In the 1960s, Planned Parenthood, circulated a memo in an effort to form a eugenicist social revolution. The memo grouped possible "fertility control" options into four categories: "Social Constraints," "Economic Deterrents/Incentives," "Social Controls," and "Housing Policies." The category of "Social Constraints" included the "Compulsory education of children," the encouragement of "increased homosexuality," the restructuring of the family by altering the "image of the ideal family" and encouraging women to work outside the home, and -- if all else failed -- the placement of "fertility control agents in [the] water supply."
March 11, 1969---Vice-President of Planned Parenthood-World Population Frederick Jaffe's "Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the U.S." is printed containing a memo to Population Council president Bernard Berelson. It includes examples of proposed measures to reduce U.S. fertility, such as (a) encourage increased homosexuality, (b) fertility control agents in water supply, (c) encourage women to work, (d) abortion and sterilization on demand, and (e) make contraception truly available and accessible to all.40 years later ...
Karl Marx called for the "abolition of the family" in the Communist Manifesto. "Feminism is not just an issue or a group of issues," wrote feminist revolutionary Ellen Willis in the November 14, 1981 issue of The Nation. "It is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values. ... The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion ... to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values. ..."
42 comments:
5-STAR POST, BRO! You hit the nail on the head with a sledgehammer! So, you are absolutely correct.
And of course, who was runnin this game? Yet again...
It's almost overwhelming to consider the numerous Jewish women who have shaped every aspect of the women's movement and of American life
And one can only wonder if Rockefeller is kosher too?
Maybe we can ask his "ex-friend," Aaron Russo? Oh wait...he's dead now. RIP buddy.
BTW, I am busy and also working on a few big posts. These will address some more of MF's questions here...and is more efficient for me than individual replies. But do require a bit of research and connecting the dots to "illustrate the substrate."
PS - Notice the sly propaganda slant of the "STOP AIDS" pic?
In that, it entirely does NOT reflect that actual demographics of AIDS victims?
Namely, by gender and race, the actual stats are:
Blacks accounted for 50% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2004
In 2004, males accounted for 73% of all HIV/AIDS cases among adults and adolescents.
MSM (47%)
IOW, AIDS in the US is largely a gay male...and now, Black, disease.
And yet the pic only shows:
11% Black
44% male
Hmm, looks like someone wants to make this look more like "every American's" disease...than targeting specific high-risk behaviors.
Gotta love how liberals preach promiscuity and homosexuality against "traditional" anti-STD sexual values...but then pretend like just "everyone" randomly gets AIDs regardless of their behavior. They really enjoy divorcing the 2 and erasing the (sometimes dire) connection between actions and consequences. AIDs victims or junkies are never portrayed as wrongdoers by liberals, but modern-day heroes.
Instead of a Scarlet A for shame, they now receive a gold star for "bravery."
See Magic Johnson. He cheated on his wife with hookers in Brazil and got HIV. May have even exposed her to it... But, in the liberal media - he was nothing less than a demigod for it.
As I've said, this country has a fundamental problem with honesty and is stuck waist-deep in denial. You just can't even look anywhere in the mass media these days anymore without seeing thick, greasy layers of filth obscuring the actual reality. Welcome to the Matrix.
Good shet, homeboy.
I really don't understand the correlation here. I understand the genesis of planned parenthood is mired in eugenics, but so what? What is the issue here? That planned parenthoods feminist, and liberal humanist leanings actually had the practical effect of destroying the family as we know it? I think the null set is stronger here.
I find far more persuasive the argument advanced by Joeseph Schumpeter that the root cause of the deterioration of the family is capitalism itself.
Borrowing from Weber's idea of the increased rationalization, Schumpeter says:
As soon as men and women...acquire the habit of weighing the individual advantages and disadvantages of any prospective course of action--or, as we might also put it, as soon as they introduce into their private life a sort of inarticulate system of cost accounting--they cannot fail to become aware of the heavy personal sacrifices that family ties and especially parenthood entail under modern conditions. (p.157)
Further, he cites that this may have lingering systemic effects in that:
the family and the family home used to be the mainspring of the typically bourgeois kind of profit motive (p.160). "With the decline of the driving power supplied by the family motive, the businessman's time living on shrinks, roughly, to his life expectation." p.161.
Essentially, advancing capitalism increases the opportunity cost of having a family by providing competing consumption options.
I think anecdotally it rings true. Capitalism has the effect of separating the benefits one gets from marriage (steady sex partner, stabalized income stream, cared for nest, neighborhood esteem) and proving a place for them in the general market. When you add that to the ridiculously increased cost of per child child rearing in a world where human capital investment is the thing itself, you can see why people become increasingly disincentivised to have kids. So maybe thats the matrix, as you call it, but the effect less likely achieved by some smoky boardroom culture war, and more likely achieved by your desire for an iphone.
Wesley
I think you nailed it. What many of these liberal social engineers proponents forget is that the deterioration of the nuclear family happened long before the "Jewish"/ "feminist" movement of the 60s.
(Side-note, it's very likely that AIDS could have been created.)
Wesley,
As I discussed with Sub yesterday, it truly misses the point to reduce the destruction of the family to capitalism. Rather than spin our wheels about what really is or is not capitalism, I will tell you my personal story.
I am a lawyer. Worked at one of the largest law firms in the country for years and commanded a lucrative salary. Could have supported a family on my salary alone. But that salary came at the expense of my life; never having time for friends or family and, more importantly, never being able to find a man with whom to build a family because I was too busy. At least two weekends a month were spent in the office and all weekday plans were made "subject to work demands."
But I had fly suits and could do a weekend trip to NY last minute if I felt like it. And a hollow void that no iPod or fly shoes or career title could ever fill.
Eventually, I woke up and I quit and took a sobering pay cut when I did. With more time on my hands, less stressed and feeling more free, I met my husband.
We got married and, last year, I was pregnant. We decided I would quit working altogether and stay home to be a mother to my child. That involved yet another sobering loss of income.
"Capitalism" didn't provide any counterpressure against my decision, but feminists sure did. Some friends told me that I was going to be a burden on my husband, that I would set a bad example for my children being a housewife instead of a lawyer, etc. When I told work I was pregnant, the question was not whether I would take a maternity leave but, rather, how long would it be.
It has been women, over and over, who have had oddly and inexplicably hostile reactions to my decision. They can't stand that I am a career woman who "betrayed" some mythical cause and switched sides. If I were "uneducated", they would simply dismiss me as a dumbass, but they can't because I've been there done that career wise.
The response I receive from other women has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with feminist indoctrination that has taken place for the past 40 years. It is the product of an ideology that says it is liberating to obey a boss, but oppressive to follow your husband's guidance. It is the product of a philosophy that says marriage is prison, but sexual promiscuity and abortion are freedom. It is the product of women being told that the workplace is better than the home.
Capitalism doesn't explain how women were convinced that work, while described as a chore, dreary in much comedy, is elevated to the garden of eden in feminist philosophy.
What many of these liberal social engineers proponents forget is that the deterioration of the nuclear family happened long before the "Jewish"/ "feminist" movement of the 60s.
Check the stats, kiddo. The "degeneration" has been proportional to the rise in Jewish mainstream involvement and influence. Which radically notched up in the 60s Jewish Power Movement...
ILLMATH says .........First notice how bryd eye called you bro ( he knows what that means) it's so he wont have to call you man or sir or dv very condescending.... then notice in the picture the "Black" Man is FULLY exposed ALONG with the WOMEN... No "white" men are fully exposed... then notice how the "latina looking one" has her pants at her ankles as do the two "Blacks" (pants at their ankles) with shoes while the whitest women has her shoes and her pants off. The white man is holding the "Black" womans hands on his genitals!!!!!!! either covering his small wares or.... you tell me. And the message is Stop aids with an exposed "Black" penis... byrd I like your blog is that a coincidence? I want to hear from you all on this.
Illmath - what's up man? Always liked that screen name.
"Bro"? Why not? Fuck it.
I call Byrd "My Favorite Whiteboy". He gets it.
Being oversensitive / dishing out what one can't take - is a capitulation of power.
Your observations of the flick are right on the money. However, what your interpretations of these observations?
I think Byrd's observation of the disparity between the photo and the reality of AIDS exposes the propaganda efforts of the Gay Lobby.
That bitchy little expression on the brother in the middle is irks me.
You'd think it was the audiences fault he had AIDS, not his fault for allowing men to fuck him the ass.
What's happening Brother Wes! Good to see you man. Good post.
Before I respond, did the previous posts from Insurgent and Byrdeye address any of your concerns?
ILLMATH says: Oh wait son(byrd) also called intellectual insurgent "kiddo".. Im not making any accusations.... Im also sure bryd will say he calls everyone kiddo regardless of race which I suspect isn't true. Im not getting on you Byrd because i check out your blog from time to time I kinda think your anti-ashkenazi jew ( semites were asiatic Black men) and a unconciously racist but I also think Denmark is stupid for not at least acknowledging the attempt to establish a system of white supremecy but mike fisher takes his shit a little overboard. I call it like I see it. I also think Denmark is smart for not letting that be his focus in his everyday dealings with you guys. And so is Mike for seeing the realities of HUMAN nature. Anyway intellectual insurgent gave you her history and clearly she's not a child plus patronizing people is a female trait. ps youve made some great points though
Bro is condescending now? That must be news to thousands of guys who refer to their buds like that everyday. Wow, you need to stop with the Jewish over-thinking neurosis & paranoid confirmation bias.
"the message is Stop aids with an exposed "Black" penis"
Lol, I don't think that is the message. Although I agree there's purposely more than meets the eye here. Advertisers know all about Bernaysian manipulation.
All I know is that demographically-incorrect naked people have little to do with the AIDs crisis at hand. It is, without a doubt, propaganda.
The one thing they typically REFUSE to show in AIDs ads...is actual AIDs victims covered with sores and shitting in their beds from AIDs. And often gay males, IV drug junkies or now, Blacks...
Maybe that's the real message here. Look - AIDs isn't so bad! These people all "have AIDs," yet look like normal, average-healthy specimens!
ILLMATH says: LOL.. Im laughing Denmark...Damn you're right about the capitulation of power thing but aside from that bitchy expression dude had Im also irked when white boys call me bro.. So now I just call em son or kid or baby or dog.. if he's mexican or "latino" I say amigo. No harm no foul I know were even but he needs to know were even ( not really because he has recessive genes but..) and whats funny is the next time they address me it's usually "man".
anony - did you also not notice The State Of . . . called DV "homeboy?" Why not crawl up his ass too?
Yes, I use these terms without racial distinction.
Hell, I've even been called nigga before by a Black guy. Reality is, many of these slang terms have simply gone viral and become transracial.
Anyhow, how come we never see any flaming gay boys in these AIDs ads? Even though they were the primary demographic here initially?
Yet, I cannot recall ever seeing some fruity pebble shown in any of these ads. Why aren't gay groups protesting this under-representational discrimination?
II
Your story is pure comedy! "Capitalism" didn't provide any counterpressure against my decision, but feminists sure did." Capitalism nor feminism provided any counterpressure to do as you please (no such philosophy can if you are a free thinking individual).
ILLMATH says: LOL... Im sure you dont think that's the message.. lol OR maybe you know the message.. I suspect the former Byrd I saw the Bernays joint already... What demographic of "black" ppl are getting it? That's a hypothetical. I don't need your wayward stats.
^ I would guess r-game Blacks are at highest risk.
And I have no idea how a Black penis is supposed to stop AIDs. Maybe if they showed him with a condom on it?
Again
Capitalism and feminism go hand and hand.
Capitalism and its moral foundation--individual rights. Feminism and its moral foundation-- female individual rights. Too bad many feminists and proponents of the blame "liberal social engineers" can't see the obvious.
LOL. I hear ya Ill.
Yeah man. I don't have them issues with white boys.
Maybe it's because I've never operated from a position of assumed "less than" or maybe because I grew up in the south, listening to old white men call my father "sir". (Pops had game.)
Yeah. I fucks with Byrdeye because he reminds me of my favorite person ... me.
He aint scared. He aint no bitch. He aint no punk ass go with the herd conformist who repeats shit because it's safe.
He seems to dig his whiteness nearly as much as I dig my blackness.
He doesn't act like he owes black people anything. He deals man to man, toe to toe. What's less condescending than that?
Which is more than can be said for them punk ass self-serving duplicitous white liberals and sucka ass Plantation Negros who go out of their way to be hostile to whites in some strange desire to maintain a bitchy faux power status quo.
The Mike Fisher's of this world always seem to be trying to stick up individual whites to perform some kind of public racial mea culpa: "I'm soooooo sorrrrrrrry for what WHITE people diddddd to you! Yes!!! It's my Fault you're sooooo fucked up!!!! My Grandfather once wore a cotton shirt picked by your Great Grandfather!!! I benefit from a GLOBAL system of Power because I have White Skin Michael!!! Yes!! It's true!!! Now ... Mr. Fisher would you like to Supersize those fries?"
-
What up DV,
Birdseye scares me, and he rambles. I'd have to understand anything about where he's coming from to address his points, but they sound like a hodgepodge of conflated ideology and fuzzy math at the outset.
Intellectual Insurgent's points are interesting but they kind of sidestep the point I was trying to make by conflating the marginal utility of individual income with the tendency of capitalist economies to expand supply and lower unit cost as a whole. Two very different ideas.
As far as her personal story, I'm a hedge fund lawyer by training so, i mean, I get it.
Actually, capitalism is economic Darwinism. It is thus in line with Nature.
Feminism is the denial of biological gender and evo-psych behavior. It is opposed to millions of years of evolution.
Hence, one works radically better than the other.
No, not everybody wins in capitalism - only the best.
But the best lose in feminism and liberalism - further enabling weakness.
Ever watch Survivor? Has a female won yet? Who would win if one tribe was all-male and the other all-female? Males are needed for survival, females for replication.
The idea that such role-specializations don't naturally exist does not hold up when you get back to basics - like in Survivor. And people get reality-checked VERY quick.
DV - On point, as usual. It can be easy to confuse liberal patronization with respect. Many people don't realize that being honest with another is actually the highest form of respect.
Brother Wes,
Actually, “Planned Parenthood” is just a shell organization for The Rockefeller Foundation. Without getting into it here, the aim of the Rockefellers is not mere “eugenics” – it is worldwide population reduction.
"as soon as they introduce into their private life a sort of inarticulate system of cost accounting--they cannot fail to become aware of the heavy personal sacrifices that family ties and especially parenthood entail under modern conditions."
Well Wes … let’s think about that inarticulate system of cost accounting.
1) What does it cost to have a child?
2) What does it cost to not have a child?
3) What does it cost to have a child without a family?
4) What does it cost to have a child with a family?
Which scenario is truly more economically viable?
Reproducing one's self, is one of the driving forces of ALL life. Not just man.
What kind of mind fuck could take place, that would make men and women ... after a million years of human evolution ... suddenly do a U Turn, and decide to forfeit their reproductive capacity?
I submit to you my dear brother, that it is more than mere cost accounting.
Read the quotes again. Examine the public school (indoctrination) system. Examine the product from the Mass Media (propaganda) machine.
Think about why the Rockefeller Foundation's ... excuse me ... I mean "Planned Parenthood" ... markets abortion as a "Women's Rights To Choose".
BrydEye
You missed the point entirely. Feminism before anything else is about (females) individual rights just like capitalism is about individual right. Feminism in many ways is the offspring of capitalism. There are different ideologies within different branches of feminism (yours and II focus being entirely on American Marxist feminism), so that's aside the point.
Capitalism sees no distinction between males/ females, blacks/ whites, etc, thereby making your statement- " Males are needed for survival, females for replication" pointless.
If a female were to win in Survivor (be the best engineer, artist, lawyer, etc.) it would mean nothing other than she was the best candidate. You mentioned- "No, not everybody wins in capitalism - only the best". In accordance with capitalism of course.
ILLMATH says:"... crawl up his ass"There you go with that white boy devisiveness... " don't act like you didnt see my name devil Youre not being smart only revealing your true colors I know it's not on purpose so Im not mad at you.. come to think of it it is on purpose.. see dv underestimates you "white folk" The "brotha in the front looks like a the flaming gay boy. That poster subtly marginalizes and overtly stigmatizes the Black male because of the fear of the Black penis. What do you think that you're going to distract me by playing off the stereotypical black male homophobia that youre trying to play to.. Im even sure they picked a less than average sized Black male for that.. lol Ok granted yes I know the gay lobby is behind this and all this aids shit but there are other forces at work more detrimental to me and dv.
Feminism before anything else is about (females) individual rights just like capitalism is about individual right.
Actually, it was about granting womyn all the same rights as Men...but none of the same responsibilities...while maintaining all their special chivalrous entitlements.
The end result being a massive unbalancing in the naturally-balanced gender scales. That's the real problem with feminism.
As far as the collectivism-individualism continuum - either extreme is ultimately self-defeating and there is a natural balance in the middle.
ILLMATH - your "name" in BOLD is anony - if you want people to address you as ILLMATH - I suggest you login as that.
If I was just being "insulting," then why do I address DV and MF as such most of the time?
Well, I think the first question we should be asking about that ad is WHO MADE IT? I think the ID of the ad agency and organization could shed some light on their agenda.
I don't think the Black guy is obviously flaming. No, there was a conscious effort to avoid that portrayal.
OTHERWISE, you would have seen 2 guys together, HOLDING HANDS. And some junkies with track marks.
Funny how everyone in the ad is paired up heterosexually tho, eh? Why no 2 guys holding hands??? Or holding other parts of each other's bodies?
Okay, so
I agree with Birdseye that feminism as presently constituted trends toward creating a severe and unsustainable gender imbalance. Specifically, it makes women cheaper to date but more expensive to marry (dating outsources all cost to a man but a woman's entertainment cost, marrying without shared resources increases cost without benefit all things equal).
Essentially from a game theory standpoint it might make perpetual dating a rational strategy for the man under certain assumptions.
I say current effect because I think that this unsustainability won't last past a few generations. The issue is either that there is a time lag to structural change, i.e. women's expectations are conditioned in an old world chivalry model but their freedoms are from a new world capitalist model which somehow results in them being able to expect to receive more than their mothers without making up for that imbalance in other arena's, or the traditionalist argument that female empowerment is unnatural. In either case, things will return to near equilibrium at some point either with women picking up their share of the tab or going back to the strict gender delineation of yesteryear.
DV...
"The Mike Fisher's of this world always seem to be trying to stick up individual whites to perform some kind of public racial mea culpa: "I'm soooooo sorrrrrrrry for what WHITE people diddddd to you! Yes!!! It's my Fault you're sooooo fucked up!!!!"
Is that so, DV?
Where's that deconstruction of my "God proof", by the way?
BrydEye-
Your extreme bias against feminism causes your judgement to be blurred. As stated before there are different ideologies within feminism- stop focusing entirely on the American "Marxist" feminism of the 60s. Even within your statement, the underlying premise is still about individual rights… even if that is about the right to act "unjust". The "right to have an abortion" is a right that has never (and that cannot be) granted to men, thereby negating your statement about granting womyn all the same rights as Men).
Mike,
Do you really think you ... Mike Fisher ... "proved" the existence of God?
LOL. How laughably Eurocentric of you my Afro-Saxon friend.
I gave you props for your rather linear exercise in what we refer to as "logic".
I didn't find it particularly deep or revealing.
I told you if you wanted proof of the existence of God, I'd introduce you to my daughter.
One does not need a mathematical theorem to prove daylight. One need only open one's eyes.
On the other hand DV,
I'll clarify my capitalist destruction of the family point. The issue is really a bit more complicated than individual income choice. Successful capitalism lowers the costs of both production and consumption by increasing output capacity, decreasing per unit factor cost and decreasing market price. Basically, there's both more crap to buy and more crap you can afford to buy. Along with this, technolotgies increasing returns to Capital investments reduce the returns to human labor. In the past, large families actually contributed to the economic bottom line and provided an implicit social securities for aging parents. This more than offset the price of raising the child.
Now though, per unit prices have fallen exponentially, at the same time to costs to raising a kid up to productive expectations has risen exponentially (with the exponential rise in whats considered production). The sum total of that is a huge rise in parents opportunity costs. A kid used to cost some food, a mule and a headache. Now a kid costs a boat, a house full of flat screens, ocassional vacations in the french isles, etc. And thats not even monetizing the parents leisure time as a variable, given that there is simply more to do for unconnected adults nowadays.
The point is, once you start to actually evaluate these costs, having kids becomes less and less of a rational strategy for all but the very rich and the very poor.
You're right on the sinister beginnings of planned parenthood, but wrong (i think) on the effect. If it was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy of dunces and the real gains have been achieved by the forces of creative destruction.
"is about the right to act "unjust". The "right to have an abortion" is a right that has never (and that cannot be) granted to men, thereby negating your statement about granting womyn all the same rights as Men)." Anonymous
Anonymous. Please choose a nickname so we can distinguish you from the dozens of other Anonymi.
Let me ask you.
You refer to abortion as a "right".
That fascinates me. How did you come to think of the killing of a fetus as a "right"?
Yes, yes of course, it is one of the mantras of Feminist propaganda. It is a meme that has been hoisted upon us so aggressively, the idea itself has become sacrosanct. Anyone who dares to even QUESTION the assertion risks being shunned by the Pop Pharisees.
But still. Does a woman have a "right" to smoke Marijuana? Does a woman have a right to beat her child? Then why does she have the "right" to vacuum out a 12 week old fetus from her womb?
Just asking.
"right to have an abortion" is a right that has never (and that cannot be) granted to men, thereby negating your statement about granting womyn all the same rights as Men).
I said same rights as Men...but did not limit it to that. Of course, why just stop there? Even more rights than Men is an extra bonus!
WG - Evolution self-selects the winning strategies. That's why the "traditional" model with gender role-specialization is seen so cross-culturally. Because it works best in the long run. This strategy is what produced the advanced civiliations we live in today.
Sure, women can go to college and get a career. But, what happens when they drop out a few years later to have a healthy baby before it's too late? And maybe don't return to work? College ain't cheap. So, was all that time & money invested for a few years-long career worth it? And could it have been better-spent elsewhere?
Does this diversion of resources make them less evolutionarily competitive than couples who use those same resources for other purposes, instead? Or societies employing role-division?
Anyhow, your underlying premise seems to be that individual rights is the root of all Evil? I would argue that excessive egotism is certainly harmful. But so can excessive collectivism be too (Communism).
Brother Wes,
Interesting course on capital and cost accounting. Thank you.
However, you and I both know, there is more to wealth than cash.
So I ask again, what does it cost a man, not to have a child?
How expensive is that?
Think of it as an Opportunity Cost if it makes you more comfortable.
"is about the right to act "unjust". The "right to have an abortion" is a right that has never (and that cannot be) granted to men, thereby negating your statement about granting womyn all the same rights as Men)." Anonymous
This logic is super circular.
But still. Does a woman have a "right" to smoke Marijuana? Does a woman have a right to beat her child? Then why does she have the "right" to vacuum out a 12 week old fetus from her womb?
This only questions the governments decision to grant the authority.
Also, Where is this God Proof? I'm willing to bet its a shoddy rendition of pascal's wager. Point me to it, I'll happily deconstruct (or perhaps be enlightened?)
DV...
"One does not need a mathematical theorem to prove daylight. One need only open one's eyes."
I said "a proof" DV. But since you've got that colossal intellect, deconstruct it already.
It would appear that you do not you do not possess the mental ability to do so.
In any case, your absolute disdain for rational thought is mind-boggling.
How do you prove the existence of day light when one has no eyes, DV?
How does one build a house without using logic?
How does one build a computer? Build a car? Understand the properties of electricity?
By looking at your daughter?
If that is how the prototype of the "blackest man" on the planet thinks, then byrdeye isn't too far off with his racial theories.
DV
On the kids front, I completely understand where you're going with that one. The high watermark of all individual achievement in my opinion is having and raising a successful kid. I couldn't imagine a life as a MAN not dedicated to making the young lions I haven't had yet the baddest mofo's on the planet. It's clearly and utterly what we're here for, the most rewarding project you can ever embark upon and the only thing that matters.
All that being said, it takes a particular type of individual to realize this and feel this way. Primarily, it requires pulling onesself wholly away from the expectations and social value of others. Thats why I say only the very rich or the very poor are likely to do it. Either you have to be below the social value threshold or far above it to make that decision. At the median it requires a high level of resistance to normal short term reward incentives that can be overcome by an enlightened individual. Thing is, most people aren't aware of the tricks that their ego plays on them.
At base humans tend to flatter themselves with illusions of their intelligence. We're basically high falutin bonobos, chimps, water apes. We are trained to respond to stimuli and positive social reinforcement like any animal. Like my dogs, we're constantly in an earnest search for a pat on the head or a high value treat. So the structure of the maze is important in shaping our behavior in the aggregate.
Wesley Gibson...
"Also, Where is this God Proof? I'm willing to bet its a shoddy rendition of pascal's wager. Point me to it, I'll happily deconstruct (or perhaps be enlightened?)"
DV. Could you please pull the relevant post up for Wes?
DV - You refer to abortion as a "right".
That fascinates me. How did you come to think of the killing of a fetus as a "right"?
DV if you noticed I put the right to an abortion in quotes. I believe no such right exists indefinitely.
Further you ask- "Does a woman have a "right" to smoke Marijuana? Does a woman have a right to beat her child? Then why does she have the "right" to vacuum out a 12 week old fetus from her womb?"
My personal opinion is that at the very least people should have the right to do with their body. So do I believe women have a right to smoke. Yup. Right to commit suicide? Yup. Right to have an abortion? I'm still debating on that in regards to that of the rights of the unborn child... often times I go back and forth.
"At base humans tend to flatter themselves with illusions of their intelligence. We're basically high falutin bonobos, chimps, water apes. We are trained to respond to stimuli and positive social reinforcement like any animal. Like my dogs, we're constantly in an earnest search for a pat on the head or a high value treat. So the structure of the maze is important in shaping our behavior in the aggregate." WG
Yup Brother Wes. Beautiful.
Absolutely.
Without a doubt.
.... unless.
There's another path. Unless the cats who came before us were onto something. Unless there is something in mankinds' collective contemplation of 10,000 years of scripture, meditation, and literature - that suggests there is a way for man to transcend our basic limitations as high falutin bonobos, chimps, and water apes.
Which is anathema to the Secular Jihadists who would have us believe MAN IS ALL THERE IS!!!! We are our impulses!! There is no idealized self!! There is no God!!! Only you!!! Fuck fuck fuck!! Spend Spend Spend!! Medicate!! Never die!! Science will save you from Global Warming!! Bear Sterns will save your retirement funds!!!
(Right Skip?... wit yo Technate Cult)
LOL. Nah Bra Wes. Man, you aint got no sons yet? Bra. Stop what you doing and go out and find you the right woman TONIGHT.
Cats like you gotta duplicate. Us good lookin' smart cats can't let bustas have all the children.
"My personal opinion is that at the very least people should have the right to do with their body. So do I believe women have a right to smoke. Yup. Right to commit suicide? Yup. Right to have an abortion? I'm still debating on that in regards to that of the rights of the unborn child... often times I go back and forth."
Well said Anonymous.
You definitely need a nickname.
LOL. Damn Right DV. I got my girl and she is the unbelievable truth. I would love to stop and pop them out right now, but everything in its course. I'm 27, she's 26 we're establishing our space right now so that we can concentrate on raising the little tikes giving them as many skills as possible. 3 years. Everything is in the structure of the Maze.
On the other hand, I'm not so convinced that secular humanism can't have the opposite effect. By showing us we're all we've got, shouldn't that make us want to be the best that we can be?
Sure, women can go to college and get a career. But, what happens when they drop out a few years later to have a healthy baby before it's too late? And maybe don't return to work? College ain't cheap. So, was all that time & money invested for a few years-long career worth it? And could it have been better-spent elsewhere?
-birdeye
Actually, they tend to raise exceptionally talented children. One of the few foreign aid interventions proven to work is unrestricted access to educational opportunities for women.
Post a Comment