1. Cocoa Butter - Organic & Fair Trade Certified
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. **NEW** BL11 - Orange, Red & Infrared Therapy Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Charcoal Soap - For Deep Cleansing
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Orange & Red Light Therapy Device - LGS1
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Organic Cocoa Powder
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Metabasoap - Handcrafted Soap
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  7. Cascara Sagrada Powder From Farmalabor In Italy
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  8. **NEW Mini Body Light** MBL1 - Orange & Red Light Therapy Mini Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice

Antidepressants (SSRI) Make Females Unattractive, Provoke Male Aggression

Discussion in 'Scientific Studies' started by haidut, Jan 3, 2019.

  1. Hugh Johnson

    Hugh Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    975
    No. That is clearly wrong and you do not know what that system refers to. Corporatist system is still used in countries like Finland although neoliberalism has eroded it. It refers to a system in which the state, labour and capital negotiated a deal to keep the economy and incomes growing and stable.

    You know nothing about the economy.
     
  2. broozer

    broozer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2018
    Messages:
    90
    Gender:
    Male
    what about agomelatine? its mechanism is melatonin agonism (thus indirect anti estrogen) and serotonin antagonism. it should be quiet the opposite to SSRIs. also by increasing Dopamine it seems quiet androgenic/nootropic...at least at brain level
     
  3. tankasnowgod

    tankasnowgod Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,165
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, that's the textbook definition of corporatism, which is exactly what Mussolini referred to. As far as keeping incomes both "stable" and "growing," those are opposites, so that could be stated as a goal in theory, but impossible in reality.

    EDIT- As far as not knowing anything about the economy you are largely correct, the past year and half has really demonstrated to me how little I knew about how the world economy works, and how truly rigged and planned it is. A year ago, I wasn't even aware of the existence of entities like the Plunge Protection Team, and the Exchange Stabilization Fund. The more I learn, the more I realize how truly little I have known about about money and Maritime system we live under.
     
  4. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    459
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not talking about laws here. The law is always changing. The law was based on more objective ideas a decade or a few ago, but has been evolving from a more justice based type of morality one that is based on a more subjective framework. So the law isn't the moral arborator of what should and should not be, but rather, what philosophical and moral framework they are based off is what matters. There is all kinds of unjust laws. Doesn't mean those match up with technical definition of what they set out to do or whom they set out to protect, etc.

    How is the disparity in responsibility is so extreme? You are either responsible or you're not responsible. You either contribute to something bad or you do not.

    The fact is, it takes two to make a relationship work. And therefore, if that relationship is abusive and it continues to be a relationship, then it took two to make that abusive relationship to continue to exist. An abusive or unhealthy relationship to something or someone that continues is often a relationship of codependency. As the dictionary puts it, a codependency requires an "excessive emotional or psychological reliance on a partner, typically one who requires support on account of an illness or addiction."

    If you are an addict to a drug or something else bad, as sad as it may be, society for the most part understands and agrees that you still bare responsability by making the decision to be an addict. We can get into whether it is free will or not all we want, but at the end of the day, it is the person who made the choice to pick up that first drug and use it regardless of reasons why, etc. However, if a person is in a codependent relationship that is abusive, and they keep returning to the abuse/abusive person, much like a drug addict, some will deny that they bare the same level of responsability that an addict would. This is inconsistent. The fact is, codependent relationships take two to work. There is the drug dealer, but then there is the buyer. You cannot have an illegal drug black market with just one or the other; you need both. Thus, both are an integral part to that codependency. You need the customer/the market, and you need the drug seller.

    Abusive relationships have similar supply and demand dynamics. Why is it absurd that men and women should take equal responsability? After all, isn't that what those who go on about equal gender rights say they want?


    It doesn't matter why those people harm themselves when it comes to the outcome. The fact is, they are harming themselves. They chose to harm themselves. And everyone could have an excuse to do the same, for the most part, because most people will at some point or have gone through bad things in life that could give them an excuse to do so. So while you have no choice in how life happens to you, it is your choice and responsability to how your react to those bad things. And the fact is, in the end, they choose to react to those bad situations of life by going to the extreme of harming themselves and whether they had a good excuse for it or not, they are responsible for what they do to the property they own, which is their body.

    It seems you are arguing why, but the outcomes don't matter as to why you did it. If you do something bad, you can have all kinds of reasons for why you did it, even good reasons or excuses, but it doesn't change the outcome as being bad if it was a bad outcome, nor does it change the outcome or act from being immoral, if it was immoral.

    For example, I am starving and steal from another starving person for my food. They starve to death and die. I had a good excuse for why I stole, but it doesn't change the fact that the outcome was bad for the other person and even myself if I got caught by the law. And it doesn't change the fact that I stole from and infringed upon another persons rights, private property, even unto their own demise.

    Reasons as to why you do something doesn't in of itself negate responsability or whether the outcome will be good or bad, just or not just.


    Talking about responsability is just and humane because whether you like it or not, we are responsible for our decisions and free will. And if we don't take responsability, we will then use our freedoms to infringe upon the freedoms of others.

    The fact that you think responsability is bad is one of the common problems with society today. We judge because intelligent human beings have to make judgments to determine risks and probabilities as they map out their lives. We judge because to determine what is factual and not factual is to judge. In order to discern, you must judge.

    Nature does not care about your reasons for why you do things. All that matters is the outcome, in the end. And to determine whether something works or not and is just or not, you have to just things by their outcomes. Society and nature does not owe anything to you for why you did what you did because in the end, you are judged by your actions and the world is much bigger than me or you.


    Yes, but you are comparing something that is not equal to the original argument. And now you're talking about harassment. Harassment and being sexually assaulted is not necessarily the same thing. Being 'cat called' when you pass someone may be annoying, but if they don't touch you or follow you, that isn't anything equal to being sexually assaulted/attacked. But we were not talking about cat-calling now were we? No. Men get cat called too. I have seen it many times. Not the end of the world to be cat-called. Annoying - yes.

    But again, look at actual/real crime. There is not a statistical guarantee or an extreme likelihood you will get sexually assaulted/raped for walking through town dressed a certain way, is there? (Given the area is safe). No, there is not.

    Now again, is there a very high likelihood you will be abused again if you go back to the abuser the second or third time, etc.? Yes.

    So, both scenarios are not the same. Therefore, if you go outside to walk and in the unlikely event you are assaulted/raped, then you do not take responsability for that. You did not know it would happen.

    However, if you know that wild lions will very likely eat you, and you go into that field anyway, then you did something that you knew could have been avoided. You do bare responsability for that. Likewise, if you out of your own free will remain in a relationship after you have been abused, and you clearly know this, you bare responsability for what happens to you as well because it is a codependency. In order for the abuse to happen there must be a market for it, like the drug market, and by you willfully choosing to stay in that relationship, you are like the market. You are like the buyer buying your drugs from the drug dealer. You therefore are responsible to what you do just as the abuser is.

    Now, if some person is in a relationship and has never been abused, and they therefore don't expect it to happen, when they are abused it is not their fault because they likely would never have wanted to be in a relationship with the abuser. So they leave the person and they pretty much were not responsible for the abuse they suffered.

    To compare both types of scenarios is comparing apples to oranges.

    Some of the best philosophers have spoken about these things. Nothing new. There is a distinction. Foreknowledge or knowledge of probable outcomes is what allows us to make better and more educated decisions does it not? Yes. So if one makes a very bad decision based when they had knowledge that it was not wise to make that decision, clearly there is a good distinction there with regards to responsability. If you have knowledge of the possible outcome, and it relates to property you own or yourself, then you are responsible for what you allow to happen to your property when it does happen. If you own something, by virtue of owning it, you have a degree of responsability over what happens to it. I don't see how this is a hard to grasp concept or 'bizarree' for you -- truly. Such concepts are the framework of some of the most successful philosophical and political frameworks, etc.

    If you are told by the government to leave a category 5 hurricane zone. If you choose to stay and die are you not responsible for your bad decision? Most people would agree that yes, you are responsible for the bad decision because you had knowledge of what was going to happen. The storm did not have to come to your city and kill you, but it was coming regardless and it couldn't be stopped. So the ball is in your court.



    Well, the science does so far show that women on average tend to be more neurotic than men. This includes anxiety disorders, defined by excessive fear, restlessness, and muscle tension – are debilitating, disabling, and can increase the risk for depression and suicide. Many studies show this and some of the best research, including researchers at the University of Cambridge have found this, in part of a large systematic view using rigorous methods to retain the highest quality studies. You can find it here:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/brb3.497

    Well, it depends on what you define as aggression. Men on average men are more aggressive in some ways, but not all the definitions of aggression equate to violence or are bad, so many people think that right away when they hear men are more aggressive.

    The research I have seen suggests men are on average more aggressive physically, while women tend to be more aggressive verbally. Both sexes tend to experience aggression differently as well, due to sexual differences, etc., so that plays a role.

    Perhaps you wouldn't make a statement because you are afraid of how it sounds, and you value how things sound over scientific/objective truth. It doesn't sound good when you point out sex differences to some, because truth is, it shatters the false pseudo-scientific belief pushed by many of the soft sciences that men and women are equal/the same, which is and always has been absurd.

    Hormonal differences is one big likely factor, but nevertheless, people who suffer from anxiety and are more neurotic will on average tend to be more thin skinned/sensitive. So this may not be your experience, but on average thats what the data suggests.


    If policy makers were educated on these matters, then you wouldn't need to 'sell the idea.' You would just enforce laws and you can make the moral argument to do so because their bad choices infringe upon the rights of others, which includes wasteful spending which should be going to more useful things. But blowing through resources that took hundreds of thousands of years to form just to sustain a population of such people is illogical. Even nature does not favor this type of breeding. But it doesn't matter who likes it or not, because in the end the math and laws of physics will dictate that it will lead to our ruin as a species. And to allow the latter to happen is far more grievous. This isn't about all parents. It's about the bad parents. And the problem is, there are many bad parents who shouldn't even have kids let alone are able to care for animals. But in the end, a boat can only carry so many people before it sinks.



    Well, we have data, and math. And we already know what caused the population expansion. We can narrow it down to one single substance. And when we chart it out, there is almost an exact correlation between human population growth and this natural resource. And no other time in history before we discovered it did human population expand like this. So we do actually know very well what was responsible for the human population growth and what and even when the human population bubble will pop.

    Solving poverty can't work because that requires the availability of cheap resources on a level to sustain current population, and the availability of said resources are not there. Most of the wealth in the world is in inflated assets and credit, because it takes money to make money and receive compound interest. So it's not a matter of having endless streams of money because money is a claim on future productivity and energy and in of itself money has no real value. This is why things like universal basic income cannot and will never work.

    But by around the year 2030, it is likely we will begin to see the human population bubble begin to deflate due to the thermodynamic resource depletion problem.
     
  5. Jackrabbit

    Jackrabbit Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2018
    Messages:
    172
    Many sociopaths intentionally isolate their partners, even from their own families by going behind their backs and telling the family members that their partners have mental health issues. It’s not like they are just limiting their behavior to the victim so that victim has a normal support network and can break free if need be. It’s very difficult to get away from someone who’s that manipulative and even threatens the children and tells the person she will be killed if she tries to escape. I don’t see how that’s the victim’s fault. Obviously a lot of people out there are sociopaths and they are very good at putting on a charming front until the person is trapped and can’t escape. I really don’t think it’s fair to blame someone who trusted a person who was intentionally lying to them and portraying themselves as someone they’re not. It might seem like a simple thing to you when you’re on the outside but it’s not always so cut and dry.
     
  6. lampofred

    lampofred Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,328
    Gender:
    Male
    What is that substance?

    Oil??
     
  7. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    459
    Gender:
    Male
    No doubt do we all succumb to our base instincts at times. But the question isn't whether we are perfect or not, but whether we strive for better.
    I would argue that it would be better for one to not try to force their emotions to line up with what one thinks is healthy and right as the end goal because people grow and change as they get older and have new experiences, and what they thought was right or moral when they were 20 may not be what they think is right or moral at 50. Wisdom is something gained over time via experiences and it is what shapes our moral code. Our emotions often follow or are a response to what we put in our minds/think, and our identity and the moral compass we have. So focusing on what we put in our minds, how we look at things, the perspective we have, the wisdom we gain, and the moral compass we form are likely to influence how we react to things, and how or what we feel, our emotions, etc. It is then from there we can not try to stop ourselves from feeling emotions, but from letting emotions dictate or control our perspectives. Because emotions are a two edge sword. They can be the substance of genuine and rational feeling, but they can also be the substance of feelings that are not very rational.
     
  8. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    459
    Gender:
    Male
    Cheap oil --- yes.
     
  9. lampofred

    lampofred Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Not to toot my own horn but intuition was on point for that one :grin
     
  10. Ashoka

    Ashoka Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2015
    Messages:
    150
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, the law is not to be equated with an ideal of actual justice. My point is that where the law stands on this issue has an obvious truth to it. Let's face that an abusive relationship is destructive in one way that it involves one person psychologically or physically harming another person. This is not a reciprocal relationship, unless you just want to collapse every distinction. It takes two to keep this relation together, again only in the most literal sense can you say that absolutely, fine. But that doesn't mean there's an equal exchange of cruelty towards someone's humanity. It's normal to regard that cruelty as immoral because it's active, hateful, sociopathic, narcissistic, etc . To be passive in this situation is not the same as being aggressive, morally speaking - it's world's apart. It's as if whatever idealogical framework you have about personal responsibility and, specifically, outcomes causes you to miss the most obvious fact of the situation.

    Interesting that personal responsibility comes up with regards to drug use, but it's inordinately people affected by poor economic situations, unfortunate circumstances, abuse, etc who gravitate towards serious drug use. So you end up moralizing to some of the most damaged people in society, whose situation is often no fault of their own. This is why an idea of responsibility broadly treated this way is like an abstraction, far off from the lived experience of what actually occurs. These types of things can't only be thought about through an idea of the isolated perspective of an individual, abstract subject. The reason they can't is it's not the most helpful perspective but actually harmful on its own.

    Why would most people have an excuse to harm themselves? I have never felt an inclination to do that in my life. Most people never get to that point, and I doubt it's because they're so virtuous. I have not suffered in that way, although I'm on here so you can be sure I've had some troubles lol. But I am privileged to not have had to experienced certain things; it doesn't mean I'm necessarily more responsible, just that I've had more support from my environment. Some people are also more sensitive to suffering and loss by constitution as well, which they may make up for with different strengths than other people. But if we treat people that are suffering like they're just idiots, then I think we're in the business of creating a worse environment for everyone. Ultimately wouldn't you say the concept you're using of personal responsibility is about making life better by establishing some sense of coherence to what happens around us and giving some agency to our actions? Will that alone, as a way of interpreting people's actions, make life better for people, even most people? I disagree. I say it's worth dropping a moralizing tone in certain contexts, particularly abuse or addiction. There is a difference between medicating your pain away with drugs than other types of crimes. If you're about outcomes, then this type approach will not provide the best outcome.

    I did say before that I believe a concept of responsibility is important. I would be inconsistent if I said responsibility does not play a role in anything, as if I think everyone can do whatever they want without reflection. Trust me, I don't operate that way lol. The problem, I think, is that what we know about the psychology of things like addiction, the physiology of stress, complicates a notion of total responsibility as being the only consideration we can have in a healthy discussion of the matter.

    I was using the example of street harassment to say something about victims and aggressors, not make a direct comparison.

    I'm not saying responsibility doesn't exist. We have to try make the best decision we can for ourselves and others. I just don't think it's a great category for helping us understand everything about people and why they do what they do. I'm wondering if it does any good in general to look at things this way. So what, this person stayed and died. They had some idea of freedom of choice in this situation called free will. Your entire life is constituted by a world outside you from which you learn and grow, this mind that you have is shaped by your experiences, the development of your brain, your intelligence, your health - but you want to tell me there's some residual notion of freedom that's more important than every other consideration in there. Only truth, understanding, awareness with choice is freedom, not just choice.

    Okay.. so why would men be more aggressive physically? It could be because physical strength actual makes that an asset to be used when in a confrontation, whereas women don't have that same ability? Partly because men are in fact also socialized to act more aggressively on top of that? I don't like the limiting nature of the statement which states something fluid as if it's a static fact of life. What if in certain situations men were in fact less aggressive? It would be situational, not absolute. So I don't like the absolute statement because it's not obviously true and has an air of presumption and lack of curiosity. If free will is so powerful according to you, then a man should be able to control his aggression just as well as any woman.

    I just don't know how you think singling out "bad people" would happen. That's actually the alarming, disastrous part of what you're saying.

    Well I'm definitely no economist, but it just sounds like you're saying the world is going belly up because of inflated assets and credit, and things like universal basic income are basically the same and that's why it can't work?
     
  11. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    459
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, but my point had nothing to do with the laws definition. It was a moral argument, not a legal one. The law doesn't fully explain the whole issue from a moral standpoint. If both people are agreeing to stay within the abusive relationship, then by definition, it is a reciprocal relationship because, once again, like a marketplace, there has to be a buyer AND a seller for the transaction to take place. And if the 'victim' agrees to stay with the abuser, then by virtue of staying, it is mutual. Also, a large percentage of if not most of abusive relationships that are abusive are reciprocal. Whether there is narcissism or sociopathy is irrelevant. Again, those are all reasons why abuse happens. The point isn't what causes abuse. The point is, whether a person who agrees to stay in an abusive relationship is responsible as well. The reason why the abuse happens doesn't change the moral argument as to whether one is responsible or not by staying in the relationship. Of course there is cruelty in abusive relationships, and it goes both ways, usually. But people are responsible, once again, for the friends and partners they have, just as one is responsible for the food they ingest. One of the first things you learn in AA is to not have toxic company/relationships or you'll never stay sober. Even the things/thoughts we allow to flourish within our minds with have either good or toxic outcomes.

    That is not true. There are many factors that come to play whether one is born poor and stays poor. Some of those are within a persons control, some things are not, for the most part. With drug addiction, it's entirely a self-inflicted thing that requires your action, thus you bare responsability for it. If someone is born into the world poor, that wasn't a self-inflicted thing they did to themselves that caused them to be born poor. However, you are responsible for the decisions you make that will either determine you will stay poor or not.

    If you are born into a bad situation, it is not your fault. However, if you stay in a bad situation, yes, you are responsible for it. And it is no one else's fault. No one is responsible for your choices you make from that point on. Life happens to everyone and no one owes you anything. Life is like a lot and the lot of good luck falls on some, and the lot of bad luck falls on others insofar as what situation they are born into, and their level of intelligence, etc. No one has control over those things, and no one is responsible for how they are born or where they are born, but they are responsible for how their own lives end up and the choices they make from thenceforth, and each choice they make will bring them closer to success or further from it.

    Most people are poor because of one of two main reasons: 1) They were born poor or 2) They made bad choices that caused them to become poor, or stay poor. If you are poor it is not your fault. If you stay and die poor, then you do bare responsability for that. (And thats not a bad or good thing depending on whether you think it is bad or good. Some people are happy living and being poor, by what many define as poor, so it depends.) But the path you choose to take you are responsible for regardless.

    Economic mobility is more important in countries where it is not as available, so that poor people can have a better opportunity to move to the upper class/get out of poverty, however, in developed countries, where there is sufficient economic mobility, most people stay poor because of their bad choices in life. They don't finish High School, get into debt, commit crimes and maybe stay in jail for a while, have a baby before marriage or being established, get addicted to drugs, etc. In fact, there was a study done by a well known institution that listed the main things that cause poverty, like drugs, crime, not finishing High School, etc. And they boiled it down to five things and showed that, statistically, if you didn't do those main things most poor people do, then it's almost statistically impossible you will end up poor. Doesn't mean you will be rich either, but you will have enough to live off of. So the idea that people are just born poor and they stay poor and it's not their fault is just not true. Yes, if you are in poor country that is much more true, but not if you live in a country where there is sufficient economic mobility.

    But back to the main point. You cannot compare drug addiction to a multi-varied situation of both external and internal determining factors like poverty for those reasons. No one is born into the world on drugs as addicts. It is a choice they make. Being born poor is not a choice you make. Thus, the responsability factor is not the same.


    No one is saying we should treat people who suffer like idiots. But no one owes me their sympathy or kindness either if I am suffering. Life doesn't care about whether you're suffering, and most people generally do not because they are either suffering or occupied with their own lives and do not care. That said, it is nice of someone if they choose to have sympathy for someone who suffers. But not everyone suffers equally or for the same reasons either. Some people -- many people actually --- suffer because of their own self-inflicted wounds and they would rather have sweet lies told to them to make them feel better because they don't want to take responsibility for their self-inflicted wounds and so if they are told to take accountability for themselves so they can heal or move on, but that person suffering doesn't want to take accountability for their bad choices so they quickly yell "don't judge...don't moralize", lest they are forced to confront their own demons they have created. Many people get off in a sick way by suffering and making other people suffer by feeling bad for them to the point where they too are guilty for the person suffering. These I call 'emotional terrorists.'


    That is good to hear, but I think you use too much nuance in the grey area of "some responsability" and "total responsability." How responsible someone is I would say depends on a few factors, like the severity of willful ignorance, and outcome the situation or crisis, and whether it was self-inflicted through someone else, or themselves, etc. But in the end, you either bare responsability for something or you don't. I don't think there is very much grey area there.

    I think if someone is pathological or not would help determine level of responsability, but lets face it...most people making bad choices are not suffering from a severe pathology. If they know what they are doing they should be responsible. And there may be various causes, like addiction, but even addicts know what they are doing. And if there are examples of addicts no longer becoming addicts, then that means it is possible for addicts to make the choice to not become addicts. Therefore, they are responsible for becoming addicts. Also, they weren't addicts before they became addicts, so either way, in the end, they chose to become addicts. The reasons why or the causes I do not think change that because, again, everyone can find an excuse/reason to become an addict or do something bad. In fact, there are people who never become addicts and could have become addicts that experienced more bad things than most addicts have, so if those people exist, how are addicts without any excuse? Most people likely remain addicts because it's easier too. It is very hard to get clean and it is easier to just deal with stress with drugs until you die, etc.



    I agree that it's not the only way we try to understand why these things happen, but the again, my point all along wasn't whether we should try to understand why people do this or that. The point I made from the getco is that regardless of why someone did what they did, if they make a bad choice and were aware of what they did and it hurts them or someone else, they bare responsability. Some people have a good reason for why they did something bad sometimes, but their reason why they did something bad doesn't negate what they did and the effect it had on someone or themselves. Like the example I used earlier. If I stole someone's life vest because I needed one...yes, it was a logical thing to do perhaps, as that is our base survival instinct, but it was not the moral thing to do because 1) I didn't own that vest, and 2) I inflicted harm against the property of someone else by taking it and causing them to die (their body is their property as well). Similar to the non-aggression principle in many ways. And BTW, this is why Ray Peat is dead wrong on the non-aggression principle because he says well, people are born into stressful environments so they will transgress and use violence on innocent people regardless, which is just insane. In principle, no one owns me. I am no ones slave. I own myself as a sovereign individual and if I am suffering, that doesn't give me the right to then transgress upon someone else/their property because I never owned them to begin with. They do not owe me anything just because I am suffering, so I am unjust I enact violence upon someone to take from them when I do not own them or what they own. Self-ownership and accountability go hand in hand. You cannot punish one kid for what the whole class does, but it goes both ways. If one kid is suffering, no one owns him and because of that, no none owes it to him to help him, though they have the choice to do so if they want. This is why freedom and responsability go hand in hand and if you seperate the two you can not have one without the other in the end. Either people owe you and are your masters and you their slave, or they do not owe anything to you and are therefore not your owners. To accept freedom you also have to accept responsability that you are accountable to yourself and no one owes you anything. If someone is suffering and they tell me I owe it to them to give all that I have to help them, and I say no, and they then proceed to use force, was that person just in transgressing because he had a good reason to use violence to take all that I have? No. Why? Because it was not his property; I am not his property; he used force over me as his property when I did nothing to him/his property. He is responsible for that. So what he did was wrong. He knows it was immoral too even though he had his reason for taking from me. Okay, well then, if someone says I owe it to help him against my will, then I say to them, they are for slavery. Slavery is ownership of someone against their own will. There is no spectrum with slavery. Either someone is sovereign or you own them. If you choose freedom that is sovereignty, then you by default have to choose responsability for the choices you make, because othr people do not owe you anything. If you make bad choices that harm others and do not assume responsability for what you do, you become a tyrant to others by enacting force upon others with no repercussions. You then have to admit that you are not a sovereign indivual and so do not be surprised when someone tries to rule over you or own you. And that is how we come into this world. We are responsible for our own survival, unless violence is enacted upon our property/bodies. That is the only moral code that works, but most people want to use tyranny to rule over others for their own survival or for power.

    Well, there are evolutionary reasons for this that selected for male aggression. Nature is not a nice place. Yes, it is nice to look at, but mother nature is very hard and brutal when it comes to survival. And when nature wasn't working against us directly, human nature was working against us so other members of the tribe or other tribes or individuals were competing for resources. As all animals in nature, for the most part, we had to brutally compete for survival. One of the evolutionary mechanisms in which this was achieved was aggression, and strength, etc. The aggression was used to do bad things, but those bad things were even necessary for the human species to reproduce. And aggression was used for good things as well, like protecting the tribe or family, who depended on the men for wellbeing and resources. Men had more evolutionary pressure to be aggressive due to these reasons, since the women were not as disposable as the men as they did not fight as much as the men did, and were not as strong physically, etc. There were men who were less aggressive, but that doesn't change the fact that on average men would be more aggressive physically than women. You seem to go back to the "but not all" when I talk group averages.

    No, this whole idea of the blank slate theory is where this focus on 'socialization' comes from. And most of it is pseudo-science. We do not look outside of animals to study human nature. Humans are not some exception to animals. Humans have base instincts just like animals do. What is does not mean what should be. Free will IS powerful because there are examples all around us of people going against their base instincts and nature. This is why there are addicts who come clean. Free will is what people who want to progress forward from operating on their base animalistic instincts do. The base instincts will always be there, but that doesn't mean people can't control them if they try. Men are on average more aggressive than women, but among men the aggression is on a wider spectrum. But it is there. The aggression doesn't just manifest itself in ways towards women. Thats way overly simplistic to look at it that way. Aggression in men can be playing a football game to compete to win, or playing video games, or lifting weights, or boxing. When we talk about group averages, we are not saying absolutes. Two different things.

    Most men do control their aggression against women, for the most part, otherwise there would be far more physical abuse to women than there is today. And again, not all aggression is used for bad things. We like to use aggression to compete in games, etc. We control it to use it for that. But why are there men who can't control their aggression? Because some men more than others are controlled by their base instincts because it requires too much discipline and hard work for them to not act that way. That doesn't in anyway negate the fact that most men have aggression.

    You keep talking about absolutes but I am speaking about group averages. Men as a group will have more aggression and that means most men on average I come across in my life will have more aggression than women. These are statistical facts of science. You seem to keep trying to argue it is not so because perhaps you don't like these truths...that we are animals and operate on base instincts like animals. But that doesn't mean we cannot have free will to control our base instincts either.

    I am not saying that should happen one way or another. I am simply saying what the only options that are present which would seem to work. I am a libertarian at heart so I do not like talking about government getting involved in things, but I also am a realistic person who understands that we have human nature and are after all animals, and a portion of many people want to do things that infringe upon the wellbeing of others and because of that government policies may be necessary. Clearly you don't seem to think that people who breed like rabbits without any thought or care for how they will raise those kids, what environment they come into, and how much they will destroy the environment are not immoral or 'bad' people. So maybe if I have 20 kids I know I cannot care for and move in next to you and start polluting your yard/lawn and your water you use for your well, and your air, I still will be a good person acting morally? Again - even though I am destroying your land and air and property with no consideration of you? Well, thats what many of the countries are doing in this world that continue to breed like rabbits and pollute, on a larger scale. And how many people have to pay for it? It's somehow bad when we do it with wars to drop bombs but not that? Somehow wars are a waste of resources but people consuming and breeding too much isn't.

    And for the record, I am not talking about responsible people who decide to have 2 or 3 or so kids. If only responsible people had kids, the human population would still be much lower than it is today.

    Kind of.
     
  12. Hugh Johnson

    Hugh Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    975
    The stronger party is typically more responsible. Men are physically stronger and do not get pregnant, which is the main vulnerability of women. Thus some there should be some extra protections for women, within reason of course.
     
  13. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    459
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, men are vulnerable too because historically they were far more disposable than women were. And they were usually forced to fight wars to the death under the threat of being executed if caught fleeing or rejecting the governments laws requiring them to fight. So it's debatable which sex is more 'vulnerable.' But I will agree, that in a natural setting of hunter gatherers, women would be more vulnerable. But that would then mean we have to recognize that both sexes are not biologically equal.

    That said, the main problem I see is that if someone is responsible for your wellbeing, then you do not and cannot morally argue that that person is then without authority and that the vulnerable one is equal to the one who is responsible for them. Men back then were given more authority over women because they typically were responsible for them.

    But this is largely the paradox feminism has created in this day and age. They began by giving women certain privileges and rights that men had and they did so because they argued for equality. Okay, fine. But if you want equality and freedom then you have to be responsible for your own welfare and decisions. You can't want freedom to choose your own path but then have someone else take the collective responsability over you when you with your freedom make the wrong decisions.

    So, no, men are not responsible for women. Not anymore. Modern day and the more radical feminists today are largely even trying to even reject scientific facts -- basic facts of biology, like sex differences (men being stronger than women, etc.), so if they want to presume that both sexes are just the same, then they cannot have it both ways. They must then assume their own responsability and authority.

    If you go into business with someone, but you only put up 10% stake in the company, and it is the business partner who is risking 90% of the money, then that business partner should bare authority over the business because he is baring most of the risk, including, the risk the other person makes, while that 10% stake holder person is risking almost nothing.

    To require the business man to have no authority and yet put up 90% of the stake in the business while the 10% stake holder has the authority to decide how the 90% which is not his is risked is unjust because the 10% stake holder can do anything he wants to hurt the company and suffer little to no consequences or risk. So again, freedom requires responsability and if you do not want responsability for your choices, then when the outcome of your free choices infringe upon an innocent person, then when the time comes to make reconciliation to the victim whom you wronged with your freedom ( by infringing upon an innocent person), someone else who is innocent will bare that responsibility and that person can keep doing whatever they want and the person who is responsible for them keeps taking blame. So if you want someone to be responsible for you, you have to give up authority and they must have authority over you because it's them who are at risk for your bad choices you make.

    So women either have their equality and take responsability and stand on their own two feet, or they go back to the way things were when men had authority over them, but you cannot have it both ways in a free society. Men are not responsible for something they have no say in or authority over, just as I would not be responsible for some else's kids if the parents die just because kids are more venerable. If I choose to adopt those kids, I take on the risk financially and security and health-wise for their wellbeing, thus I have to have authority over those kids as I would take on responsability over them and it would be my butt on the line as a foster parent if those kids do something wrong. Otherwise, if as a foster parent I don't have authority over how I raise them/them, then I will not take on the responsability of being their foster parent.

    NOTE: when I speak of authority over someone, it doesn't mean that person doesn't get basic human rights. It is like kids. Parents have authority over kids, but kids also have basic human rights under the law to protect them from harm. Parents of course have authority, but they don't have the right to physically harm them, etc., in the moral sense of the non-aggression principle. However, if the kids rely on the parents for care and to be raised as they are more vulnerable, and it is the parents who take on the risk and responsability, then the kids have to allow their parents to have authority over them so they can raise them as they take on the risk if something bad happens.

    Also, just because you are vulnerable doesn't mean anyone owes anything to you. Whether you are weaker/vulnerable or not, you are your own sovereign ruler of your life and body and thus being vulnerable doesn't require someone to care for you. All the animals in the world are created differently and some are weaker than others. The animals have no allegiance to one another to care for the weaker. It is survival of the fittest and no one owns you.

    However, under the conditions that you want to be cared for, then it should be someones free choices to care for you. However, there then must be a trade off because they then are taking on the risk/responsability for what happens to you. That trade off then must be authority, as if they were a parent.

    This is the ONLY truly moral non-aggression moral system. Rights and freedom to each person, but they thus take on responsability as part of their freedom, lest it becomes force on someone else. And if one requires to be cared for, then they must forfeit authority as a sovereign person because to be sovereign and free requires you bare responsability, and in a moral social contract you transfer that responsability and risk onto the caretaker. Thus they must have authority in return as your risk is their risk. However, as a sovereign being, IF you require to stop being cared for to gain authority back and out of the moral social contract, then you should have that right to do so. But you cannot force someone to take on your risk and care for you, especially when they have no say over the risk you take on (because your risk is their risk), because that is aggression and authoritarian and not just.
     
  14. Jackrabbit

    Jackrabbit Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2018
    Messages:
    172
    So men aren’t responsible for using their physical strength to attack or rape a woman because women want to have equal rights in politics and business, two realms where physical strength should have no bearing on anything?
     
  15. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    459
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, of course they are responsible for using their strength to do such bad things. Why would you ask if men would be responsible for doing that?
     
  16. Jackrabbit

    Jackrabbit Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2018
    Messages:
    172
    You say women who claim their equality even physically are somehow to fend for themselves, yet there are serial rapists out there and just because a woman wants to be considered equal doesn’t mean she deserves to not be helped if a psychopath decides to attack her on her morning jog. You make it sound as if a person should be held accountable for her victimization because she dared to equate herself to a male.
     
  17. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    459
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I never said anything about them having to fend for themselves. If a woman is being threatened, she should use the Police to help her or defend herself, just like anyone else.

    I simply said they can't have it both ways. They can't reject the scientific fact that sex differences such as strength exist but then expect them to be treated in some way different than men with special protections. If they want to be treated as men and equal to men then they simply take the same level of responsability like men do in that they have no special protections for simply being women, but rather equal protections as men have. You can't reject science and say men are equal to you and then talk out both sides of your mouth and then demand men protect you and tax payer dollars be spent on you more for security over men and children as if you're part of some special protected class. It's simply called having principles and the moral argument.

    You somehow seem to ignore this obvious double standard. Why?

    This has nothing to do with needing help. A woman being threatened by a rapist should have help on a moral level. But that doesn't mean anyone owes it to protect her either. If my life is being threatened, no one owes it to risk their life protecting me. It would be nice if they did, but they don't have to. I don't own them and can't make such demands. But that isn't the point I am making. I am simply saying if you want to be treated as mans equal, then you bare the responsability for society treating you as a man and expecting you to act just as society expects men to act when in the same situation. And when society treats you that way and says 'man up', don't complain about the natural consequences that society puts on you as a result. Those will organically come whether you think it is moral or immoral because that is what comes with the territory of demanding society treats you as men. When a man is being threatened, many times he is expected to fend for himself and 'man up.' Okay, fine. But then those standards apply to those who claim to be mans equal. If you argue otherwise then you're both immoral and a hypocrite if you claim to be for their definition of equality.


    No, I do not. I made it very clear what I said. You seem to be looking at it from an emotional lens perhaps and want to read what you want to hear. You have no coherent argument. It sounds like all emotion. You seem to not understand nuance. Just go back over and read your response to me. It's intellectually dull/lazy, sloppy, and guided by emotion. You missed my point by a mile and seem to ignore the glaring double standard. I said someone who willingly continues to be in an abusive relationship bares some responsability for what happens to them, but had nothing to do with someone who is a rape victim. A rape victim doesn't bare responsability for being raped. But I wasn't talking about rape victims originally. I clearly made that distinction, but you somehow pull that out of thin air.

    If a man hits a man and threatens his life, he has the right to fight back and defend himself. But if a woman hits a man and starts a fight, and even tries to get other men to jump him, he the victim is not just in punching her back because she is a 'woman.' But yet she is equal to man, right? But she doesn't bare responsability for starting a fight like a man that she cannot win? This is essentially your argument and it falls apart on its face. Clearly, if the woman treats men like she is a man by starting the fight she likely cannot win, then the man is just in treating her like a man and fighting back. You can't have freedom without responsability. If you treat others like a man and expect to be treated like a man for best, then you will be treated like a man when you make bad decisions and act like a man too. It goes both ways and that will be socities natural reaction regardless of what you think. If I pick a fight with a bear, should the bear not rip me to pieces because I am not a bear and am smaller than he is? No. I took it upon myself to act like a bear and start a fight with the bear, so the bear is just in treating me like a bear and ripping me to pieces for my silly move. And nature doesn't care I am naturally disadvantaged in the fight because I took that upon myself when I went at the wild bear as the aggressor.
     
  18. Hugh Johnson

    Hugh Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    975
    Your desperate fish galloping is obviously motivated by some suppressed emotion.

    I never said men are responsible for women. I said women should have some extra protections due to their physical vulnerabilities. You just keep throwing around arguments that have no bearing on the discussion.
     
  19. Jackrabbit

    Jackrabbit Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2018
    Messages:
    172
    Why shouldn’t that subject lead into the topic of rape? It goes along the same line of one person subjecting another to physical aggression. But I totally disagree with your assertion that a victim is to blame for the other person’s abusive behavior. Of course there are variations of this and if the woman is engaging in physical abuse as well she isn’t off the hook. Also, there have been cases of women raping men. And some people seem to justify or intentionally ignore abusive behavior when they actually could leave. However there is the other extreme of the manipulators who brainwash their victims into believing they have no way out. They are usually very adept at putting on a front for the public and then changing into a different person behind closed doors. This is an intentional act of maintaining control over another person and using abuse as a way to do so. It’s all too easy and “intellectually dull/lazy” to assume all cases of abuse are black and white. I mean, if you’re only specifically talking about a woman who hits a man then sure, she’s being the aggressor and shouldn’t necessarily assume protection just because she’s a woman and men shouldn’t hit women. It seems like your trying to generalize that argument across all acts of abuse and trying to hold women accountable for sociopathic men because they put themselves in a bad situation. That’s called victim blaming, you should google it sometime!
     
  20. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    459
    Gender:
    Male

    1) Learn how to spell. It is “you’re”, not “your.”

    2) You did say/indicate men should be responsible because they are stronger:

    974CC301-E576-4875-A014-14F17E51124E.jpeg

    You said women should thus have extra protections for being weaker or more vulnerable. Those extra protections will come at the expense of men collectively one way or another, thus inevitablely they are made to be responsible in one way or another.

    3) I’m not throwing around arguments that have no bearing on the discussion. You just have to make things up and deny that you said them because you have no argument.
     
Loading...