Antidepressants (SSRI) Make Females Unattractive, Provoke Male Aggression

Catcream

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
62
Location
New Zealand
It’s not about feeling safe here. I feel very safe . But I feel saddened that more and more people on this forum are abusive and , yes, misogynistic, a word I use for the first time in this hmmm, discussion.I merely ask - Why does someone feel they need to use the phrase ‘whore moans’ in response to someone’s post? Why would they do that? I really don’t understand .
 
Last edited:

Ashoka

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
191
No, you added that in there. I clearly stated that what partners do they are responsible for, but that doesn't change the fact that women as a whole in society today are encouraged to not take any responsability for their bad choices. Again, women are the sexual gate keepers. No one forces them to have babies with men they even know would be bad fathers and skip birth control. You can make all the excuses you want, but it doesn't change that fact which you and much of the feminine society as a whole wants to ignore. Also, in the end, if you keep going back to abusive people then you bare the responsability as well when it ends in violence. It's called blowback. Talk to the CIA about it because they know a lot about it as well. And you can call it victim shaming, but many people are victims of their own devices. And if people don't learn of their silly choices then perhaps shaming them can be necessary. Shaming can be a good and effective tool to chastise people from their bad choices. Our society no longer shames people for dumb decisions that affect society as a whole and that may be part of the problem. If someone runs around sleeping with people and they know they have ebola and it becomes a trendy thing, their families should shame them for their stupidity because they aren't doing it to themselves any longer, but to others as well.



No, just that buzzwords like sexism are way over used as an excuse for peoples intellectual deficiencies when they realize they either have no good argument or that their argument lacks substance or truth. I don't look at societal problems through a Peat lens. He is good on diet but I think he is dead wrong on his ideas when it comes to things outside of diet. For example, his argument on the non aggression principle was nonsensical and built around strawman-type arguments. Yes, I said many men today are acting like women. Women on average are more emotional and as a result are subject to being more easily offended by things. I wouldn't say it is bad that they are more emotional. Thats how they are naturally, and it is good actually within the natural context, but when it is mixed with SRRI's and a toxic culture, then it can be bad just like male aggression can be used for good or bad. And in todays environment, in the wrong context, it is a issue too. But men shouldn't be as emotional and easily offended by things as women today are. And women shouldn't even be. I don't think women were always like this on average. I think the culture has made both sexes this way, in many of the negative aspects. But women are more emotional nevertheless and the toxic aspects of culture has channeled that into them being too thin skinned I believe. But if you want to argue women today are not overly sensitive then I have a bridge to sell you. They clearly are. I think many men can attest to the fact that it is like walking on egg shells around them at any female dominated work place, where many of todays women who take these SRRI's work. Say the wrong thing or the right thing in the wrong way or a way they perceive is bad and it's time to raise hell. I think this is one of the reasons less men are going to public colleges in many parts of the West as well. Just look at how many women today overreact when you point out the simple fact that they are more emotional. Were you alive 20 years ago? Because just 20-30 years ago women commonly would joke around about being more emotional than men. They know it. Yet now if you say this truth look at how many women react to that. What changed? Women are clearly more easily offended if someone as little as that which they knew to be true and joked about is now all the sudden not true and somehow sexist to say just a few decades later. There are so many examples like this that anyone who was alive just a decade or two ago can remember. You think saying that is bad, but I don't care. I think it's truthful and truth isn't bad. Truth just is...it cannot be bad or good. The words I used such as "gynocentric" are not taken out of context because it's provable that the laws favor women more than men for many of the same crimes. And the society today largely encourages women to not take responsability. I could go on, actually. I would say women are more depressed now days because they've been indoctrinated to try to be more like men rather than being their feminine selves. They are in fact shamed for that, if they're not more like men today. No more do both sexes need to compliment each other, the culture says, but rather, try to compete.



No, it's simple logic and math, and laws of physics, really. We live on a planet of finite resources and we cannot continue on in a system that requires exponential growth. Human population growing requires more finite resources. Some of the inputs to this system are not renewable like trees are and take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to renew or replenish, etc. Once the easy sources are depleted, population stops growing exponentially like it has. To overlook the way the human population keeps expanding and wasting non-renewable resources because of silly emotional arguments isn't an argument. Most people today including economists have not the slightest clue as to how dependent we are on a select few of these finite resources and some of these are now in terminal decline and once that happens, it's back to the dark age. Yes, that is right. The dark age at best. And no, technology won't save us because technology is not a resource or raw input, but rather, requires raw inputs. We are in fact so close to having things turn upside down in the world that all these current silly problems people complain about, they will be wishing to return when they or their descendants at some point inevitably have to deal with it.

I just think it’s kind of a sad juxtaposition between being the aggressor in an abusive relationship and the decision to remain in a relationship. To put these under the umbrella of responsibility in the same paragraph seems bizarre. The emphasis should be placed on stopping abuse from happening, not blaming a victim for ending up in what often is an unexpected circumstance.

If a woman wants to look made-up/attractive in public, she shares the blame if someone assaults her? We can say a person is responsible for their safety to some degree, but it does nothing to advance the discussion on where the culture needs to be if we can’t express ourselves in a basic way or enter relationships without a threat of abuse. It sounds ridiculous to blame anyone for being abused or assaulted, unless that’s actively what someone is searching out. (Even then masochism in that sense is bizarre, and doesn’t seem like an actual issue.)

All of the instances I can personally think of that involved abusive behavior would have been incredibly difficult to foresee. If a woman wants to leave a relationship with a very abusive man, she may find herself isolated and without support, and then as per one view, possibly shamed. It can’t be liberally simplified into “they must take responsibility”.

I don’t really think modern women are thin-skinned, but many are pissed off about real and perceived injustice. People want freedom, not to be locked into a binary that doesn’t adequately describe their experience. Some women are not emotional. If a man tells a woman she’s emotional, there’s a gender dynamic at play where it sounds like he’s telling her she’s inherently more irrational as well. Emotions are often not identified with being connected to rationality, especially by men. So it would potentially anger people to say something like that.

My point isn’t that population growth doesn’t pose an issue. It’s just the idea of “don’t let certain people procreate” is a little tired. I mean that takes on as dire themes as the very apocalypse you’re trying to avoid. It doesn’t sound like a viable political or ecological debate. I think stopping poverty among other things curbs population growth.
 
Last edited:

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
1,490
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
No worries, I actually wasn’t trying to make you feel bad I was actually curious what your thoughts were on the misogyny on this forum. I think a lot of it is subtle, as in the males ignoring comments by women or dismissing them out of hand. And the title of this thread actually gave me pause as I thought it was interesting that the females were specifically “unattractive “ whereas males it just provoked aggression (and we women are ALL attracted to aggressive men, of course!). Perhaps it’s a commentary on the biases of the research community, were they actually testing for male attractiveness in this study? Perhaps they focus studies on what they think will be more marketable. The media is so hyper focused on the way women look whereas with male celebrities it seems to be much more about what they do.
It's because you can't quantify a male bird attractiveness. You can quantify a female bird attractiveness by measuring how much the male ones woo them. As far as men's attractiveness, that is something women decide, so look in the mirror. Male looks have little effect on success with women.

That being said, the "whore moans" statement was unfair, and that guy is being misogynistic. You are right about that.
 

Jackrabbit

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2018
Messages
172
It's because you can't quantify a male bird attractiveness. You can quantify a female bird attractiveness by measuring how much the male ones woo them. As far as men's attractiveness, that is something women decide, so look in the mirror. Male looks have little effect on success with women
Really, you don’t believe a male’s looks have anything to do with his attractiveness? Then why so many bodybuilders? Women tend to find men attractive based on a certain type, just like men do. And there are stereotypically unattractive men and women out there who land mates so obviously both males and females are capable of more than simple animalistic mating behavior based on criteria like “shape is nice.” Perhaps the study cited by haidut is flawed because it fails to take into account the more complex aspects of attraction that humans have. Of course there are people who seem to have pretty basic mating criteria and rituals, but I would say most adults look for more than just a handsome face and chiseled abs.
That being said, perhaps the study shows that animals and humans (because we are essentially animals with more complex brains) shows that we subconsciously pick up on other people’s imbalances, and anyone on this forum would at least acknowledge there is a solid reason to argue that raised serotonin would signal ill health or even mental illness. There is some animalistic part of us that needs to avoid sick people, perhaps as an evolutionary measure, and it stands to reason that high serotonin would be a marker in our biological minds for sickness . So it’s perhaps not so much that the person/animal is no longer attractive in the looks sense, but that the person/animal is setting off some self-protective mechanism. Now humans are capable of actually overriding that mechanism and justifying sex with a sick mate for various reasons, whereas animals are not and are totally driven by their instincts. And the further down the pharmacological pathway we go, the less likely we are to pay attention to our natural instincts. Maybe this whole men choosing to not get married is a rebellion against going along with society because it’s what we’re “supposed” to do. However until there is a more prevalent discussion about the dangers of SSRI then I don’t see how anything will change. The robots of the world who follow society’s demands regardless of its failings will continue to procreate with the chemically deranged, and the intelligent ones will be forced to pay for it all in the short run, however their ( lack of) progeny will not suffer the consequences of a world gone mad.
 

Waremu

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
532
I just think it’s kind of a sad juxtaposition between being the aggressor in an abusive relationship and the decision to remain in a relationship. To put these under the umbrella of responsibility in the same paragraph seems bizarre.
Well, you seem to operate from a different moral compass rather than a more objective one if you think someone bares none of the responsability for choosing to be in an abusive relationship and continuing to go back to them. If someone sees a warning sign in Africa that there is a field of wild lions ahead of them, are they not responsible if they run into the field to play with the wild lions and get killed by the lions? By your same argument it is not their persons fault but the lions fault for acting out on their nature. According to your same logic, that person has no responsability as well for their stupid decision. Clearly that is absurd. No one is arguing what the abuser did was wrong. Your mind for some reason seems to be stuck on that. The argument is whether the so-called victim bares responsability, and they clearly do. There will always be bad people to be in relationships with. Getting into one unknowingly is one thing, but staying in after they continue to abuse you is another.

The emphasis should be placed on stopping abuse from happening, not blaming a victim for ending up in what often is an unexpected circumstance.

And how do you stop the abuse from happening? By 1) Using the law to arrest the abuser, and 2) not being in the relationship with the abuser. Both things a large percentage of abuse victims do NOT do. So then, they are making the choice to not use the tools at their disposal at fighting and stopping the abuse. If you willingly continue to be with an abusive person, and even enable them to abuse you (like many abuse victims do in relationships) by stopping Police from getting involved, then you are no longer a victim in my book. You are more so akin to a person who self-mutilates their own bodies but the only difference is you use others to carry that out.

If a woman wants to look made-up/attractive in public, she shares the blame if someone assaults her?

That's a false equivalence right there. When a woman puts on make up to go out, unless they're in a high crime area, the chances of them getting assaulted sexually or raped are very very low. However, if you see a field of lions and run into it, there is a much much higher chance you will be their dinner. You are comparing apples to oranges here. In an abusive relationship, if the woman has already been abused and chooses to stay in it, it is almost a guarantee that they will be assaulted/abused again.


We can say a person is responsible for their safety to some degree, but it does nothing to advance the discussion on where the culture needs to be if we can’t express ourselves in a basic way or enter relationships without a threat of abuse.

No, not to 'some degree.' They are completely responsible for their safety. No one else is responsible for your safety but YOU. No one owes you anything. You are the only person you have to care about in the world because guess what, no one in the world is really going to care about you in the end when it is all said and done. Just look at how you try to absolve any level of responsability on the females behalf. That is the very key definition of gynocentric. If someone doesn't wear a seat belt and as a result dies in a car accident, then they bare complete responsability for not wearing the seat belt!
It sounds ridiculous to blame anyone for being abused or assaulted, unless that’s actively what someone is searching out. (Even then masochism in that sense is bizarre, and doesn’t seem like an actual issue.)

But that has been my argument all along. Where have you been? A LARGE percentage of abuse victims in relationships DO seek it out. They do not leave the relationship and continue to be in it after the abuse and they even stop the Police from getting involved. What do you call that? They ARE seeking it out when they decide to be in an abusive relationship.


All of the instances I can personally think of that involved abusive behavior would have been incredibly difficult to foresee. If a woman wants to leave a relationship with a very abusive man, she may find herself isolated and without support, and then as per one view, possibly shamed. It can’t be liberally simplified into “they must take responsibility”.

Nonsense. There are many women who see the very bad warning signs in these men before getting with them. It is not uncommon that women have some kind of sick fantasy or fetish for seeking such men out to 'fix them.' Again, this is very common among abuse relationship counselors. I had a family member who was a pretty successful one in her city and over 70% of the abuse victims in relationships not only stayed in the relationship after the abuse, but enabled the abuse and few actually ended up leaving. How is a woman isolated and without support? There are government services to help care for abuse victims in most developed Western countries. There is no excuse for staying in an abusive relationship. Having to move back with your family or live in a womans shelter for abuse victim is not worse than having your life under consistent threat. In the end, doesn't matter how hard it is. If the victim continues to stay in an abusive relationship then 1) there is no excuse for that and 2) they are equally responsible. In fact, in such relationships I don't have very much sympathy for such people like that. They are their own worst enemy.


I don’t really think modern women are thin-skinned, but many are pissed off about real and perceived injustice. People want freedom, not to be locked into a binary that doesn’t adequately describe their experience. Some women are not emotional. If a man tells a woman she’s emotional, there’s a gender dynamic at play where it sounds like he’s telling her she’s inherently more irrational as well. Emotions are often not identified with being connected to rationality, especially by men. So it would potentially anger people to say something like that.

Okay, well you're clearly living in a different world if you ignore how thin skinned so many women are today. That's just not true. What many call 'injustices' today is open for debate and often not actual injustice, and just because injustice is 'perceived' doesn't make it actual injustice. Often 'injustice' is an excuse to enact collective vengeance upon another group collective under the guise of equality of fighting injustice because of prejudice/hatred, bias, or thirst for more power. Just look at all the demands being made by radical feminist groups today if you want to see a good example of that. Freedom is an interesting concept as well. I would argue that most people may say they want freedom, but they do not. I would argue that most people want security over freedom and often most of those who say they want freedom don't have the correct definition of what freedom is and it is really just them wanting to use the force of the powers that be to enact violence upon others only to call it freedom. If your so-called 'freedom' requires restricting someone else's freedom, by taking something from them via proxy violence/force of the state or mob, then it isn't freedom. The argument isn't whether some women were not emotional. The argument is that, on average, women tend to be more emotional. Group averages. Yes, if someone is more emotional, it can mean they are more irrational. But just because it sounds bad doesn't make it not true. And because women tend to be more emotional, in some contexts they can be more irrational. Mens irrationality usually comes from their aggression and competition instinct. A woman who was joining the military once asked me why she can't complete the military physical training exam that men use and why women must have a different exam. She pointed to the requirement for less pull ups and other exercises. I told her because women on average cannot compete at the level of men because they lack the same level of physical strength. She got offended by that. So the truth that women on average are weaker than men offended her. Did that make it untrue because she was offended by that? No. Women on average tend to be more offended by basic scientific truths such as this than men do. these days This is why they now want to reject many basic facts for fear of it offending women. That is how soft our society has become.

My point isn’t that population growth doesn’t pose an issue.

You say population growth doesn't pose an issue, but so what? If I say the sun is purple it doesn't make it purple. You say it poses no issue because you want that to be the case, not because you have a good argument as to why it won't. This here is a good example of irrational debate.

It’s just the idea of “don’t let certain people procreate” is a little tired. I mean that takes on as dire themes as the very apocalypse you’re trying to avoid. It doesn’t sound like a viable political or ecological debate. I think stopping poverty among other things curbs population growth.

Again. All I see is an emotional argument of why you think so. No logic or substance here.

Saying it is not so because it is a 'little tired' isn't an argument.

Many species are at risk of dying out because of human overcapacity and resource depletion alone. So we should continue to kill off other animals to feed a population that the food chain cannot sustain? A lot of logic there. Lets ignore topsoil erosion as well.

You can't fully stop poverty for the most part. Stopping global poverty requires the use of resources that are not available to the whole world. It's an age old materialistic fantasy by failed economic systems like Marxism that continues to push this idea that if we just redistribute wealth then we can solve poverty, but thats an old idea that just doesn't match up to what we know about ecological science, and how it relates to economics and the laws of the physics. Money is a proxy or claim on not just future productivity, but used energy. Most of the so-called wealth today is in the form of credit, not tangible wealth, and it derives it's value from future productivity. This is why it is impossible. Marx and even most capitalist economists (until recently) didn't understand this. The only real solution is for people to stop having so many children in most of the nations of the world. When your freedom to breed infringes on other people and animals, then it is no longer freedom.
 
Last edited:

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
11,629
Location
USA
Thanks, spot on observation.
Btw, I was certain we had posted this study on the forum before but I can't find the thread. Hey @charlie, is it possible for threads from the older forum software to have gotten lost somehow during the migration?
No I do not think it is possible because everything checked out after the migration. Nothing should have been lost.
 

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
1,490
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
Really, you don’t believe a male’s looks have anything to do with his attractiveness? Then why so many bodybuilders? Women tend to find men attractive based on a certain type, just like men do. And there are stereotypically unattractive men and women out there who land mates so obviously both males and females are capable of more than simple animalistic mating behavior based on criteria like “shape is nice.” Perhaps the study cited by haidut is flawed because it fails to take into account the more complex aspects of attraction that humans have. Of course there are people who seem to have pretty basic mating criteria and rituals, but I would say most adults look for more than just a handsome face and chiseled abs.
That being said, perhaps the study shows that animals and humans (because we are essentially animals with more complex brains) shows that we subconsciously pick up on other people’s imbalances, and anyone on this forum would at least acknowledge there is a solid reason to argue that raised serotonin would signal ill health or even mental illness. There is some animalistic part of us that needs to avoid sick people, perhaps as an evolutionary measure, and it stands to reason that high serotonin would be a marker in our biological minds for sickness . So it’s perhaps not so much that the person/animal is no longer attractive in the looks sense, but that the person/animal is setting off some self-protective mechanism. Now humans are capable of actually overriding that mechanism and justifying sex with a sick mate for various reasons, whereas animals are not and are totally driven by their instincts. And the further down the pharmacological pathway we go, the less likely we are to pay attention to our natural instincts. Maybe this whole men choosing to not get married is a rebellion against going along with society because it’s what we’re “supposed” to do. However until there is a more prevalent discussion about the dangers of SSRI then I don’t see how anything will change. The robots of the world who follow society’s demands regardless of its failings will continue to procreate with the chemically deranged, and the intelligent ones will be forced to pay for it all in the short run, however their ( lack of) progeny will not suffer the consequences of a world gone mad.
I did not say irrelevant. But did you know some women consider Eckhart Tolle very sexy? Looks matter, but not much. Tolle is out of shape, dressed like crap, has poor posture and an ugly face. Yet hot to a lot of women.

Anyway, what is missing from the discussion is how damaged men are. That is not the fault of the study or haidut, but the framing has become about women being faulty and that is deeply unfair. Men are unhealthy and messed up too. They have weird ideas about women, lack empathy for women and hate women. I hate women, I know this because once in a while a strange idea about women pops up in my head and I have no idea where that came from. I am quite sure it is a culturally conditioned hatred transmitted via the media. Women have to navigate a really tough place where they are put on a pedestal and simultanously devalued. Men lack the capacity to connect as genuine human beings to women and believe they can purchase women by making lots of money, or via fame or looks. Women like those things, but they really seek human connection which men can not usually provide.

That is the problem with MGTOW, they can not truly connect with women because there is something. Women don't want the "robots of the world" even if they have money. They want men.

My laboured point being, this is a deeply unhealthy society, that has damaged both sexes.
 

Runenight201

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
1,434
Well, you seem to operate from a different moral compass rather than a more objective one if you think someone bares none of the responsability for choosing to be in an abusive relationship and continuing to go back to them. If someone sees a warning sign in Africa that there is a field of wild lions ahead of them, are they not responsible if they run into the field to play with the wild lions and get killed by the lions? By your same argument it is not their persons fault but the lions fault for acting out on their nature. According to your same logic, that person has no responsability as well for their stupid decision. Clearly that is absurd. No one is arguing what the abuser did was wrong. Your mind for some reason seems to be stuck on that. The argument is whether the so-called victim bares responsability, and they clearly do. There will always be bad people to be in relationships with. Getting into one unknowingly is one thing, but staying in after they continue to abuse you is another.



And how do you stop the abuse from happening? By 1) Using the law to arrest the abuser, and 2) not being in the relationship with the abuser. Both things a large percentage of abuse victims do NOT do. So then, they are making the choice to not use the tools at their disposal at fighting and stopping the abuse. If you willingly continue to be with an abusive person, and even enable them to abuse you (like many abuse victims do in relationships) by stopping Police from getting involved, then you are no longer a victim in my book. You are more so akin to a person who self-mutilates their own bodies but the only difference is you use others to carry that out.



That's a false equivalence right there. When a woman puts on make up to go out, unless they're in a high crime area, the chances of them getting assaulted sexually or raped are very very low. However, if you see a field of lions and run into it, there is a much much higher chance you will be their dinner. You are comparing apples to oranges here. In an abusive relationship, if the woman has already been abused and chooses to stay in it, it is almost a guarantee that they will be assaulted/abused again.




No, not to 'some degree.' They are completely responsible for their safety. No one else is responsible for your safety but YOU. No one owes you anything. You are the only person you have to care about in the world because guess what, no one in the world is really going to care about you in the end when it is all said and done. Just look at how you try to absolve any level of responsability on the females behalf. That is the very key definition of gynocentric. If someone doesn't wear a seat belt and as a result dies in a car accident, then they bare complete responsability for not wearing the seat belt!


But that has been my argument all along. Where have you been? A LARGE percentage of abuse victims in relationships DO seek it out. They do not leave the relationship and continue to be in it after the abuse and they even stop the Police from getting involved. What do you call that? They ARE seeking it out when they decide to be in an abusive relationship.




Nonsense. There are many women who see the very bad warning signs in these men before getting with them. It is not uncommon that women have some kind of sick fantasy or fetish for seeking such men out to 'fix them.' Again, this is very common among abuse relationship counselors. I had a family member who was a pretty successful one in her city and over 70% of the abuse victims in relationships not only stayed in the relationship after the abuse, but enabled the abuse and few actually ended up leaving. How is a woman isolated and without support? There are government services to help care for abuse victims in most developed Western countries. There is no excuse for staying in an abusive relationship. Having to move back with your family or live in a womans shelter for abuse victim is not worse than having your life under consistent threat. In the end, doesn't matter how hard it is. If the victim continues to stay in an abusive relationship then 1) there is no excuse for that and 2) they are equally responsible. In fact, in such relationships I don't have very much sympathy for such people like that. They are their own worst enemy.



Okay, well you're clearly living in a different world if you ignore how thin skinned so many women are today. That's just not true. What many call 'injustices' today is open for debate and often not actual injustice, and just because injustice is 'perceived' doesn't make it actual injustice. Often 'injustice' is an excuse to enact collective vengeance upon another group collective under the guise of equality of fighting injustice because of prejudice/hatred, bias, or thirst for more power. Just look at all the demands being made by radical feminist groups today if you want to see a good example of that. Freedom is an interesting concept as well. I would argue that most people may say they want freedom, but they do not. I would argue that most people want security over freedom and often most of those who say they want freedom don't have the correct definition of what freedom is and it is really just them wanting to use the force of the powers that be to enact violence upon others only to call it freedom. If your so-called 'freedom' requires restricting someone else's freedom, by taking something from them via proxy violence/force of the state or mob, then it isn't freedom. The argument isn't whether some women were not emotional. The argument is that, on average, women tend to be more emotional. Group averages. Yes, if someone is more emotional, it can mean they are more irrational. But just because it sounds bad doesn't make it not true. And because women tend to be more emotional, in some contexts they can be more irrational. Mens irrationality usually comes from their aggression and competition instinct. A woman who was joining the military once asked me why she can't complete the military physical training exam that men use and why women must have a different exam. She pointed to the requirement for less pull ups and other exercises. I told her because women on average cannot compete at the level of men because they lack the same level of physical strength. She got offended by that. So the truth that women on average are weaker than men offended her. Did that make it untrue because she was offended by that? No. Women on average tend to be more offended by basic scientific truths such as this than men do. these days This is why they now want to reject many basic facts for fear of it offending women. That is how soft our society has become.



You say population growth doesn't pose an issue, but so what? If I say the sun is purple it doesn't make it purple. You say it poses no issue because you want that to be the case, not because you have a good argument as to why it won't. This here is a good example of irrational debate.


Again. All I see is an emotional argument of why you think so. No logic or substance here.

Saying it is not so because it is a 'little tired' isn't an argument.

Many species are at risk of dying out because of human overcapacity and resource depletion alone. So we should continue to kill off other animals to feed a population that the food chain cannot sustain? A lot of logic there. Lets ignore topsoil erosion as well.

You can't fully stop poverty for the most part. Stopping global poverty requires the use of resources that are not available to the whole world. It's an age old materialistic fantasy by failed economic systems like Marxism that continues to push this idea that if we just redistribute wealth then we can solve poverty, but thats an old idea that just doesn't match up to what we know about ecological science, and how it relates to economics and the laws of the physics. Money is a proxy or claim on not just future productivity, but used energy. Most of the so-called wealth today is in the form of credit, not tangible wealth, and it derives it's value from future productivity. This is why it is impossible. Marx and even most capitalist economists (until recently) didn't understand this. The only real solution is for people to stop having so many children in most of the nations of the world. When your freedom to breed infringes on other people and animals, then it is no longer freedom.

The main issue with a large part of your rhetoric is your assumption that humans are logical beings who derive our values from logical thought and make decisions from logical processes.

We are much more controlled by our limbic and emotional processes, especially when it comes to relationships, and people who are stuck in abusive relationships are quite literally trapped by a complex mix of fear and love, and no amount of logic could ever get someone controlled by such processes to see otherwise.

People seek help for all sorts of issues derived from pathological complexes deriving from emotional/psychological roots. It often takes a huge effort of psychological, emotional, or religious intervention to ameliorate these people. Rational thought will never help, and your arguments that it should are ignorant and do nothing to address the issue.

I think if any one male in the MGTOW movement experienced what true love felt like, they’d renounce all their perverse rhetoric and seek long term pair-bonding.
 

Waremu

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
532
I did not say irrelevant. But did you know some women consider Eckhart Tolle very sexy? Looks matter, but not much. Tolle is out of shape, dressed like crap, has poor posture and an ugly face. Yet hot to a lot of women.

Anyway, what is missing from the discussion is how damaged men are. That is not the fault of the study or haidut, but the framing has become about women being faulty and that is deeply unfair. Men are unhealthy and messed up too. They have weird ideas about women, lack empathy for women and hate women. I hate women, I know this because once in a while a strange idea about women pops up in my head and I have no idea where that came from. I am quite sure it is a culturally conditioned hatred transmitted via the media. Women have to navigate a really tough place where they are put on a pedestal and simultanously devalued. Men lack the capacity to connect as genuine human beings to women and believe they can purchase women by making lots of money, or via fame or looks. Women like those things, but they really seek human connection which men can not usually provide.

That is the problem with MGTOW, they can not truly connect with women because there is something. Women don't want the "robots of the world" even if they have money. They want men.

My laboured point being, this is a deeply unhealthy society, that has damaged both sexes.


Both sexes are 'messed up', not just men. It just manifests itself in different ways, and sometimes similar ways.

Most women DO want mates who make good money though. It's called hypergamy and it is common among female animals. Most marriages have a higher chance of ending in divorce if women make more money than the man, according to the statistics. And, women initiate most divorces and financial reasons are one of the main concerns.

And hypergamy isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Women via natural selection have these desires (hypergamy) to 'marry up' because raising children in environments were resources are plentiful makes for a successful marriage and family life/child rearing.

The problem is, in our current society, hypergamy in that context can have a bad outcome when it comes without responsability being equally balanced with freedom, and the state stepping in to often replace the father in the homes. Women, particualry in poor and lower income areas, are incentivized to have babies actually with bad men due to welfare/government programs. So it becomes a toxic mix. And then babies are born with single or no parents. That clearly isn't good for society now is it?

A lot of men I have noticed grow up being taught many lies like "finding the one" and romantic love, but when they see how the world is and how their experience with women really are, and that most women or society respects them for being decent or 'nice' guys (I do not mena nice in a creepy way here), they grow very cold. I also think a lot of men who are of higher intelligence have a harder time relating to women and men in general as they're coming from different universes, so to speak.

I think MGTOW has a lot of correct ideas. Much of its ideas are actually not new, but have resurfaced because much of it was lost knowledge. But you can find very good historical writings from centuries and even thousands of years ago that talk about many of these observed differences in the gender/sexual dynamics and how it relates to the overall society. Also, I don't think most men have the life experience or experience with women to truly understand the intellectual aspects of MGTOW philosophy.
 
Last edited:

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
1,490
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
Both sexes are 'messed up', not just men. It just manifests itself in different ways, and sometimes similar ways.

Most women DO want mates who make good money though. It's called hypergamy and it is common among female animals. Most marriages have a higher chance of ending in divorce if women make more money than the man, according to the statistics. And, women initiate most divorces and financial reasons are one of the main concerns.

And hypergamy necessarily a bad thing either. Women via natural selection have these desires (hypergamy) to 'marry up' because raising children in environments were resources are plentiful makes for a successful marriage and family life/child rearing.

The problem is, in our current society, hypergamy can a bad outcome when it comes without responsability being equally balanced with freedom, and the state stepping in to often replace the father in the homes. Women, particualry in poor and lower income areas, are incentivized to have babies actually with bad men due to welfare/government programs. So it becomes a toxic mix.

A lot of men I have noticed grow up being taught many lies like "finding the one" and romantic love, but when they see how the world is and how their experience with women really are, and that most women or society respects them for being decent or 'nice' guys (I do not mena nice in a creepy way here), they grow very cold. I also think a lot of men who are of higher intelligence have a harder time relating to women and men in general as they're coming from different universes, so to speak.

I think MGTOW has a lot of correct ideas. Much of its ideas are actually not new, but have resurfaced because much of it was lost knowledge. But you can find very good historical writings from centuries and even thousands of years ago that talk about many of these observed differences in the gender/sexual dynamics and how it relates to the overall society. Also, I don't think most men have the life experience or experience with women to truly understand the intellectual aspects of MGTOW philosophy.
You read too much bitter losers, and it is rubbing off on you.
 

Waremu

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
532
The main issue with a large part of your rhetoric is your assumption that humans are logical beings who derive our values from logical thought and make decisions from logical processes.

You did not understand my 'rhetoric' then because that is not what I said or imply. Quite the contrary. I don't think most people are logical beings and they operate mainly off instinct and emotion. That nevertheless doesn't change the fact that people shouldn't strive to look at things more objectively, however. I do think a good percentage of humans are capable of it if they try. So it's not that simple.

We are much more controlled by our limbic and emotional processes, especially when it comes to relationships, and people who are stuck in abusive relationships are quite literally trapped by a complex mix of fear and love, and no amount of logic could ever get someone controlled by such processes to see otherwise.

I think for many people, they have to learn from the experience of others, and some have to learn from their own experiences more than observing things. I do think people have the ability to look at things objectively, but I just think they're a minority of people in the world. Thats the main problem. But nevertheless, we are the most intelligent of beings within the animal kingdom and we do bare responsability for not being more objective. And if we ever want to progress (which I have doubts about), we will have to grow out of excuses of having more animalistic base instincts and learning to not operate in that dimension within that context.

People seek help for all sorts of issues derived from pathological complexes deriving from emotional/psychological roots. It often takes a huge effort of psychological, emotional, or religious intervention to ameliorate these people. Rational thought will never help, and your arguments that it should are ignorant and do nothing to address the issue.

Here are a few facts:

1) The world will continue to spin with or without you
2) Your problems and you are not the center of the universe
3) The world does not care about your problems
4) The world is bigger than your problems
5) When you die, your problems and thoughts will vanish with you to dust, and the world will still go on
6) No matter what your problems are, there will always be someone out there who is dealing with more or worse problems than you, so you are not unique in that regard

Given these points, to say "we are broken, poor me, thus I will continue to operate off my most base animalistic instincts" and not strive for better, and thus I have no responsability to strive to operate in a better dimension, is what is ignorant here and I think you show that well. It's like the appeal to nature fallacy many people make, where just because something is natural it is then good and should be.

If we had that attitude, we would have never made the advancements in science that we have made.

But the point is, if you want to continue to operate on emotions, and just because many people do, doesn't mean it is good. The world is survival of the fittest, whether you like it or not. And in the end, it is only those who strive for greater things instead of making excuses natural selection will favor. Those who make excuses to not strive for greater things will just fade away.

I have no obligation or responsability to tell people what they want to hear, but just state the facts. They have their own house to clean if they so choose to do so.


I think if any one male in the MGTOW movement experienced what true love felt like, they’d renounce all their perverse rhetoric and seek long term pair-bonding.

MGTOW isn't a movement. It's a philosophy/set of ideas. The acronym is newer, and as with any set of ideas or phenomena, people from all walks of life will latch on to many of those ideas, but the concept of MGTOW has always been around, actually. I think you don't at all have the slightest understanding of many of the core ideas. You say it is because they all have 'perverse rhetoric', but I'd say it's likely because you're not a very experienced man who has been out in the world and experienced and observed human nature and gained much wisdom in that regard because MGTOW ideas is a compilation of a lot of wisdom and truths only one who has done those things can truly understand. Men who are not very experienced in life and people likely will see MGTOW as something weird and foreign as they operate from a simplistic childish-utopian-blue pill lens type of view of the world. This is why I wouldn't even try to waste time explaining MGTOW concepts to such guys. I can usually tell from a mile away that they're operating in a totally different dimension and, if they so choose to be open to learning those ideas, in most cases, it will take a lot of life/world experience to make many of the concepts 'click' to them.
 
Last edited:

Waremu

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
532
You read too much bitter losers, and it is rubbing off on you.

It's not bitterness. Life just happens to people. You'll eventually grow up and realize that. Have some perspective.
 
Last edited:

Runenight201

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
1,434
You did not understand my 'rhetoric' then because that is not what I said or imply. Quite the contrary. I don't think most people are logical beings and they operate mainly off instinct and emotion. That nevertheless doesn't change the fact that people shouldn't strive to look at things more objectively, however. I do think a good percentage of humans are capable of it if they try. So it's not that simple.



I think for many people, they have to learn from the experience of others, and some have to learn from their own experiences more than observing things. I do think people have the ability to look at things objectively, but I just think they're a minority of people in the world. Thats the main problem. But nevertheless, we are the most intelligent of beings within the animal kingdom and we do bare responsability for not being more objective. And if we ever want to progress (which I have doubts about), we will have to grow out of excuses of having more animalistic base instincts and learning to not operate in that dimension within that context.



Here are a few facts:

1) The world will continue to spin with or without you
2) Your problems and you are not the center of the universe
3) The world does not care about your problems
4) The world is bigger than your problems
5) When you die, your problems and thoughts will vanish with you to dust, and the world will still go on

Given these points, to say "we are broken, poor me, thus I will continue to operate off my most base animalistic instincts" and not strive for better, and thus I have no responsability to strive to operate in a better dimension, is what is ignorant here and I think you show that well.

If we had that attitude, we would have never made the advancements in science that we have made.

But the point is, if you want to continue to operate on emotions, and just because many people do, doesn't mean it is good. The world is survival of the fittest, whether you like it or not. And in the end, it is only those who strive for greater things instead of making excuses natural selection will favor. Those who make excuses to not strive for greater things will just fade away.




MGTOW. Isn't a movement. It's a philosophy/set of ideas. The acronym is newer, but the concept of MGTOW has always been around, actually.

Most people do strive for better, but even the most intellectual of men will realize that they succumb to their basal instincts more often than not. This problem is seen quite often among those who are aware enough of it, and has led to aid from some higher power.

The answer is to have ones emotions and desires line up with what’s healthy, true, moral, and right. This is seeking betterment, and it’s the better solution than turning the world into one intellectual, logical breakdown of facts and decisions.
 

Jackrabbit

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2018
Messages
172
I did not say irrelevant. But did you know some women consider Eckhart Tolle very sexy? Looks matter, but not much. Tolle is out of shape, dressed like crap, has poor posture and an ugly face. Yet hot to a lot of women.

Anyway, what is missing from the discussion is how damaged men are. That is not the fault of the study or haidut, but the framing has become about women being faulty and that is deeply unfair. Men are unhealthy and messed up too. They have weird ideas about women, lack empathy for women and hate women. I hate women, I know this because once in a while a strange idea about women pops up in my head and I have no idea where that came from. I am quite sure it is a culturally conditioned hatred transmitted via the media. Women have to navigate a really tough place where they are put on a pedestal and simultanously devalued. Men lack the capacity to connect as genuine human beings to women and believe they can purchase women by making lots of money, or via fame or looks. Women like those things, but they really seek human connection which men can not usually provide.

That is the problem with MGTOW, they can not truly connect with women because there is something. Women don't want the "robots of the world" even if they have money. They want men.

My laboured point being, this is a deeply unhealthy society, that has damaged both sexes.
In order for society as we know it to work, people are put in work situations that are structured to devalue everyone except those at the top. I think eventually people choosing to not mate is going to be the natural consequence of rewarding soullessness in the financial/economic sector. People can only be treated like robots for so long before they either start acting like them to appease others, or refuse to participate, meaning they’ll be socially outcast/unemployed, etc. Either of those choices involves having to be somehow ok with a lifestyle that excludes all the important things that make us human , such as cooperation and genuinely caring about others and not just yourself.
People have become selfish by necessity, it’s seemingly the only way to survive modern capitalism. However, I think it’s pretty clear that the majority of people aren’t actually happy in this system! Hence the SSRI use. Hence not being able to relate to others, because relationships require empathy and patience and those things don’t benefit one in the modern workplace.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
4,822
In order for society as we know it to work, people are put in work situations that are structured to devalue everyone except those at the top. I think eventually people choosing to not mate is going to be the natural consequence of rewarding soullessness in the financial/economic sector. People can only be treated like robots for so long before they either start acting like them to appease others, or refuse to participate, meaning they’ll be socially outcast/unemployed, etc. Either of those choices involves having to be somehow ok with a lifestyle that excludes all the important things that make us human , such as cooperation and genuinely caring about others and not just yourself.
People have become selfish by necessity, it’s seemingly the only way to survive modern capitalism. However, I think it’s pretty clear that the majority of people aren’t actually happy in this system! Hence the SSRI use. Hence not being able to relate to others, because relationships require empathy and patience and those things don’t benefit one in the modern workplace.

Pet peeve of mine, but...... if you live ANYWHERE in the world in the year 2019, you do NOT live under a capitalist system, period. The system you live under isn't even close to Capitalism, guaranteed. Capitalism has not existed in the United States since at least 1913. It would be far more accurate to say "People have become selfish by necessity, it’s seemingly the only way to survive in Light Fascism. Or Mordern Socialism. Or a Controlled Economy. Or a world where free markets don't truly exist."
 

Jackrabbit

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2018
Messages
172
Pet peeve of mine, but...... if you live ANYWHERE in the world in the year 2019, you do NOT live under a capitalist system, period. The system you live under isn't even close to Capitalism, guaranteed. Capitalism has not existed in the United States since at least 1913. It would be far more accurate to say "People have become selfish by necessity, it’s seemingly the only way to survive in Light Fascism. Or Mordern Socialism. Or a Controlled Economy. Or a world where free markets don't truly exist."
Actually selfishness is the fundamental aspect of a truly capitalist society, have you ever read anything by Ayn Rand?
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
4,822
Actually selfishness is the fundamental aspect of a truly capitalist society, have you ever read anything by Ayn Rand?

That may be true, but the fact remains..... there is not a single capitalist society on planet earth in 2019.
 

Ashoka

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
191
Well, you seem to operate from a different moral compass rather than a more objective one if you think someone bares none of the responsability for choosing to be in an abusive relationship and continuing to go back to them. If someone sees a warning sign in Africa that there is a field of wild lions ahead of them, are they not responsible if they run into the field to play with the wild lions and get killed by the lions? By your same argument it is not their persons fault but the lions fault for acting out on their nature. According to your same logic, that person has no responsability as well for their stupid decision. Clearly that is absurd. No one is arguing what the abuser did was wrong. Your mind for some reason seems to be stuck on that. The argument is whether the so-called victim bares responsability, and they clearly do. There will always be bad people to be in relationships with. Getting into one unknowingly is one thing, but staying in after they continue to abuse you is another.

I think we're talking past each other slightly. I agree a notion of responsibility and of course I see the point you're making. But I think in the context of the discussion, it's bizarre to have these types of "responsibility" in the same category. The law makes a differentiation between abuser and abused. The abused person doesn't get sent to prison or reprimanded because they were abused, and I think that's more than a legal quirk lol. So when I say including these things under the same umbrella of responsibility is bizarre, this is what I mean. I don't see the abused as "guilty". In context of men and women taking responsibility you set up, you brought up an example in which the disparity in responsibility is so extreme, so this particular example does no service to whatever overarching point you want to make about women and men taking equal responsibility. It just sounds absurd. And I also think the situation is more complex than you realize. Most obviously the effects of abuse leave psychological scars and make you feel gaslit, worthless, losing grip of reality. That's the experience. The reasons to stay in these relationships can often be financial, sometimes there is no support (whatever you think about how helpful government/more likely nonprofit services are), or even for the threat of violence - all those things are incredibly commonplace and have even affected my own life. From an outside perspective everything can look stupid - even love can when it's all-consuming - but to think we don't have something to learn from people who have gone through certain experiences like abuse is just to turn a blind eye. The psychology of addiction and abuse is well established by now.

And how do you stop the abuse from happening? By 1) Using the law to arrest the abuser, and 2) not being in the relationship with the abuser. Both things a large percentage of abuse victims do NOT do. So then, they are making the choice to not use the tools at their disposal at fighting and stopping the abuse. If you willingly continue to be with an abusive person, and even enable them to abuse you (like many abuse victims do in relationships) by stopping Police from getting involved, then you are no longer a victim in my book. You are more so akin to a person who self-mutilates their own bodies but the only difference is you use others to carry that out.

An interesting comparison to the person who self-harms is that those people do it out of a deep emotional pain. Just in the same way pain drives addiction to drugs. If those types of addictions teach us something, it's the incredible difficulty with which some people fight through personal pain and thereafter addiction. It would be impossible to overcome these things without support. I just don't think talking about responsibility in that context is helpful or humane. Who are we to judge, when the depth of pain is real and inescapable? In certain situations, people become unavailable to give a response - like Gabor Maté might say it - they are not "response-able". It's more interesting to know why someone isn't able to change their situation, to know what's actually standing in the way, than to begin with an overtly judgmental attitude.

I think stopping abuse happens on a micro, literal level the way you describe, but on a macro level educating people about it, creating a culture awareness in an overt way inhospitable to it, and NOT guilting victims, makes sense as some ways to start. It seems like there's better steps in this direction currently. It doesn't mean it hasn't in a sense created a climate of fear in which some men (or women) may be wrongly accused - this type of thing may happen.

That's a false equivalence right there. When a woman puts on make up to go out, unless they're in a high crime area, the chances of them getting assaulted sexually or raped are very very low. However, if you see a field of lions and run into it, there is a much much higher chance you will be their dinner. You are comparing apples to oranges here. In an abusive relationship, if the woman has already been abused and chooses to stay in it, it is almost a guarantee that they will be assaulted/abused again.

It doesn't really matter - then you get cat-called or harassed in a different way. I see this happen a lot. I think I was trying to highlight the strange nature of a discussion about responsibility again with this example. On a moral level, for my lack of a better term, only one party is guilty in that type of harassment. The answer isn't, "What do you expect when you dress and look that way?"

Nonsense. There are many women who see the very bad warning signs in these men before getting with them. It is not uncommon that women have some kind of sick fantasy or fetish for seeking such men out to 'fix them.' Again, this is very common among abuse relationship counselors. I had a family member who was a pretty successful one in her city and over 70% of the abuse victims in relationships not only stayed in the relationship after the abuse, but enabled the abuse and few actually ended up leaving. How is a woman isolated and without support? There are government services to help care for abuse victims in most developed Western countries. There is no excuse for staying in an abusive relationship. Having to move back with your family or live in a womans shelter for abuse victim is not worse than having your life under consistent threat. In the end, doesn't matter how hard it is. If the victim continues to stay in an abusive relationship then 1) there is no excuse for that and 2) they are equally responsible. In fact, in such relationships I don't have very much sympathy for such people like that. They are their own worst enemy.

Not sure where you get the equally responsibility thing from - that's bizarre. Only in the barest sense that one has to look out for oneself is that true. You think if two parties are involved they always bear equal responsibility, so long as there's a "way out". Is this how the counselor family member speaks to victims of abuse, by calling them equally responsible, thinking they're not really a victim of something after they elect to stay? I kind of doubt it - that wouldn't seem to be a standard perspective on the subject.

Okay, well you're clearly living in a different world if you ignore how thin skinned so many women are today. That's just not true. What many call 'injustices' today is open for debate and often not actual injustice, and just because injustice is 'perceived' doesn't make it actual injustice. Often 'injustice' is an excuse to enact collective vengeance upon another group collective under the guise of equality of fighting injustice because of prejudice/hatred, bias, or thirst for more power. Just look at all the demands being made by radical feminist groups today if you want to see a good example of that. Freedom is an interesting concept as well. I would argue that most people may say they want freedom, but they do not. I would argue that most people want security over freedom and often most of those who say they want freedom don't have the correct definition of what freedom is and it is really just them wanting to use the force of the powers that be to enact violence upon others only to call it freedom. If your so-called 'freedom' requires restricting someone else's freedom, by taking something from them via proxy violence/force of the state or mob, then it isn't freedom. The argument isn't whether some women were not emotional. The argument is that, on average, women tend to be more emotional. Group averages. Yes, if someone is more emotional, it can mean they are more irrational. But just because it sounds bad doesn't make it not true. And because women tend to be more emotional, in some contexts they can be more irrational. Mens irrationality usually comes from their aggression and competition instinct. A woman who was joining the military once asked me why she can't complete the military physical training exam that men use and why women must have a different exam. She pointed to the requirement for less pull ups and other exercises. I told her because women on average cannot compete at the level of men because they lack the same level of physical strength. She got offended by that. So the truth that women on average are weaker than men offended her. Did that make it untrue because she was offended by that? No. Women on average tend to be more offended by basic scientific truths such as this than men do. these days This is why they now want to reject many basic facts for fear of it offending women. That is how soft our society has become.

I'm not upset by your comments. I just don't see how women are generally more thin-skinned than men. I'm not saying certain particular aspects of life that don't favor women out there - people often bring up divorce - but again in my own experience that's not a clean cut, obvious thing. But there are probably many other aspects that don't favor women currently, and historically countless restrictions to their freedoms.
Before I was only trying to explain how it's possible someone could be offended - I also think that's contextual. They may have started making assumptions about how you view women, because to say something like that, it's considered old-fashioned even if there's truth to it. If a woman said to me, "Men are more aggressive", I might think it was kind of stupid, both because that seems almost redundant and also too simple of a statement; I wouldn't even say it's obviously true.

You say population growth doesn't pose an issue, but so what? If I say the sun is purple it doesn't make it purple. You say it poses no issue because you want that to be the case, not because you have a good argument as to why it won't. This here is a good example of irrational debate.

If you look back, I said it does pose an issue; I just used a double negative. "I'm not saying it doesn't pose an issue." I didn't see how stating that some people shouldn't have children was really going to be a persuasive political argument, because it's elitist for a start and it sounded more like dystopian sci-fi material. Some people are too stupid to procreate - good luck selling that idea, which is intensely cynical generally and dire in its implications. I don't think all people who are parents are good parents or that terrible people should have kids, but at the end of the day it's a moralizing argument that does nothing.

Again. All I see is an emotional argument of why you think so. No logic or substance here.

Saying it is not so because it is a 'little tired' isn't an argument.

Many species are at risk of dying out because of human overcapacity and resource depletion alone. So we should continue to kill off other animals to feed a population that the food chain cannot sustain? A lot of logic there. Lets ignore topsoil erosion as well.

You can't fully stop poverty for the most part. Stopping global poverty requires the use of resources that are not available to the whole world. It's an age old materialistic fantasy by failed economic systems like Marxism that continues to push this idea that if we just redistribute wealth then we can solve poverty, but thats an old idea that just doesn't match up to what we know about ecological science, and how it relates to economics and the laws of the physics. Money is a proxy or claim on not just future productivity, but used energy. Most of the so-called wealth today is in the form of credit, not tangible wealth, and it derives it's value from future productivity. This is why it is impossible. Marx and even most capitalist economists (until recently) didn't understand this. The only real solution is for people to stop having so many children in most of the nations of the world. When your freedom to breed infringes on other people and animals, then it is no longer freedom.

Yeah I can't really comment on this, but I don't exactly buy the idea as it's presented outright. Isn't it more interesting again to understand why population booms at certain times in certain parts of the world than to jump to ideas about setting inhibiting laws from above to stop people from having kids, which may or may not be the most practical or humane choice? Perhaps if these reasons were better understood, and everything wasn't broken in the way you describe (we are in fact talking about potential solutions right now), then solving poverty wouldn't be the utopian fantasy it seems to be. The point is that reducing poverty influences population growth, not that we can sustain more than possible on the planet.
 
Last edited:

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
1,490
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
In order for society as we know it to work, people are put in work situations that are structured to devalue everyone except those at the top. I think eventually people choosing to not mate is going to be the natural consequence of rewarding soullessness in the financial/economic sector. People can only be treated like robots for so long before they either start acting like them to appease others, or refuse to participate, meaning they’ll be socially outcast/unemployed, etc. Either of those choices involves having to be somehow ok with a lifestyle that excludes all the important things that make us human , such as cooperation and genuinely caring about others and not just yourself.
People have become selfish by necessity, it’s seemingly the only way to survive modern capitalism. However, I think it’s pretty clear that the majority of people aren’t actually happy in this system! Hence the SSRI use. Hence not being able to relate to others, because relationships require empathy and patience and those things don’t benefit one in the modern workplace.
There seems to be two trends. One is what you mentioned, but many are dropping out and building their own communities and finding their own solutions in ways that actually serve life. Most of the world is living under an increasingly dystopic corporate capitalism, but it is getting so bad that ever more people are searching for solutions in the fringes.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
4,822
There seems to be two trends. One is what you mentioned, but many are dropping out and building their own communities and finding their own solutions in ways that actually serve life. Most of the world is living under an increasingly dystopic corporate capitalism, but it is getting so bad that ever more people are searching for solutions in the fringes.

Another, better word instead of "corporate capitalism" would be "corporatism." That is basically how Mussolini defined Fascism.
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
haidut Antidepressants Are Physically Addictive, Should Not Be Taken Long-term Scientific Studies 0
K Getting Antidepressants That Pooped Out To Work Again Pharmaceutical Drugs 2
indeterminacy Safest Tricyclic Antidepressants? Pharmaceutical Drugs 2
M Antidepressants And All Symptoms Gone? Ask For Help or Advice 0
T EEG Can Determine If A Depressed Patient Will Do Better On Antidepressants Or Talk Therapy Scientific Studies 2
Mito The New York Times: Many People Taking Antidepressants Discover They Cannot Quit Articles & Scientific Studies 8
morgan#1 New Insight On Antidepressants ? Scientific Studies 0
Mito Antidepressants Found In Fish Brains In Great Lakes Region Articles & Scientific Studies 5
haidut Antidepressants same as placebo - trials were "biased" Scientific Studies 0
charlie More than two thirds of people taking antidepressants 'may NOT actually have depression': Doctors di Miscellaneous Health Discussions 0
mandance Antidepressants Pharmaceutical Drugs 19
Jwicks1995 SSRI withdrawal - Acetylcholine Cortisol, Serotonin, Histamine 7
P Hashimoto, metabolism and ssri Metabolism 2
Mito Why an antidepressant (SSRI) could be used to treat COVID-19 Miscellaneous Health Discussions 13
haidut Serotonin (and SSRI drugs) can cause anxiety and PTSD Scientific Studies 0
R Considering TRT As Last-Resort For Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD) Ask For Help or Advice 27
haidut SSRI Drugs Increase Violent Behavior And Promote Recidivism Scientific Studies 0
haidut SSRI Drugs, Not Depression, Destroy Empathy Scientific Studies 0
fitnessgirl SSRI Increases Risk Of Pulmonary Hypertension In Newborns Scientific Studies 0
haidut SSRI Drugs Strikingly Toxic For Fetal Brain, May Cause Autism Scientific Studies 6
M Anti-Peat Felt Way Better On SSRI's Debate - Anti-Peat 27
A.R Do SSRI Drugs Usage Cause Feminisation In Men? Ask For Help or Advice 7
M SSRI Retards Growth, Makes Your Kids Short Health 0
L SSRI Impairs Minocyclins Antidepressive Action Articles & Scientific Studies 2
G Mirtazapine Or Other SSRI Make You Look Older(sagging And Sunken Face) Mental Issues 0
G Mirtazapine Or Other SSRI Make You Look Older(sagging And Sunken Face) Insomnia, Sleep Issues 16
G Mirtazapine Or Other SSRI Make You Look Older(sagging And Sunken Face) Cortisol, Serotonin, Histamine 0
B SSRI Withdrawal And Replacement Cortisol, Serotonin, Histamine 3
U Tappering Off SSRI Supplements, Pharmaceutical Drugs 14
haidut SSRI Drugs During Pregnancy Cause Child Autism, Antiserotonin Drugs Cure It Scientific Studies 3
A Severe Cognitive Decline After SSRI Ask For Help or Advice 21
A A Way To Reverse Ssri Induced Excess Allopregnanolone? Ask For Help or Advice 6
haidut SSRI Drugs Such As Prozac (fluoxetine) Cause Antibiotic Resistance Scientific Studies 4
haidut Massive Study Says SSRI Drugs Are BOTH Ineffective And Dangerous Scientific Studies 15
haidut SSRI Drugs (Prozac) Worsen Prenatal Stress And May Contribute To Autism Scientific Studies 3
haidut Paternal Use Of SSRI Increase Risk For ADHD In His Children Scientific Studies 4
S HELP I WANT OFF OF SSRI’s HELP Cortisol, Serotonin, Histamine 7
P Paxil SSRI Withdrawl Sexual Dysfunction Health 13
biggirlkisss Interesting Study On Ssri Ask For Help or Advice 0
haidut SSRI Drugs May Cause Serious Lung Disease And Fibrosis Scientific Studies 14
haidut SSRI Make Organisms Demented, Violent & Homicidal, Even At Low Doses Scientific Studies 39
biggirlkisss Why Are Ssri's So Addictive? Ask For Help or Advice 6
J How Safe Is Pregnenolone? (For Healing SSRI Effects) Ask For Help or Advice 15
haidut SSRI Use In Children Dramatically Increases Risk Of Diabetes In Adulthood Scientific Studies 3
haidut SSRI / Serotonin Worsens Tinnitus Scientific Studies 13
haidut SSRI Drugs Linked To At Least 28 Murders, Including Mass Shootings In USA Scientific Studies 10
J Lab Results - 5+ Years Of Chronic Fatigue/insomnia + Brutal SSRI Withdrawals Blood Work, Labs 20
J Experiences Of Cypro After Long Term SSRI Use / Withdrawal? Cyproheptadine 5
logicalscout Post-SSRI Sleep Adaptations Discussion Thread Insomnia, Sleep Issues 7
haidut SSRI Drugs Impair Judgment, Wisdom, Understanding, Love And Empathy Scientific Studies 151

Similar threads

Top