The Fastest Growing Violent Crime In The United States

He is an asshole and he can't be educated. I abandon him to his fate.

Still, my weakness was always hope in the impossible. Satyr, read the research of Schaller, Goodall, Carpenter, Fossey and any worker in primate behaviour. (Please ignore Zuckerman for obvious reasons.) Report back when you have absorbed that and have understood the survival advantages, picked out by natural selection, to cooperation.

You see how ignorant you are? These attributes did not become necessary. You sound like a creationist. Do you think it is all intelligent design? These attributes become succesful because they contribute to survival and reproduction. They are more effective, on balance, than the ploys of antipathy and aggression.
But I suspect my opening remarks will be proven correct: you cannot, or will not, be educated. That's an ineffective survival strategy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah. Whatever. You seem like the same old Wanderer to me.
If your Wander to Satyr is how you would characterize your manipulation of the 'sheeple' in the real world, then you're really not as good as you think. A few more years of acting school, perhaps.

Nothing wrong with you being yourself though.

Hell, I like you sometimes, my queen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ophiolite,

He's an asshole true. But he's not as bad as all that.
Definitely antagonistic, but that's just his nature. A lot of people are antagonistic here. Yourself included... (I still remember those long-ago days when you defended Valich from me. Remember? Ha!)

His interests are more bent towards the philosophical than the physical though. Hence his misinterpretation of scientific data at times when he coopts it into his thesis.

Satyr works best from a priori.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Co-operation by Bertrand Russell

In these days under the influence of democracy, the virtue of co-operation has taken the place formerly held by obedience. The old-fashioned schoolmaster would say of a boy that he was disobedient; the modern schoolmistress says of an infant that he is non-co-operative. It means the same thing: the child, in either case, fails to do what the teacher wishes, but in the first case the teacher acts as the government and in the second as the representative of the People, i.e. of the other children. The result of the new language, as of the old, is to encourage docility, suggestibility, herd-instinct and conventionality, thereby necessarily discouraging originality, initiative and unusual intelligence. Adults who achieve anything of value have seldom been “co-operative” children. As a rule, they have liked solitude: they have tried to slink into a corner with a book and been happiest when they could escape the notice of their barbarian contemporaries. Almost all men who have been distinguished as artists, writers or men of science have in boyhood been objects of derision and contempt to their schoolfellows; and only too often the teachers have sided with the herd, because it annoyed them that the boy should be odd.
It ought to be part of the training of all teachers to be taught to recognize the marks of unusual intelligence in children and to restrain the irritation caused in themselves by anything unusual. Until this is done, a large proportion of the best talent in America will be persecuted out of existence before the age of fifteen. Co-Operativeness, as an ideal, is defective: it is right to live with reference to the community and not for oneself alone, but living for the community does not mean doing what it does. Suppose you are in a theatre which catches fire, and there is a stampede: the person who has learnt no higher morality than what is called “co-operation” will join in the stampede since he will possess no inner force that would enable him to stand up against the herd. The psychology of a nation embarking on a war is at all points identical.
I do not wish, however, to push the doctrine of individual initiative too far.
Godwin, who became Shelly’s father-in-law because Shelly so much admired him, asserted that “everything that is usually understood by the term “co-operation” is in some degree an evil.” He admits that, at present, “to pull down a tree, to cut a canal, to navigate a vessel requires the labour of many”, but he looks forward to the time when machinery is so perfected that one man unaided will be able to do any of these things. He thinks also that hereafter there will be no orchestra. “Shall we have concerts of music?” he says. “The miserable state of mechanism of the majority of the performers is so conspicuous as to be even at this day a topic of mortification and ridicule. Will it not be practicable hereafter for one man to perform the whole alone?” He goes on to suggest that the solitary performer will insist on playing his own productions and refuse to be the slave of composers dead and gone.
All this is, of course, ridiculous, and for my part I find it salutary to see my own opinions thus caricatured. I remain none the less convinced that our age, partly because of democratic sentiment, and partly because of the complexity of machine production, is in danger of carrying the doctrine of co-operativeness to lengths which will be fatal to individual excellence, not only in its more anarchic forms, but also in forms which are essential to social progress.
Perhaps, therefore, even a man like Godwin may have something to teach those who believe that social conformity is the beginning and end of virtue.
18 May, 1932
It may be noted that Russell himself was educated by tutors at home until he went to Cambridge, and so is unlikely to be expressing personal animus against his own teachers and school-fellows, of which he had none.

 

Every view expressed will have a supporter. Such is life, doesn't validate the view and invalidate all others. There is always an alternate view too.

 

Ophiolite
Thanks for your interest in my education and future awakening.

One day, when I grow up, I want to be just like you.

And such a terrible fate it is, my master.
Your depth of knowledge and your ability to argue using another’s writings has inspired me to become a regurgitating idiot just like you and your kind.
Watch me post another’s words as arguments for my own positions. A practice, I suspect, comforts you and assuages your fears of sounding stupid, when you are just that.

Allow me to wallow in my misery.
Adequate punishment for resisting your insights and guidance.

I’m sure you’ve uncovered aspects of cooperation that have resisted my feeble mind.
You have certainly displayed a deep comprehension of evolution and the human condition here and I am in awe of you.
What did you say again?
Nothing, again.

Ah, so things in nature are not necessary or do not occur for a reason but are chance occurrences?

Intelligence? (not in your case)
A natural mistake with no survival advantages.

Cooperation?
It just happened spontaneously and it was not made necessary due to environmental circumstances.

This must be part of your evolutionary expertise.
It is above my comprehension. Excuse my deficiencies, master.

These “attitudes” are not only essential but they are so for particular species, whereas for others they serve no purpose and the species does not become social.

Now why is that?
Why do some species fail to become social and cooperative?

Why does nature produce more complicated unities?

Furthermore why are quantities superior to qualities and how do they become harmonious and cooperative?

My dear sir, are you claiming that I am dead and not surviving? :bugeye:


invert_nexus

I’m more of a thinker than an actor.
I leave the pretense to you.

Are you saying that rape is unnatural and that primates do not practice it regularly?

What about prostitution?
Is that also a paternalistic invention, like gender?

Tell me, oh scientific one.
You were always better as a supportive element.
A bit playa.

Knowing how established authority figures influence the herd more profoundly than any others, please read old Bertrand...
Or is he misinformed and not as scientifically adept as you and your new buddy, the expert of evolutionary mechanics?


“And now for best supporting role in a thread the winner is……!!!”
Where, of where, is your leading lady, my footman?
Whose ass will you kiss, now?

Oh how the herd exposes itself. How cooperative and tolerant and compassionate they want to be.
Oh, how boring and dull and dim they are.
Average, in every way.
Dependant on one another for everything, including thinking. .

You know I might be off or...I might stay.

 

So you're saying that Satyr is a thinker? And Wanderer was something else?

Do remember the train of conversation, dear heart.

Oh. But, that's right, it was Wanderer who made posts about how he would manipulate the water cooler crowd, isn't it? Something along the lines of the stereotypical sociopath playing a part to fit into society when he was, in fact, a cog that didn't fit?

So. I suppose Wanderer never did come back.

Satyr is the real Costa?

I'm just me, bubba. Always have been. Always will be.

It's a bit more complicated than that, Satyr. I would say that from the studies I have seen, rape is uncommon.

Sex, in chimpanzee cultures, is a social glue.

You call it prostitution? This is an anthropomorphism. A human concept.
Chimpanzees use sexual behavior to smooth social relations for the troop. Even infants are observed to make sexual motions as social cues. Humping and the like.

Is rape unknown in chimp culture? I wouldn't go so far as that. And, I suppose that there are different cultures, some of which are more rowdy and which rape might play a larger part. Usually, these cultures are ones which the chimps are living close to humans and are thus in a tentative environment. These same cultures would engage in war-like behavior to a larger extent than would be considered the norm.

It all boils down to this. You can't rape the willing. And, in a successful chimp troop, they're all willing. Except for one the female is in estrus, of course. This is when the mating means something and you have dominant males policing the weaker males from getting any of that.

You think about this often, don't you?
That's for me to know, and you to never, ever find out.

Why. Yours, of course. Who else? My queen.
(It's a pity that you really just don't understand simple human relation. Sad, really.)

 

Oh princess.

How unhappy I am that you do not possess the crown jewels to become inverted sexuse’s chosen royalty.

He so seeks a substitute for his fallen regent.

But you don’t have that, vitriolic scepter and aloof, autistic bite.

Just a plain Jane you are.

He wants to belong to the best of the best.
To the discriminating and bigoted so as to make his sacrifices special.

Poor princess.
All outer glory and no substance.

I know. We are all entitled to our opinions and you, certainly are entitled to your stupidity. It suits you and it offers you a distinct advantage in this current environment.

 

Russel was a logician, Wanderer.

And his life's work was thrown out the window. You know, a little thing called the Principia Mathematica?

Poor Bertrand. So sure that all truths could be derived from a priori.


His misunderstanding of Wittgenstein is classic too. Such an arrogant man he was. So sure in the foreward he wrote for the Tractatus. He thought Wittgenstein was writing an "Ode to Russell." Funny.



But, in the final analysis, Bertrand was a logician. A rationalist. A positivist. A to B to C to D.

The world is a bit more complex than this, wouldn't you say?



Note: I'm not disagreeing with your thesis on the individual vs society. In fact, I've not brought it up at all. It has its ups and downs. Pros and cons.

It's not a simple topic.

It's not a 1 or a 0.

 

What conversation...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sounds like fun.
Care to point to a quote?

I’d love to relive the past.

Good times…good times….

Ooh nice way to slip in my name and show how in the know you are.

Wanderer who?
That idiot is dead to me.

Far less than that, dear boy.

The subject isn’t how often it occurs but if it occurs and if it is natural or not.

And what is it for humans?

Okay.
How's this:
Female primates, of which man is a part of, have been known to accept food for sex.
It wasn’t invented by paternalistic human systems. It was part of nature to begin with and it was subsequently integrated into human systems.

Rape isn’t a human dysfunction. It is a natural occurrence which human intervention attempts to change.
Thieving isn’t unnatural.
Killing isn’t unnatural and dysfunctional.

Are you a pedophile?
Oh my…my royal head swoons….

Ah, it’s man’s fault again.

Damn those animals were so well-adjusted and healthy and normal and moral before man came along.
They didn’t even fight wars until damned man forced them to.

Thank you sir.

Hey, that’s the excuse date-rapers use.

If wearing a suggestive dress isn’t asking for sex, then what is it?
Why do women dress provocatively?
Chance, choice, whim….

Don’t worry, you’ll get some eventually.
I mean males die, right?

You have, like, no idea how often.
I masturbated to the idea of her, yesterday.

Is this the first or second time you’ve ever been part of the in-crowed? Like, oh my gawd, you are, like, in the know.
I’m jealous, footman.
Now I know why you didn’t go insane after she departed.

“Immigration!!!!” Na, didn’t work.
“Ola, puta!!!” nothing still.

Tee, hee, hee…you’re making me red…..silly.
Pucker up.

I know.
You beat me again.

How can you stand being so silently superior, without ever wanting to prove it?
It’s what makes you such a good ass-kisser.

How is she?
Feed my need, brother.

And you are an illogician.

I think I’ll take Bertrand’s opinions more seriously than the local herd’s regurgitations.

Isn’t it interesting that we like to mention all the human faults of the one’s we disagree with or who say things we find reprehensible. We remember how human they were when they say things that hurt us.
But when they say things we like we only recall how nice and smart they were.

The opponents of Nietzsche use this method of dealing with him.
Wasn’t Wittgenstein a reclusive homo?
That must mean that his opinions were wrong, right?


Yes, things are more complicated. Making one wonder how then you can discuss it using short, laconic phrases.
Ah, but nobody is really interested in philosophy or the topic here. It’s only a pretext to socialize, flirt and share chewable bio-matter.

 

Oh come now.

Satyr: Wanderer didn't come back. I'm Satyr. And Satyr is... smart. Like you. (Implying that Satyr is a completely different personality from Wanderer. Also implying that Satyr is an actor in that he is playing down to his audience rather than just being real. Implying that Costa puts on the the masks of his characters when he comes to play. Implying that Costa is an actor.)

Invert: Whatever. Satyr. Wanderer. Same thing. You're not that good of an actor.

Satyr: You're the actor. I'm a thinker. (Forgetting that his original statement was about his pseudonyms and now he's made a categorical leap from pseudonym to the man behind the mask. Contradicting himself in the doing.)



But. Whatever.
Don't have much time here so must make this short.

I've been trying to find sources for the chimp sex thing, but I think I got my wires crossed. It appears that chimp culture is more violent towards females than I had been thinking. Where I went wrong was confusing bonobos for chimps. It's bonobo culture which is highly sexual. Where even the females have sex with each other to lube up social situations. Bonobos are laid back and groovy, daddio.

Chimps are more violent.

I think that the source I was originally going from might have been from before the distinction between bonobo and chimpanzees were made. Either that or I just blurred the two in my head.

So. You're more right than wrong in that. Not that I was ever decrying your original thesis, mind. Merely that I thought your facts were a bit skewed. The 'demonic ape' theory.

But, I was thinking bonobo. You were thinking chimp.



However. I am more than sure that chimpanzee warfare is another matter altogether. I'll try to find the sources for this, but it's not that all chimp warfare is caused by humans, but it is a correlated fact that the chimps in a specific region which is disturbed by humans (where they are hunted by humans and pushed out of their lands and such) are far more warlike than a troop not far distant. Chimp cultures vary according to the troop.

Does this mean that humans are to blame? Not necessarily. There is a correlation, however. But correlation does not necessitate causation.

Like I said, I'll try to dig up some sources for this stuff later. When I have time.

Who said I found Russel reprehensible? And who said that I find his essay on cooperation reprehensible?

You have this tendency to jump to conclusions, Satyr. Calm down.

Should I instead attempt to use complicated and obfuscating phrases which leave one scratching their head at what has just been said?

Such tactics work, you know. Many a 'philosopher' is renowned because people don't know what the fuck he's talking about. The Emperor's New Clothes, don't you know?

Simplicity is a style which should be cultured in all who aspire to philosophy. Keep the language as clear and neat as possible.

Of course, this implies some desire to actually have your message communicated. Which, of course, you don't care about one way or the other.

I must admit that this particular topic is not excessively interesting to me. But, I'll see what I can do about bringing in some research on chimp and bonobo behavior.

 

This?

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050209_warfrm.htm

 

Settle the frak down!

Mod Hat - Settle down, children!

Okay, here's what we're going to do:

(1) We will take a breather; this topic is closed until I get around to reopening it tomorrow. (U.S. PDT 22.49, 16 Aug. until further notice)
(2) I will figure out how much of the crap to scrub off the walls.
(3) Please do not make me consider a more severe housecleaning.​

Get it? Got it? Good.

Thank ye all.

 

Mod Hat - Re-opening, and just a bit behind schedule

Okay, look ... I really don't feel like cleaning up the mess of irrelevance that has infected this topic. If we can't write with some restraint of egotism, there really isn't much point. Just something to think about. Go about your business, work and play well together, and don't make me start quoting hippie songs, please.

Thank ye.

 

One of the first times I truly held "feminism" in scorn was after reading an article in a college text that detailed "rape" among fruit flies. A weaker fruit fly would attack a stronger one that possessed food, attract a female with the scent of food, and then attempt to mate with said female. Sounds like rape to me ...? Or cats. Jesus H. Baldheaded Christ on a Pony ... have you ever seen or heard common housecats having sex?

As to the Neanderthals, modern humans frequently like to deceive themselves that we have evolved to a more civilized state. Perhaps our lack of civility is more subtle, complex, and sublimated, but the old joke about dragging a woman by her hair lost its punch well before my time.

Of course, among some primates, anthropologists assert that cunnilinguis is an initiatory rite for incoming females. Dyke rape among apes, or something.

(1) Because no man on this planet has a 36-inch penis that is bigger around than a 12-pound bowling ball.
(2) Because, as with all violence, the solution is generally not to sink deeper into the mire; sure it might make a perpetrator feel better, what's the next escalation?

See also the above point regarding Neanderthals.

An interesting point. When I was in high school, my community service program prepared students for the potential of receiving abuse reports when working with children. King County, Washington (Seattle and environs) was allegedly the third-highest reporting county in the U.S. for sexual abuse of children. This was shocking, given the number of Bible-belt incest and rape jokes in the culture. But it does make sense if we apply a separate stereotype that southern girls just shut up and take it.

I do think, however, that sexual violence itself is on the rise. While people blame pop music or movies for violent tendencies in society, the trivializing of violence by such crusades has the effect of making it less unacceptable. Additionally, a cultural tendency to trivialize the "righteous" as such--dismissing feminists as feminazis, environmentalists as granolas, &c.--increases sympathy for the violent or otherwise wrong as being somehow persecuted. All told, I would be surprised if the per capita violence wasn't rising some. But I do think awareness and the courage to report is on a rise as well, and responsible for the greater share of the statistical increase.

Nonetheless, I went to a Catholic high school, and if there's one thing white rapists and minority gangbangers had in common, it's that they both believed in many cases that Jesus would forgive. Oh, and another commonality: neither believed they did anything wrong. So Jesus didn't have to forgive. Whatever.

Would it be enough to say the perps are getting dumber while the victims are getting smarter? To the other, though, in re: thousands of date-rapes on college campuses--ladies, drink beer. Do you know what a "chick drink" is? It's a fruity cocktail designed to mask the alcohol content with lots of sugar. It's also harder to taste drugs slipped into the cocktail. Belive me, if there was a knockout drug in my Guinness, I'd know. So drink good beer. Harder to detect those "rape drugs" amid all the formaldehyde in cheap beer. Not to blame the women, of course. People ought to drink shite beer and jungle juice if they want without worrying what fat, unshowered slob or pretty jock is going to bang them in the ass.

Okay, maybe an independently relevant consideration:

Look, people are just running out of "acceptable" violence. Wars are looked upon as less and less appropriate these days. Same with "vigilante" assertions in violence, parking lot fistfights, and so on. In the gay fray, I've often asserted that people are running out of targets for hatred and discrimination: race, gender, religion, and now we cling to some idea that someone wakes up one day and decides to become gay--thus making themselves a social pariah among the righteous majority--for no better reason than a lark. Well, we're running out of violence, as well. And with the luxuries of sex becoming more and more an acceptable social desire, the violent find it easier to just take what they want and trust in the difficulties of reporting. Children can be frightened; wives and girlfriends are often held on the strings of "What will you do without me?" Even homosexuals fall into such sexual violence; any homophobe will gleefully point out gay domestic violence rates while pretending heterosexuals suffer no such indignities. (Of course, some homophobes blame homosexuals for heterosexual violence, which doesn't make sense, but whatever; it's a small issue in the context of the current discussion.) The reality of it is that we have not yet let go of the nobility of violence. Even in this day of violence being unacceptable, I know of one poor sot rotting under a ten-to-twenty sentence for a homicide that started out as a "noble" attempt to protect "meek" women.

As justifications narrow for various conducts, the unacceptable conducts reassert themselves with increased ferocity and frequency. I know it's general, but I need to give this new theory more thought in order to make it more coherent and useful.

 

We have obviously been deluded then, by the macho style of so many of the postings to these threads.

With his hyperbolic "rape back" I had rather understood that James' very meaning was that there should not indeed be so much to be afraid of; a competent female ought to be able and willing to defend herself.

--- Ron.

 

what the hell is this thread about?!

 

I guess that rules me out then. Goodbye.

 

That would rule out most if not all of us, including Tiassa.