Home > Health, Studies, Supps & Pharmaceuticals > Scientific Studies > Antidepressants (SSRI) Make Females Unattractive, Provoke Male Aggression

Antidepressants (SSRI) Make Females Unattractive, Provoke Male Aggression

  1. ...or at least it does so in birds.
    The news about the pure evil that SSRI drugs are just keep on coming. There is already evidence that they pretty much zombify the person taking them and deprive that person of any semblance of humanity.
    SSRI Drugs Linked To At Least 28 Murders, Including Mass Shootings In USA
    SSRI Drugs Impair Judgment, Wisdom, Understanding, Love And Empathy
    SSRI Make Organisms Demented, Violent & Homicidal, Even At Low Doses
    The Dark Side Of Serotonin Exposed By Haidut In 70 Studies

    However, as bad as it is, all the evidence so far was in regards to a person taking SSRI. Well, not any more. The study below shows that males interacting with females exposed to low-dose SSRI lose all sexual/romantic interest in them and instead become highly aggressive towards the females. Again, this effect was seen from low-doses SSRI exposure that mimics human exposure to SSRI levels found in tap water or commercially prepared foods. Imagine how much worse the effects would be in females (or any person really) taking SSRI drugs at pharmacological doses as "treatment" for depression!! I wonder how many relationships, marriages, families, etc have been absolutely ruined by this serotonergic poison....
    While the study did not propose a mechanism of action for this "bystander" effect, I suspect it is related to increasing the stress phenotype of the birds exposed to SSRI. As we now know stress is actually contagious and can be transmitted via odor, so the male birds are probably reacting to that odor of "stress".
    PTSD / Trauma Is Contagious, Can Be Transmitted Via Odor/pheromones
    There are other studies showing that bullied people invariably have elevated stress hormones long before any bullying actually commenced, and can provoke aggression even from unknown, non-hostile individuals.

    I am finding it hard to even imagine worse drug outcome than what we see with SSRI. Not only do they make a person absolutely hate the world around them, but it makes the world hate them in return as well.
    @aguilaroja

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653518313328
    Male birds sing less to females on antidepressants

    "...The researchers studied the birds at sewage works where they flock to feed all year round. The worms, maggots and flies at sewage treatment plants have been found to contain many different pharmaceuticals, including Prozac. The study showed that dilute concentrations of Prozac similar to those measured at sewage works appeared to make female starlings less attractive to the opposite sex...In 2016, there were 64.7 million antidepressant items prescribed in the UK. Some of these compounds are stable in the environment and break down slowly once they’ve passed through our bodies and into sewage-treatment systems. Dr Kathryn Arnold and Sophia Whitlock, from the Environment Department at the University of York, have been studying the effects of environmental levels of fluoxetine (commonly known as Prozac) on starlings for a number of years. They have discovered changes in the behaviour of these starlings that could put birds at risk in the wild. Sophia Whitlock, researcher on the project, said: “Singing is a key part of courtship for birds, used by males to court favoured females and used by females to choose the highest quality male to father their chicks. Males sang more than twice as often and as long to untreated females compared to females that had been receiving low doses of Prozac.” Funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the study also found increased male aggression towards females receiving the dilute dose of Prozac. Instead of courting them, males were more likely to chase, peck or claw the female starlings on Prozac."
     
  2. Man, this is VERY interesting but the title of the thread is totally misleading IMHO. It should include "birds" on it. Let's be rigurous for the benefit and credibility of the forum.
     
  3. Well, I hear you point but most biochemists do not study birds and rodents and other species out of pure interests in those species. Those studies are typically done with the implicit statement that the same would happen in humans. In fact, many of those studies explicitly raise the alarm and of course say more research is needed but still state the findings are very worrying and likely applicable to humans as well.
    If you know of a difference in humans that would prevent from this result being replicated then please let me know and I will include this disclaimer. I already changed the beginning of the thread to say this was a study in birds, but considering the bad effects of SSRI have so far been seen in crabs, rodent, reptiles, apes, etc I would say the burden of proof should be on Big Pharma to show that the same does NOT happen in humans. Actually, we have over 70 different posts about the bad effects of serotonin/SSRI on the forum and many of them are in humans. So, despite all this evidence, you still think all the dangers of SSRI apply to non-human animals only?
    The Dark Side Of Serotonin Exposed By Haidut In 70 Studies
     
  4. It's ok haidut. I had to say it. Couldn't resist. I understand your points anyway but I am really sure none of the scientists of that study would neither privately or publicly state that this can be easily extrapolated to humans.
     
  5. They actually discuss quite openly in the study that the effects of fluoxetine on suppressing sexual behavior is well-known and confirmed across many species, including higher mammals.
    "...In mammals, sexual dysfunction can occur following even an acute or subchronic dose (Sarkar et al., 2008; Guptarak et al., 2010), indicating a need to assess the effects of shorter exposures in passerines. In general, further work in this area should now focus on elucidating the mechanism, in terms of alterations to neurotransmission in fluoxetine-exposed females, that results in reduced attractiveness. Such work should again collect behavioural courtship data, but should also investigate whether key mode of action related targets, such as serotonin transporter (SERT) and relevant serotonin receptors (e.g. 5-HT1A), are differentially expressed in fluoxetine-treated compared to control female brain tissue during the breeding season. Finally, generating a dose-response curve, ranging from low environmental concentrations through to high human dose equivalent concentrations, could be beneficial in furthering the current level of understanding of the effects of fluoxetine on behaviour and other ecologically relevant traits, and the implications of exposure in the environment. However, determining traditional threshold concentrations at which effects become apparent could be challenging for two reasons. Firstly, fluoxetine has already been shown to exhibit a non-monotonic dose-response relationship at environmental concentrations in other vertebrates (Martin et al., 2017; Saaristo et al., 2017). Secondly, a trait such as ‘courtship’ consists of different behaviours with different underlying mechanisms and responses are likely to be context dependent. Thus, the utility of a dose response curve in defining ‘safe’ environmental concentrations is likely to be limited for contaminants with sublethal effects."

    "...The consequences of such exposure in wild birds are also poorly understood. The evolutionarily ancient serotonergic system, including the primary target of fluoxetine (SERT), is well-conserved across vertebrates (Lillesaar, 2011). In line with the read-across hypothesis (Huggett et al., 2003), we might predict effects similar to those observed in humans in birds and mammals, following exposure to fluoxetine. Sexual dysfunction is a common side effect of fluoxetine in humans, causing delayed ejaculation in men, anorgasmia in women and decreased libido in both sexes at therapeutic dosages (typically 20e60 mg day1 ) (Higgins et al., 2010), with similar effects in rodents (after 10 mg kg1 injected daily) (Matuszczyk et al., 1998; Uphouse et al., 2006; Sarkar et al., 2008). Fluoxetine has also been shown to increase circulating testosterone in depressed female human patients at therapeutic dosages (Kumsar et al., 2014)."

    "...Nevertheless, we still feel our results are important because although our weight-corrected dose for each starling was only around 10% of the human therapeutic daily dose, we still found evidence that fluoxetine treatment altered avian courtship. Interestingly, we found no physiological evidence of endocrine disruption as a mechanism for behavioural changes. This builds on evidence from other studies showing that environmental concentrations of fluoxetine can alter avian behaviour (Bean et al., 2014), as well as reproductive and other behaviours in aquatic vertebrates (Bertram et al., 2018; Weinberger and Klaper, 2014)."

    So, they actually seem to imply (second quote) that this effect has already been seen in humans and they expect it to manifest in birds as well.
     
  6. Lol I always found women who are bitchy are in need of a big fat slap. I feel normal now.
     
  7. Ok, very good points.
    The context in this case is a HUGE thing to keep in mind since human context is incredibly much more complex. Birds or higher mammals and human context really are eons of distance. For instance : a woman depressed, lethargic, with dark circles below eyes, cynical, zombifief by depression it is much more unattractive than a woman who is on SSRIs and depression free (for the % of people which SSRis work, which is a fact). In that context, she could be much more likely to get sexually engaged and approached by males than the non SSRI one.

    So in this case the context of her having social life, joy, energy to do things, etc because of Prozac would in great part offset the other biochemical factors that could make them less attractive.

    Just an example
     
  8. I guess this explains the phenomenon of having a "punchable face"
     
  9. sometimes women are bitchy because they dont give into entropy or go with the flow

    Attractiveness is important, but what are you going to do with it ?
     
  10. Lol the many solutions that come to mind.
     
  11. I updated my original comment with a second quote from the study. They actually seem to imply these effects of fluoxetine are well known in humans and other mammals so they expected them to transfer to birds as well. Their only surprise was that it occurred at doses much lower than what humans take as medication.
     
  12. Yep, and the "punchable" phenotype correlates very well with high serotonin - i.e. overly logical, argumentative, highly analytical, always capable of criticism but not constrictive one, etc. Such people often construct a social image of themselves of being a highly rational (read: annoying), but misunderstood and socially awkward "genius" that somehow deserves special attention and treatment from others.
     
  13. Society doesn’t go with my flow EITHEr. When they make schedules based on my ovulation calendar then I can go with the flow no problem-0
     
  14. Until then it’s just me and this bottle of progest e
     
  15. Woah getting a little personal here.

    You're cutting deep haidut!
     
  16. Why personal? :): I did not mean anybody in particular. There are legitimate socially awkward geniuses for sure. However, the ones that keep getting in your face telling you they are so smart are usually the ones to be wary of. I am sure you have run into these people before and know the difference between them and the truly shy, introvert geniuses.
     
  17. I remember something vague about avian blood circulation, or airways or something leading to more efficient absorption of toxins. Seems relevant here.

    I think this can be summed up succinctly as "being emotionally invested in the truth"

    People who need a statement to be absolutely solid, either because it makes them feel good to be right, or because they have some identitarian narrative to fulfill, or even because ambiguity causes them anxiety, probably share these things IMO.

    People who are mentally flexible care less about such things, in my experience. And they're usually a lot more humble and down-to-earth.
     
  18. It could be a full time job just track adverse biological effect reports, even with no commercial incentive for study. Many reports are impaired social/situational function have emerged recently. And as @haidut has noted, disturbances by one drug, like Prozac, in the SSRI category, probably reflects potential harm by the entire category. I aim to separately post soon about recent "transgenerational" adverse effects.

    Maternal exposure to fluoxetine during gestation and lactation induces long lasting changes in the DNA methylation profile of offspring's brain and... - PubMed - NCBI
    "early exposure to FLX [fluoxetine, i.e. Prozac] was also associated with a reduction in the social interaction time (p = 0.0084) and to a decreased in the plasma corticosterone level when animals were submitted to the restraint stress (p < 0.0001)."

    Fluoxetine treatment of prepubertal male rats uniformly diminishes sex hormone levels and, in a subpopulation of animals, negatively affects sperm ... - PubMed - NCBI
    Flx [fluoxetine, i.e. Prozac] administered to juvenile rats disrupts the hypothalamic-hypophyseal-testicular axis and its effects on sperm quality are not homogeneous in adults. In contrast, Flx altered concentrations of gonadotrophins and sexual steroids in all treated rats. These results suggest caution should be exercised in the prescription of Flx to prepubertal males.

    Effects of waterborne exposure to the antidepressant fluoxetine on swimming, shoaling and anxiety behaviours of the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. - PubMed - NCBI
    "FLX [fluoxetine, i.e. Prozac] impaired swimming behaviour at high concentrations (25 μg/L and 50 μg/L) but not at low concentrations close to environmental levels (1 μg/L and 5 μg/L). When swimming activity was assessed 5 min after transfer of the focal fish to the testing tank, 50 μg/L FLX was the only concentration showing significant effects. However, when the same trials were performed 24 h later, 25 μg/L FLX turned out to be an effect concentration in addition to 50 μg/L. Interestingly, these concentrations would elicit fish plasma concentrations comprised within the range of human therapeutic doses."
     
  19. Very interesting. This is probably even true for someone that isn't on SSRI. I think even the normal cycles of the month for a woman (if she is estrogen dominant) can induce an significant increase in serotonin and cause such behaviour.
     
  20. Bullying is very very rarely the guys fault who gets bullied. The bully on the other hand is ****88 up in some ways. The bully is probably more serotonin dominant than the one who gets bullied. No-one with good mental and hormonal state bullies because it achieves nothing.

    Overall, i think this study(ies) hold true largely with humans aswell, even though this is very primitive stuff.
     
  21. Pretty much the entire "skeptic" community. I'm not having a go, I was one of those people and occasionally still have remnants of that behaviour. And I was severly bullied as a kid, something I blame on my parents and my grand parents.
     
  22. "Fault" is not really a meaningful term here. I was bullied, but in hindsight I can see how annoying I was and how I was constantly triggering the aggression in others. Bullies themselves typically have stressors, such as being locked into a state indoctrination camp five days a week, and that then expresses in unhealthy ways because they lack support. Bullying in kids is not about fault, because kids lack the ability to self-regulate and thus are pretty much ruled by their body-mind. Adults sometimes have limited concious control over their actions, but even adults are typically just reacting to stimulus.
     
  23. It would seem to me that "bullies" in general are kids/people who experienced trauma and that is why they want to bully others or "pry" on other kids/people's weakness.
    For instance, weakness and/or irritation can trigger an aggressive "attack". Most bullies are/were victims (for example they were abused by their alcoholic father) so they have to make someone else a victim in order for them to feel better about themselves. Fear feeds fear. But the person getting triggered (the bully) is usually someone who has also experienced trauma and wasn't able to fight back. I don't think someone healthy with low serotonin would suddenly get triggered and bully someone out of the blue. Someone healthy would rather avoid other people with "weakness" or high serotonin issues.
    So both the bully and the victim probably had something happen to them somewhere in their life which causes them to be bullies or be bullied. I think this is also why bullies tend to avoid healthier kids/people because they need someone weaker/more fearful than them to pick on in order to feel stronger/empowered.
     
  24. Absolutely. Hopefully, the takeaway message is not "blame the victim". The bully is usually endocrinologist deranged. This study did not find hormonal imbalances, leaving elevated serotonin as the most likely cause of "attracting violence".
    Bullies, sexually deranged people, serial killers, etc have all been shown to have elevated stress hormones (especially prolactin and cortisol) and low T (if they are males). There is fascinating study that I keep trying to post on the forum about the role of endocrine imbalance in criminal pathologies and fanaticism. Something more urgent always comes up, but should be able to post it next week. Anyways, in that study they make a good argument that both the aggressor and the victim share a similar phenotypes - one of enduring chronic stress. Often, the bully is somebody who was a victim in the past and once they find themselves in a position of power (physical, political, financial, etc) they unleash all that suppressed anger on the world.
     
  25. Yep, I was typing my comment above when you posted this. Bullies were typically bullied in the past themselves and once they acquire power they decide it's payback time.
     
  26. Does it stand to reason at all that this is actually really due to low thyroid? I mean, serotonin issues and low thyroid have been connected indisputably by Ray Peat, so the fact that there's prozac in the water means that some people are more susceptible to it than others, and that would mean those who are hypothyroid. And interestingly, there seems to be a connection anecdotally between people who have low thyroid suffering abusive childhoods. I wonder if the abuse causes the rise in serotonin which eventually results in a thyroid disfunction and then the low thyroid perpetuates the serotonin cycle.
     
  27. It would depend on the person, but I think the direct cause is elevated serotonin. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, the study did not find endocrinological imbalance in the birds exposed to Prozac. I don't think they tested directly for thyroid though.
    So, if somebody is born with low thyroid then that would generally result in higher serotonin. Another case would be exposure to stress, which increases serotonin and ultimately suppresses thyroid function too. Exposure to environmental disruptors like Prozac will likely have this effect. So, low thyroid and high serotonin both promote each other and either one can be initial cause of the other. But I still believe that high serotonin is what makes those people give the vibe of "attracting violence".
     
  28. Right, but based on that then everyone would have raised serotonin due to unavoidable environmental exposure. So there must be some underlying reason why some people have higher serotonin despite similar exposures as those who maintain a lower level, so it stands to reason in my mind that a strong thyroid (whether it's something you were born with or it's because your family didn't cause you excessive unnecessary stress in addition to the unavoidable environmental stressors) would be a built-in protective measure designed by nature and, as usual, f***ed up by mankind. That's my opinion at least based on the fact that I believe my highly stressful childhood was the root of my thyroid issues and unfortunately resulted in me being a high-serotonin child/teenager/adult.
     
  29. I would agree with that - if two people with similar exposure results in one having normal serotonin the other one elevated is usually due to lower metabolism in the latter. CO2 one of the main controllers of serotonin uptake, and CO2 levels depend on metabolism.
     
  30. This topic reminds me of something I heard you mention on one of the Danny Roddy podcasts.... that elevated serotonin can turn nice, peaceful grasshoppers into swarming, destructive locusts...

    When Grasshoppers Go Biblical: Serotonin Causes Locusts to Swarm
     
  31. 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?
     
  32. Yeah, but that article is sooo good. Whenever I encounter these types, I amuse myself by visualizing them with locust head and antennae.
     
  33. You have described one of my alternate personalities to a T. I am sometimes very relaxed and down to earth but occasionally I will become the person you just described and use my intellect as a hammer to bludgeon others and as a shield to protect myself from the repercussions of my personality. Fortunately this is getting much rarer estroban seems to help a lot.
     
  34. This is so sad. And they start girls on this as young as middle school:arghh: :arghh:
     
  35. The sad thing is they are starting to use birth control as a mood stabilizer. They first give you SSRI and then “if” those don’t work they start you on the pill to help with anxiety because it supposedly controls the amount of hormones you produce. Obviously what they don’t tell us is that they’re replacing our natural hormones with synthetic ones and most people don’t take the time to learn more about it. They believe they can take doctors’ words as the truth because we’ve been brainwashed to think they’re somehow omnipotent beings.
     
  36. And eventually your work performance starts to suffer, so you start taking amphetamines:

    Managing The Risks Of Taking Adderall To Enhance Work Performance
     
  37. My mum's recently come off Prozac and is looking much healthier now. It almost killed her, mixing them with alcohol, it all made her extremely sedated and delirious
     
  38. They turn humans into obedient zombies. I doubt SJWs would exist if it weren't for SSRIs.
     
  39. This could reflect the huge increase these last few years in the MGTOW(Men Going Their Own Way) movement. Basically men who feel women aren't worth marrying or having relationships with. Maybe the increasing bad behavior of women exposed to Serotonin and Estrogen is what causes this hostility towards women.
     
  40. Oh Yeah, my stepmom loves her some adderall. It's prescribed by a doctor so it must be good for her! I swear it accentuates her probably already-existent OCD type behaviors.
     
  41. i do love this forum, but it really is on the cutting edge of innovative misogyny
     
  42. Whore-moans
     
  43. Care to explain in some specifics?
     
  44. I didn't mean I agree with MGTOW, I just observe it as a rising phenomenon in society and the internet (If your statement was in reaction to me).
     
  45. @Jackrabbit nah not really :)
    @Vinero that wasn't meant as a response to you directly, though it did set off my thoughts on the matter again. I just get exasperated, i feel like a lot of guys are really about maximizing their physiological masculinity and end up seeing it as masculinity as synonymous with notfemininity or something. and in my mind masc/femm are basically ideas to be used for fun, and if people wanna take something seriously it should be notions of character and physiological optimization. ahhgg, i could ramble on and end up saying nothing at all, and actually @Jackrabbit i knew i shouldn't have said anything at all to begin with because i wan't gonna wanna go and find examples to cite and refute. i really don't mean any offense, and i barely mean to be a jackass, think i've got a kind of OCD where that's concerned though
     
  46. Whore moans ?
    What does this mean ? Comments like these are why I find myself less and less on this forum . Yuck.
     
  47. What does “cat cream” mean?

    whore (n.)
    1530s spelling alteration (see wh-) of Middle English hore, from Old English hore"prostitute, harlot," from Proto-Germanic *hōran-, fem. *hōrā- (source also of Old Frisian hor "fornication," Old Norse hora"adulteress," Danish hore, Swedish hora, Dutch hoer, Old High German huora"prostitute;" in Gothic only in the masc. hors"adulterer, fornicator," also as a verb, horinon"commit adultery"), probably etymologically "one who desires," from PIE root *ka- "to like, desire," which in other languages has produced words for "lover; friend."

    moan (n.)


    c. 1200, "lamentation, mourning, weeping; complaining, the expressing of complaints; a complaint; lover's complaint; accusation, charge," probably from an unrecorded Old English *man "complaint," related to Old English mænan "complain, moan," also "tell, intend, signify" (see mean (v.1)); but OED discounts this connection. Meaning "long, low inarticulate murmur from some prolonged pain" is first recorded 1670s, "with onomatopoeic suggestion" [OED].
     
  48. Then leave if you don't like it. Some of us don't care about overly used buzzwords like 'misogyny', often pushed by overly emotional people who don't like anything that goes against their fluffy utopian world view.
     
  49. I actually agree with the more intellectual side of MGTOW philosophy. I have found much of it agrees with my experiences as guy who has had quite a lot of experiences with women of today. Five men in my life that I know were all accused falsely of rape by different women (all of them were caught in lies, etc.), so I always knew something was wrong many years ago, but couldn't quote put my finger on it. I also have met too many guys who I find that when I share some of the concepts with, it clicks with their experiences too. As you said, that may be why MGTOW ideas are getting popular. It just seems to 'click' when you really dive through many of the concepts with an open mind. Unfortunately you have the crazy parts in any group, so I tend to focus on the philosophy more, but I dont see MGTOW as a group either, but more of a philosophy. It sure does offend a lot of people because it seems to challenge their world view of how they want things to be rather than how they are or may be in reality. But I stopped caring about what offends people long ago too, so that helps as well.
     
  50. 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.
     

  51. [​IMG]
     
  52. Okay
     
  53. What makes men think they’re so desirable to be around? If women are becoming “less attractive “ due to SSRI, what about the whole aggression thing that males are more prone to? Does that just get overlooked? Trust me, us ugly ladies are not crying in our rooms just dreaming about the men who are punching holes in the walls and giving their girlfriends black eyes!
     
  54. LOL. You've wrongly assumed I think most men are desirable to be around. The fact that you are so quick to jump to "but men too" as an argument tells a lot. Anyway, honestly, most men I don't find desirable to be around either. So no. Not just many women I find have issues, but this thread was talking about problems relating to women and SSRI's, so of course it what I said will pertain to women. But in general, this society just seems 'sick' to me, in many ways. But there clearly has been a trend over the decades where women are becoming more masculine in their traits and how they act in general. SRRI's I think may be part of this, but I think there are other factors here as well. Data suggests women keep growing unhappier compared to decades ago as well. Just the number of middle class western women who are on anti-depressants is shocking and should tell that there is something very wrong here.

    Many of the men these days (in my experience) here act like they have something to prove and are so desperate for validation and are way too thin skinned and act like a lot of the women do as well. I think a large percentage of people I come across in my life I don't like being around for extended periods of time, lest I feel dumber. That said, biological differences in both sexes will have some different outcomes insofar as behavioral traits in general are concerned. I think a part of my experience is the result of having a relatively healthy mind and society in general encourages and is full of toxic people putting toxic things in their minds and bodies and, as a result, producing toxic energy, and in general I personally think too many people who shouldn't be reproducing are reproducing in this world, which I think is contributing to the declining IQ average. I mean, things that used to be part of an SNL or onion piece 15 years ago now makes for normal and 'intellectually stimulating' debate/conversation today. When I first came to the US I was quite surprised at how thin skinned and soft many people were. I don't think many of them would last more than a week in my country where the hardships are so much harsher and real.

    Men are more prone to aggression, yes, because biologically evolutionary pressures selected for that, as men were after all the providers and defenders of the tribe. But I would say women are capable of aggression as well, but they are just not taken as seriously because they're on average smaller and weaker than men are. Women tend to be more passive aggressive too. So both sexes are aggressive in their own ways.

    And despite what feminists may claim, most men aren't dreaming of punching out womens eyes either. But women are the natural sexual gatekeepers and they very often keep going back to the abusive men they choose to be with. This is a very common thing most marriage and relationship counselors see. That said, women should assume responsability for choosing poor quality mates just as men assume responsability for violence on women, but in the current gynocentric society, women will get lesser sentences if they attack their spouse or falsely accuse of rap/sexual assault. And society seems to encourage womens poor choices in selecting bad men. No matter what happens, it is always the mans fault. You always hear that the man did not 'man up', or whatever. Even on talk shows when the woman cheats, she always guilts the guy into feeling like it was his fault why she cheated. I think men are just beginning to see through the gynocentric conditioning, which is why ideas such as MGTOW is spreading. It's like society encourages women to have freedom of choice but without the responsability when consequences for bad choices come. Like all the silly excuses for why single mothers choose to have babies with bad fathers whom they know are bad. Lame excuses like forgetting to take birth control. Or most of the time when a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, she walks away with a small prison sentence or community service time at worst, but often they don't go to prison for it. Yes some how we should just get rid of innocent until proven guilty and believe any claim. I think many of the indoctrination western feminists have pushed on women over the decades is backfiring on women and making women unhappier. That is probably partly why they are, according to the CDC, almost twice as likely to use SSRI's. But lets not point out these obvious inconsistencies because 'muh sexism.' SMH.
     
  55. You sound like you make an equivalence between a woman choosing a bad mate and the partner's actual toxic behaviors, using "take responsibility" talk is if it implies equivalence. That is obviously not equal, and it's why women argue against victim shaming. You're upset about people using buzzwords, like sexism apparently, but "feminism" and "gynocentric" sound just like your own buzzwords. It's not possible to think of several significant other reasons why women would feel depressed, other than western feminist "indoctrination"? I'm sure if you tried to think of other reasons, even through a Peat perspective, you could. You also blindly shamed women by saying men are acting more like women, which to you is (obviously) bad.

    And the whole part about population control.. Is this a new spin on Malthus?
     
  56. 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.
     
  57. Yes possibly a good idea to leave the forum or at least not engage.It has become less and less a place of learning and discussion and more a harbour for some people making pretty vitriolic posts.What a shame. I really don’t think Ray Peat would like that talk at all.
     
  58. The world isn't a safe space.
     
  59. 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 .
     
  60. 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.
     
  61. 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.
     
  62. 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.
     
  63. 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.
     
  64. No I do not think it is possible because everything checked out after the migration. Nothing should have been lost.
     
  65. 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.
     
  66. 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.
     

  67. 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.
     
  68. You read too much bitter losers, and it is rubbing off on you.
     
  69. 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
    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.


    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.
     
  70. It's not bitterness. Life just happens to people. You'll eventually grow up and realize that. Have some perspective.
     
  71. 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.
     
  72. 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.
     
  73. 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."
     
  74. Actually selfishness is the fundamental aspect of a truly capitalist society, have you ever read anything by Ayn Rand?
     
  75. That may be true, but the fact remains..... there is not a single capitalist society on planet earth in 2019.
     
  76. 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.

    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.

    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?"

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  77. 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.
     
  78. Another, better word instead of "corporate capitalism" would be "corporatism." That is basically how Mussolini defined Fascism.
     
  79. 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.
     
  80. 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
     
  81. 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.
     
  82. 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.
     
  83. 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.
     
  84. What is that substance?

    Oil??
     
  85. 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.
     
  86. Cheap oil --- yes.
     
  87. Not to toot my own horn but intuition was on point for that one :grin
     
  88. 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?
     
  89. 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.
     
  90. 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.
     
  91. 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.
     
  92. 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?
     
  93. 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?
     
  94. 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.
     
  95. 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.
     
  96. 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.
     
  97. 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!
     

  98. 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.