!) - realise that the Victorian era is over!
Queen Alexandrina Victoria (1819-1901).
i have to agree the arminus is now wasting time and many of your detractors are wasting time.
I wonder if sex-ocracy is the best title. it seems to be saying sex-rule or a sex form of govt.
I feel like sex is just one component of social service. I don’t see how this is in any way sex-rule, sex govt.
the name is a going to come off as a misnomer or an overstatement, again, like a bad 1970s sci fi exploition film.
not sure what a better title would be.
i also think if you’re writing a book, you seem to be in trouble, because to write a book that sells, in an area of
intuition, isn’t merely about the points you make. you have to empathize with the reader and their objections.
You have to preempt their difficulties, and instead of shutting them down in blunt fashion and with varying degrees of convincingness like you do here, you need to step into the readers’ shoes, figure out what it’s like to be the other guy, before you can change their minds.
many of the objections raised in this thread are fairly valid. and when visionaries seek something unusual, it’s ok to be uncertain as to whether it will work, whether people will take to it.
I don’t think you should give up the project, or waiver from your convictions. But i think you need to practice the spirit of empathy with your readers and stop thinking that you have to be committed to the point of blind obedience to your premise. that’s not the best way to think or sell these days.
it will be seen as a pathetic attempt to be like nietzsche or something. won’t work.
it’s possible that you just use this place to test ideas, and you’re blunt out of necessity – you don’t really care what people here think, they’re not the ones buying the book. Fine.
If einstein got hit by a train on his 15th birthday, he still would have been a genius. You don’t need to have a published breakthru to be a genius. And einstein might have had a friend or mentor, who just by virtue of talking to him and seeing how his mind leaps from A to D without need for B and C, could have deduced he was a genius. I think you’re a genius, but I think you have a long way to go before you can package something worthy of the name.
All your “sexocrats” are wasting time. Your “idea” is not new. Those with that “idea” were, are, and will be wasting time.
Your “project sexocracy” is foredoomed to failure. It is based on a proton pseudos.
All typical Jacobean “projects” are foredoomed to failure.
Thanks, Gamer. Maybe I was too harsh on Arminius, hopefully he will read this and think again. I’ve thought of ‘biocracy’ as an alternative title because it is a ‘bioharmonious society’ that exists in relation to our fears and desires as biological organisms. What Arminius doesn’t seem to understand is we are all formed by evolution, which is all about the propagation of our genes, and that’s why evolution has made sexual desire a fundamental desire. And it’s the word ‘fundamental’ that Arminius misses. Of course we desire literature and music, but evolution hasn’t primed us to have fundamental desires for those things alongside our desire for air as they are far less important to the propagation of our genes.
Another important aspect of living in harmony with nature is living in harmony with the various substances that alter us physiologically, especially the substances that give us access to pleasurable experiences even greater than what we can achieve through sex, so ‘narcocracy’ is another option. However I’m going to stick with sexocracy to emphasise the importance of the sexual service providers and the sacrifice they are asked to make and the importance of rewarding them above and beyond anyone else in society in recognition of that sacrifice.
I’m explaining the psychological processes behind mainstream thinking about sex work and recreational drugs.
I empathise with my detractors. Usually they just don’t like that I’m smarter than them and they’ll use every intellectually dishonest trick in the book to try and get one over me. For the ultimate example of this see what happened at the end of my ‘legalize heroin’ thread. That includes moderator’s abusing their power to beat me when they can’t do it intellectually. By the way where is Only Humean? I would have thought he would have issued a few of his ‘incivility’ warnings like he usually does.
I came here hoping that my Sexocracy ideology would go viral and I would become a world famous philosopher and then I could use my fame to generate money as well as make the world a better place. Obviously that hasn’t happened, that’s why I’m writing the book. You’re the only reason I’m sticking around here now, Gamer. Because you’re an unusually bright spark for ILP. But once this month ends I’m out of here until my book is finshed.