SPEAK THE TRUTH! And Redeem This World From Hell

[DaveFoster]

you're playing sexual politics

Sounds like my normal Wednesday nights.

 

[x-ray peat]

Thanks for engaging either way. I'll continue my investigation of cults

You as well. Let us know what you find out; I sure could use a good fertility rite

 

[LUH 3417]

You as well. Let us know what you find out; I sure could use a good fertility rite

That made me cackle really loud. Will do

 

[LUH 3417]

Sounds like my normal Wednesday nights.

Didn't people used to get married on Wednesdays?

 

[DaveFoster]

Didn't people used to get married on Wednesdays?

I prefer the modern form of marriage, Tinder.

 

[LUH 3417]

I prefer the modern form of marriage, Tinder.

I know a girl who got punched a tinder date. Be careful.

 

[LUH 3417]

On a*

 

[DaveFoster]

I know a girl who got punched a tinder date. Be careful.

I've been that guy. Twice actually. Spices things up to be sure.

Might have something to do with me being more free with my words than on here, but I'm not sure.

 

[LUH 3417]

I've been that guy. Twice actually. Spices things up to be sure.

Do peole who use tinder have any interest in monogamy?

 

[DaveFoster]

Do peole who use tinder have any interest in monogamy?

Mostly an interest in marijuana, but there's quite a few single moms I suppose.

 

[LUH 3417]

Mostly an interest in marijuana, but there's quite a few single moms I suppose.

I wonder if it's because young people can't feel sexy without weed.

 

[DaveFoster]

I wonder if it's because young people can't feel sexy without weed.

Hmmm, that's a good hypothesis. One of my exes found that to be the case.

The first time I smoked weed, I remember giving cathartic inspirational speeches to groups of people in school, and then I made out with a girl in front of her friend, who herself stood with her mouth agape. Somewhat out of character for me.

THC certainly enhances the intensity of orgasms and promotes a high libido in the short-term, but over time in result in lower androgens, higher serotonin and probably prolactin, and diminish the sex drive.

 

[LUH 3417]

Hmmm, that's a good hypothesis. One of my exes found that to be the case.

The first time I smoked weed, I remember giving cathartic inspirational speeches to groups of people in school, and then I made out with a girl in front of her friend, who herself stood with her mouth agape.

Thats interesting. Aren't marijuana and progesterone like chemical anagrams? I remember reading it on the forum somewhere.

Marijuana:

Molecular formula: C21H30O2
Molecular weight: 314.4 g/mol

Progesterone: added screen shot

They both also have Pi in their molecular weight.

 

[DaveFoster]

Thats interesting. Aren't marijuana and progesterone like chemical anagrams? I remember reading it on the forum somewhere.

Marijuana:

Molecular formula: C21H30O2
Molecular weight: 314.4 g/mol

Progesterone: added screen shot

They both also have Pi in their molecular weight.

Marijuana has a lot of cannabinoids. That particular one is THC, and it has mixed effects, evident by the variance in experience from taking pure THC and progesterone.

@BigYellowLemon Could go on for days about THC. Quite ironic, given the impairment of memory that suits the chemical.

 

[LUH 3417]

Marijuana has a lot of cannabinoids. That particular one is THC, and it has mixed effects, evident by the variance in experience from taking pure THC and progesterone.

@BigYellowLemon Could go on for days about THC. Quite ironic, given the impairment of memory that suits the chemical.

Hmmm. I wonder how marijuana effects reproduction besides it's link to lowered androgens in scientific literature. I know it has a very powerful influence on my mesntrual cycle in terms of aligning it with moon phases.

 

[Kartoffel]

Those countries are all capitalist countries that happen to have a large welfare system and significant wealth redistribution. They are not Socialist but rather Social Democracies, characterized by capitalism and private ownership of the means of production.

Socialism's primary feature is that the means of production are socialized or held by the state or by the workers. The USSR and Cuba are examples of socialist countries so @EndAllDisease's use of the word Socialism is actually correct. According to Marx, Communism can only occur after a long period of Socialism where the state eventually fades away. This of course is the sick joke as the State will never fade away and the ruling elite are left in charge.

First of all, your definition of socialism is too narrow. There are many different interpretations of socialism. For instance, Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. You're afraid that he would have turned the U.S. into a new Societ Union, had he been elected president? The difference between certain ideas of socialism and social democratic ideas are small in many regards, and the term socialism encompasses a hundret different social and economic theories. There is no one definition of socialism. The problem is that the term socialism is used synonymously with totalitarian Stalinism in the U.S.. Not many people outside the U.S. would label the U.S.S.R. a socialist country. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship, just as Nazi Germany.

Let's stick with your narrow definition for the moment - let's say that socialism is that the means of production are socialized but the real power then goes to the state. You and many others here claim that this is the ultimate goal of "the ruling class". Please provide some concrete, specific evidence for this claim. Because frankly, it sounds absolutely ridiculous. Show me some proof that the Koch brothers' and their buddies' secret plan is to have their big buisnesses taken over by an omnipotent, socialist government one day.
Starting in the 1970s the U.S. have gone through several decades of privatization and financial and economic deregulation. The tax code has become less progressive, redistributive measures have been taken back, funding for education and social upward mobility has been cut, and regulations for corporations have been severly reduced. The state has never had less controll over the market than it has now. It has moved away from a sort of Keynesian approach under FDR to a deregulated, neo-liberal, pro-big buisness economy. If the state finally wants to achieve total control over everything, why do they privatize everything?
I can't see the secret plan to transform the U.S. economy into a socialist collective. Rather, the U.S. is moving towards fascism similar to that of Nazi Germany. The state is expanding only in the areas of "defense", militarization, and surveillance. Control isn't excercised throught the communization or nationalization of the economy, but through total control via the military and police. The NSA, CIA, and militarized police aren't much different from the Gestapo. Fascists know that you can't controll and steer the economy, and U.S. corporations would never allow any such tendencies.
´

 

[mt_dreams]

Jordan fought a law that had no scientific backing, or rational, and won. he's a hero for standing up in a world that often cripples you if you even try to question laws put in place to prop minority ideologies up. Canada has some crazy laws coming into place, and we need more respected intellects like Jordan to level the playing field. Canada passed a law last year that requires parents to acknowledge their childs chosen gender. if not, it could be seen as a form of child abuse, and the child can be taken away. I doubt it's happened, but the fact that it's a law is scary. the next obvious step already being talked about is that a child will be allowed to make a decision for hormonal therapy without parents consent which I believe has already been portrayed in a vice hbo doc. i guess 8 year olds are great at making life decisions. this will eventually lead to parents just being the birthers of a child, and the crown will have full consent to dictate all decisions for the child. it's a slippery slope that we're already halfway down.

Politics as we know it originated in Ancient Greece. The original political divide was between the idiot and the public man. The idiot could not enter the forum and speak due to her idiocy (presumably). I would say the original political divide was between women and men.

in the white washed version of history, the greeks started politics. in the real histoy, the egyptians had already been there & done that. The greeks pretty much just copied the egyptians on many aspects of life. The white man history does not want to admit that the birth of its ideologies came from an african nation. Not to mention that woman & men were equal in egyptian culture, so a guy like Peterson would be irrelevant. it was the greek philosophers who created the men are superior, and woman are only good for birthing children narrative. the religions that followed boosted that proclamation up , and it's stood the test of time. we're now feeling the effects of this correction, and we can thank the greek intellects for that.

 

[damngoodcoffee]

Peterson is a nice guy. A bit boring and autistic though. I can't stand how he has sort of a religious relationship to Jung, Freud, Nietzsche etc.

 

[cyclops]

the next obvious step already being talked about is that a child will be allowed to make a decision for hormonal therapy without parents consent which I believe has already been portrayed in a vice hbo doc. i guess 8 year olds are great at making life decisions. this will eventually lead to parents just being the birthers of a child, and the crown will have full consent to dictate all decisions for the child. it's a slippery slope that we're already halfway down.

Where is this being "talked about" by people who actually have the power to do something about it?

 

[Ritchie]

I don't find anything great about Peterson. He is a somewhat logical guy with a decent vocabulary who uses his platform to speak out against obvious ridiculousness such as forced use of gender pronouns, some other transgender issues, new age entitlement, SJW's and intersectionality among other things. That's cool but nothing special there, low hanging fruit.

In particular he has found an interesting, although some what convoluted and inconsistent way of attempting to justify Christianity and its "psychological truth" and evolutionary necessity, however in my opinion it is rife with intellectual dishonesty and opportunistic behaviour on his behalf. He puts out consistent youtube videos on the "truth" of Christianity and how important it is to human psychology, in what to me is an obvious attempt to finesse a demographic that love throwing money in support of any prominent intellectual in bat for Christianity in an age where atheism and science logically reign supreme. He is doing extremely well out of these Christian supporters on Patreon and other platforms of donation. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I believe it is a business venture for him rather than the genuine discourse and pursuit of the truth, which brings his intellectual honesty into question. For anyone interested I encourage you to watch his two debates with Sam Harris on the topic :


and


Sam rips him to shreds IMO and Jordan attempts to duck, dodge and weave through anything that could potentially upset his Christian supporters or that jeopodises his stance on Christianity. His debating tactics are rife with intellectual dishonesty, particularly when he is painfully attempting to explain his particular definition of truth.