Who in the end puts order?

Hi all,

When you have a group of people and you give them money, but also it happens that there are no laws that this group of people follows specifying how violence plays out, so that violence isn’t the law in the group, then people in the group follow violence, and whoever masters violence, this one in the group people follow and then people built an economy around this one, regardless who you want to give money to, but regardless how violence in the group plays out, and…

regardless of the time…people in the group want to play and have fun in their lives from their nature, or when people in the group don’t want to have fun in their lives, then their lives are not fun, and then their lives are meaningless to them in reality, as nature doesn’t seem to have a reason to make a not fun life meaningful over and over…and over in time…as it wouldn’t be really funny for the one living such a life, would it really?

At the moment of birth of one of the people in the group, another one from the group has to be there, meaning another one has to be there to give birth to one, and another one is free after giving birth to kill one, but that doesn’t make sense for another one to do at that moment, as the nature of another one is to want to raise one, and one has to understand, that regardless the nature of another one, nature’s law is another one is really free to kill one, at the moment of birth.

When you have a group of people where violence is the law, over and over and over in time, in order for this group to sustain all the violence in reality, some are needed to give birth to the ones to commit violence from their nature, and some are needed to do that so that there are some still left, after all the violence is committed, and that happens by some deciding together who is not fun in the group, [b]so that the rest in the group show to the ones who commit violence against the will of the ones who can give birth from their nature how…

…MAMA in the end puts order.[/b]

Supposin’’ mama knows money is mostly funny.

MAMA does know…

Some of you say that money is the store of value, medium of exchange, unit of account online (Wikipedia)…

Tell that to your girlfriend/spouse/mother in law after you give her money, and the way that you do it increases the time and effort she has to spend to have fun,

Is what I say to you, and also…

You think you are funny?

Nah, you ain’t funny yet.

In the end, what’s the summary?

Nature is a lady…

Whatever we do with money, the way we do it has to not ignore the time and effort that we have to spend to do it, otherwise…

Whatever we do with money, the way we do it may ignore the time and effort that we have to spend to do it, but in this case…

If in the end, whatever we do with money, the way we do it may ignore the time and effort that we have to spend to do it, then it doesn’t seem to me that if we want to do whatever we do with money, again…and again…and…again…that we can continue to ignore the time and effort we have to spend to do it, and continue to really have fun, does it seem to you?

Justice is blind, and…

After girls, someplace sometime, have ended talking to one another and have together decided, they point out the ones who are not fun, and the rest show them how…

…MAMA in the end puts order.

memes.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/19fc … 54197a15e1

when you have an argument player, reply else, this isn’t an argument player, this is just your opinion man…

Your MAMA’s so phat their mind is everywhere.

Hi BIF, remember me? I’m going to have to approach this one the same way I approached your Economics fun, fair, and square, dissecting it into its pieces and asking questions of each one. Fortunately, I don’t need to question the structure–there isn’t one–or rather, there isn’t a different one (different from how most posters write out their thoughts). So we can get right into the content.

First, when you say “…there are no laws that this group follows…” and “…violence isn’t the law in the group…”, it seems to contradict this: “…people in the group follow violence…” Do you mean to say that when a group of people start out (in nature, in the wild), there are no laws and there is no violence (yet), but the first thing they will do is commit violence?

Second, tell me if this is right: whoever masters violence, they become the alpha and everyone follows (or heeds to) this person, forming a proto-society in which an economy starts to emerge. And while you may want to give money to someone, you are bound by the rules/laws of the society, determined by the alpha, which might prohibit giving money to certain people or mandate giving it to certain people. Is this right?

Tell me if this is right: people naturally want to have fun, and if they don’t want to have fun ('cause they’re busy being serious or dealing with something unpleasant), their lives are meaningless. It isn’t in nature’s interest to make an unfun life meaningful, at least in the long run (this is how I interpret “over and over”). The person wants to get back to having fun and so his time spent not having fun is temporary (assuming he succeeds in getting out of his unfun state). This is the nature of human being, and so it is the nature of Nature herself.

You tell me if this is right, BIF: It is in the nature of mothers to want to raise their children rather than kill them, even though they are free to kill them the minute they are born.

And finally:

Even though a culture may be ruled by violence, some must be kept alive and left relatively unharmed in order to give birth to the next generation of people so that the violence can continue after the first round of people have killed each other off. Now this part, I’m unclear on: “…and that happens by some deciding together who is not fun in the group…” Do you mean they decide to kill off those who are not fun? And this is so that the rest of the group (who? The ones who have fun? Or the ones who aren’t deciding?) can show the ones committing violence that MAMA puts order. And when you say, “…against the will of the ones who can give birth…” do you mean the ones who can give birth (women?) fight against violence committed on them, or just that they’re against violence period (they don’t will violence at all). And in what way do they show the ones who commit violence that “MAMA in the end puts order”? ← This last part seems to be your conclusion and the main thesis of this thread–that mothers are the ones to set order for societies. Correct?

Overall, I notice very similar themes to the ones you brought up in Economics fun, fair, and square–money, time, repetition, and fun. And I’m guessing the bold is the main crux of each paragraph. Please let me know where I’m warm and where I’m cool.

Please and thank you.

No I mean to say whenever violence becomes the law in the group, rather than common sense.

No, the most competent in the group according to others is the most violent in that case, and others follow that one regardless what you think.

Nature’s interest is to make it possible for life to have fun and any given moment in time in reality.
Whether life can do that depends on whether life makes sense of reality, in reality.

They are free to kill them when they are born, regardless of what they think.
Because mothers who did kill them found out they were free, other mothers simply chose not t.

And finally:

I mean that in order for violence in society to exist only when there is no other way due to the previous actions of people in society, violence has to be decided by those who make people in the first place.
Cause those who make people aren’t violent unless they really have to, or else they can’t keep on making people and keep making sense, if they start killing them senselessly.
Men on the other hand never had that problem, read history. Which part? Well, most parts of it…

Hi BIF, sorry for the late reply. I’ve been engaged in other things for the past couple weeks and frankly couldn’t muster the motivation to post at ILP.

So then you must be saying that people, more often than not, fall back on violence as the primary mode by which social interactions play out.

Well, that makes sense. If violence is the norm in a group, then competence = most violent (or rather, whoever can most skillfully effect violence).

So how do you figure? There are many examples in nature of species not having any fun at all in their struggle to survive. If you’ve ever seen March of the Penguins, you’ll know what I mean. The rule in nature is that those who survive barely survive. It’s a rare exception that a species masters survival so well that they can afford to have a little fun once in a while. Though, by the same stroke, this means that nature aims to produce species that can master survival well enough for “fun” to be a thing for them. It’s tough but it can happen. ← Maybe this is what you mean.

So a mother who chooses to spare her child’s life thinks “I could never kill my child,” implying that she doesn’t have a choice. But a mother who does kill her child thinks “Oh my God, I killed my child! I didn’t think I had it in me,” implying that she realizes it was a choice. Is this what you mean?

Ah, so you mean that since mothers choose to let their children live (and it is a choice), they are pro-life (not to be confused with the position on abortion) and anti-violence (though keen enough to know when violence is necessary). Men are not like this. They are far more prone to choose violence than women (even when it’s not necessary). It raises the question: if men had babies, would they be more likely to kill their offspring? Or would the fact that they have offspring make them less prone to violence?

Well, I’ll tell you my thoughts. Overall, I think men are more prone to violence as it is a well known fact that men are more aggressive than women (and I don’t think this is cultural conditioning). However, I think your argument is an awkward one, to say the least, and I don’t know if if it works.

First of all, that mothers typically don’t kill their offspring is more a consequence of the way evolution wired mothers to treat their offspring. Obviously, it wouldn’t bode well for our species (or any species) if mothers could easily kill off their offspring willy-nilly. Mothers definitely have a hard wired instinct to love and take care of their offspring. But this doesn’t necessarily entail that their position on violence is rooted solely in this (though I think there are strong influences). At most, it speaks of a mothers relation to her offspring, not her relation to people in general and whether or not to be violent towards them.

Second, I scoff somewhat when anyone brings up the point that obviously women would make better political/social leaders than men because men happen to have a history of blood and violence on their track record when playing the role of political/social leader. Women haven’t had enough of a chance to prove themselves. Men still out number women by far in the sphere of politics and governance. There are very few examples of female political leaders on the world stage that we can refer to as examples of how women do it better. I think it remains to be seen whether there would be significantly less war, violence, and bloodshed if women dominated the world stage as political/social leaders. They may turn out to be just as violent and maybe even more so (I doubt it–I think women would be slightly less violent and war hungry than men–but not by much–but what I think is irrelevant to what would actually happen should we see a decent number of examples). And even if women turn out to be significantly less violent and war prone than men when put into positions of power, we’d also need to see if that could be sustained. It could turn out that political/social leaders, when less violent and war prone, regardless of their sex, tend not to be as successful (I can imagine a more violent, war prone contender simply snuffing them out). I think if women were given the chance to rule the world and exercise more peaceful and friendly approaches to governance and leadership, it would have to be couple with additional skills in order for their reign to be significantly long lasting, skills like knowing how to do business (such that those she deals with see the incentive to continue this arrangement of peace and friendliness) and diplomacy and negotiation (such as to convince those she deals with not to turn to violence and war), etc., etc., etc.

In short, I have absolute faith than women would make more peaceful leaders than men, but only slightly (as you said, she would know when violence is necessary and I worry it is necessary far more often than we’d like to admit). I have less faith that this could be sustained for any significantly long period of time on a historical scale.