Lesson #1 in parenting in Virginia

[UncleBuck]

Which kind of human interactions would you say are more civilized the kind that arise between mutually consenting people / voluntary relationships or the kind that arise when there is an involuntary aspect and an element of force involved?

you counseling people on human interaction is like twopump counseling people on home ownership

 

[vertnugs]

Lol

You've just bragged that you live in the fact free zone, there's no point in taking anything you say seriously.

Like your opinion means shit.

I'll bet there's a graph and chart some where on the interwebs that should show you how that middle finger will make you feel next year.

 

[Flowki]

Which kind of human interactions would you say are more civilized the kind that arise between mutually consenting people / voluntary relationships or the kind that arise when there is an involuntary aspect and an element of force involved?

It's impossible to have a discussion with you when you continue like this. You need to speak from a factual history or current day fact, give me solid examples of your beliefs, not what's in your head. In the above you are also using an awful argument tactic. You are giving your view and then opposing it with a situation that leaves no rational alternative but to agree with your view. That isn't how you argue in favor of something.

I will, in hope that you will change the above give you an example of that and then feel free to argue my points with actual fact.

The ideas you put forward as I've said only work when all will uphold your ideology. That is biologically impossible. For all people to follow your ideology would mean free will does not exist, it does, obviously.. so people will choose not to uphold your ideology. Right from the get go your concept is flawed. If people choose not to uphold your ideology they may well (and history factually proves it) uphold an ideology based around war or ''taking from others''. That aspect of human nature is never ever going away so long as free will exists. You need to at-least concede that as fact.

Even before the rise of civilization your concept did not exist, a lot less people were on the planet and while small groups lived together in relative peace as you describe (we assume), many groups fought to the death when territory's over lapped. Not all did, but we know from archeological bone fragments that violent encounters occurred on top of the evidence proving the elimination of some human species. Never in history has your concept way of life existed.

In recent history. A lot of small tribes survived dating back some 500 years. Some of those tribes somewhat lived by parts of the concept you describe (although they had their own power structure). Within 100 years of contact with civilization most of those tribes are extinct. If that is good or bad is highly subjective but I can delve a little into some facts around it. Civilization ''collectively working together'' is more successful than living apart or ''sticking to your own''. In the animal kingdom the most successful species work together, and most of them have some form of ''leader'' or governing biological trait to organize things. Humans are not directly comparable to this on the whole, as we have different races and country's but the common thing across all is that they have a leader or governing structure.

A civilization that has no authority and entirely depends on your concept is inferior to the factual existence of authoritative civilization and all else it has wiped out. For example, some small tribes still exist untouched and the only reason that happened is because we realized our consequence and made effort to protect them by isolation from society. They are in essence a living museum.

That is the only way that such a life style can survive.. because civilization allows it, next week it may change it's mind and those tribes get evicted. However, even if civilization protects those tribes indefinitely they are still entirely at the mercy of civilization due to the damage we are doing to the echo system, the threat of nuclear fall out and so on.

If you were given a country and filled it full of people with your concept way of life, you too are entirely at the mercy of civilization. And that assumes your country concept does not self implode due to free will and people within it changing.

It's a long read sorry. But the point I am trying to get across is that free will completely trumps peoples ideology of having ''rights'' or a singular life style for all. Authority is a factual successful way of life and ironically, force or the threat of it by authority is factually required to uphold your belief in ''human rights''. Now that does not say authority isn't abused to also take away human rights. Like I said before, be it your concept or today's civilization, you don't have rights. Your only protection comes from removing (by authoritative fear) other peoples desire to take what ever they want from you. It's a very important distinction.. since entirely depending on that false sense of rights is incredibly dangerous.

Btw, we do and don't do many things involuntarily. That is what civilization is all about, controlling free will just enough so that we collectively succeed.. but too much control and it becomes oppression. The current left are verbal oppressors. Since we now live in a verbal dominant society they are no better than violent oppressors of old.

 

[Flowki]

Why do you think it’s ok to post this on social media and invite strangers to laugh at his child?

Why do you think it's ok to have some clearly mentally ill people on Britain's got talent so you can laugh at them. But you think it's ok because they are adults. In-fact why is it ok to laugh at the able bodied people?.

I can tell from the above (completely true.. you do that) you are a bad person and I'm going to ignore everything you say now.

Your ignorant game is a two way street and neither of us win, grow up mate.

 

[Fogdog]

It's impossible to have a discussion with you when you continue like this. You need to speak from a factual history or current day fact, give me solid examples of your beliefs, not what's in your head. In the above you are also using an awful argument tactic. You are giving your view and then opposing it with a situation that leaves no rational alternative but to agree with your view. That isn't how you argue in favor of something.

I will, in hope that you will change the above give you an example of that and then feel free to argue my points with actual fact.

The ideas you put forward as I've said only work when all will uphold your ideology. That is biologically impossible. For all people to follow your ideology would mean free will does not exist, it does, obviously.. so people will choose not to uphold your ideology. Right from the get go your concept is flawed. If people choose not to uphold your ideology they may well (and history factually proves it) uphold an ideology based around war or ''taking from others''. That aspect of human nature is never ever going away so long as free will exists. You need to at-least concede that as fact.

Even before the rise of civilization your concept did not exist, a lot less people were on the planet and while small groups lived together in relative peace as you describe (we assume), many groups fought to the death when territory's over lapped. Not all did, but we know from archeological bone fragments that violent encounters occurred on top of the evidence proving the elimination of some human species. Never in history has your concept way of life existed.

In recent history. A lot of small tribes survived dating back some 500 years. Some of those tribes somewhat lived by parts of the concept you describe (although they had their own power structure). Within 100 years of contact with civilization most of those tribes are extinct. If that is good or bad is highly subjective but I can delve a little into some facts around it. Civilization ''collectively working together'' is more successful than living apart or ''sticking to your own''. In the animal kingdom the most successful species work together, and most of them have some form of ''leader'' or governing biological trait to organize things. Humans are not directly comparable to this on the whole, as we have different races and country's but the common thing across all is that they have a leader or governing structure.

A civilization that has no authority and entirely depends on your concept is inferior to the factual existence of authoritative civilization and all else it has wiped out. For example, some small tribes still exist untouched and the only reason that happened is because we realized our consequence and made effort to protect them by isolation from society. They are in essence a living museum.

That is the only way that such a life style can survive.. because civilization allows it, next week it may change it's mind and those tribes get evicted. However, even if civilization protects those tribes indefinitely they are still entirely at the mercy of civilization due to the damage we are doing to the echo system, the threat of nuclear fall out and so on.

If you were given a country and filled it full of people with your concept way of life, you too are entirely at the mercy of civilization. And that assumes your country concept does not self implode due to free will and people within it changing.

It's a long read sorry. But the point I am trying to get across is that free will completely trumps peoples ideology of having ''rights'' or a singular life style for all. Authority is a factual successful way of life and ironically, force or the threat of it by authority is factually required to uphold your belief in ''human rights''. Now that does not say authority isn't abused to also take away human rights. Like I said before, be it your concept or today's civilization, you don't have rights. Your only protection comes from removing (by authoritative fear) other peoples desire to take what ever they want from you. It's a very important distinction.. since entirely depending on that false sense of rights is incredibly dangerous.

Btw, we do and don't do many things involuntarily. That is what civilization is all about, controlling free will just enough so that we collectively succeed.. but too much control and it becomes oppression. The current left are verbal oppressors. Since we now live in a verbal dominant society they are no better than violent oppressors of old.

no

 

[zeddd]

Why do you think it's ok to have some clearly mentally ill people on Britain's got talent so you can laugh at them. But you think it's ok because they are adults. In-fact why is it ok to laugh at the able bodied people?.

I can tell from the above (completely true.. you do that) you are a bad person and I'm going to ignore everything you say now.

Your ignorant game is a two way street and neither of us win, grow up mate.

As I said I don’t watch tv so I don’t understand your references let alone agree with or promote them. I certainly don’t find mental health issues entertainment.
You seem upset about something but I’m lost as to why you’ve adopted this belligerent tone with me but thanks for the lulz

 

[too larry]

bible beater bullys. you only need to look as far as the bullys parents to see where they got it from.

monkey see, monkey do.. . . . . . . .

Even worse, this kind of thing is genetic. Some have done it, but it's hard to out run the blood.

 

[Sir Napsalot]

I don't like Virginia Dad's hat

 

[Rob Roy]

It's impossible to have a discussion with you when you continue like this. You need to speak from a factual history or current day fact, give me solid examples of your beliefs, not what's in your head. In the above you are also using an awful argument tactic. You are giving your view and then opposing it with a situation that leaves no rational alternative but to agree with your view. That isn't how you argue in favor of something.

I will, in hope that you will change the above give you an example of that and then feel free to argue my points with actual fact.

The ideas you put forward as I've said only work when all will uphold your ideology. That is biologically impossible. For all people to follow your ideology would mean free will does not exist, it does, obviously.. so people will choose not to uphold your ideology. Right from the get go your concept is flawed. If people choose not to uphold your ideology they may well (and history factually proves it) uphold an ideology based around war or ''taking from others''. That aspect of human nature is never ever going away so long as free will exists. You need to at-least concede that as fact.

Even before the rise of civilization your concept did not exist, a lot less people were on the planet and while small groups lived together in relative peace as you describe (we assume), many groups fought to the death when territory's over lapped. Not all did, but we know from archeological bone fragments that violent encounters occurred on top of the evidence proving the elimination of some human species. Never in history has your concept way of life existed.

In recent history. A lot of small tribes survived dating back some 500 years. Some of those tribes somewhat lived by parts of the concept you describe (although they had their own power structure). Within 100 years of contact with civilization most of those tribes are extinct. If that is good or bad is highly subjective but I can delve a little into some facts around it. Civilization ''collectively working together'' is more successful than living apart or ''sticking to your own''. In the animal kingdom the most successful species work together, and most of them have some form of ''leader'' or governing biological trait to organize things. Humans are not directly comparable to this on the whole, as we have different races and country's but the common thing across all is that they have a leader or governing structure.

A civilization that has no authority and entirely depends on your concept is inferior to the factual existence of authoritative civilization and all else it has wiped out. For example, some small tribes still exist untouched and the only reason that happened is because we realized our consequence and made effort to protect them by isolation from society. They are in essence a living museum.

That is the only way that such a life style can survive.. because civilization allows it, next week it may change it's mind and those tribes get evicted. However, even if civilization protects those tribes indefinitely they are still entirely at the mercy of civilization due to the damage we are doing to the echo system, the threat of nuclear fall out and so on.

If you were given a country and filled it full of people with your concept way of life, you too are entirely at the mercy of civilization. And that assumes your country concept does not self implode due to free will and people within it changing.

It's a long read sorry. But the point I am trying to get across is that free will completely trumps peoples ideology of having ''rights'' or a singular life style for all. Authority is a factual successful way of life and ironically, force or the threat of it by authority is factually required to uphold your belief in ''human rights''. Now that does not say authority isn't abused to also take away human rights. Like I said before, be it your concept or today's civilization, you don't have rights. Your only protection comes from removing (by authoritative fear) other peoples desire to take what ever they want from you. It's a very important distinction.. since entirely depending on that false sense of rights is incredibly dangerous.

Btw, we do and don't do many things involuntarily. That is what civilization is all about, controlling free will just enough so that we collectively succeed.. but too much control and it becomes oppression. The current left are verbal oppressors. Since we now live in a verbal dominant society they are no better than violent oppressors of old.

Panarchy.

 

[Flowki]

Panarchy.

What of it?.

 

[Rob Roy]

What of it?.

I'll let you figure it out. Which is sort of a Panarchy riddleish pun,

 

[Flowki]

Even worse, this kind of thing is genetic. Some have done it, but it's hard to out run the blood.

Genetics used like that is is a scapegoat in dealing with the educational and social aspects involved. All that would serve is self fulfilled prophecy by predefined children.

 

[Flowki]

I'll let you figure it out. Which is sort of a Panarchy riddleish pun,

Or you could simply explain yourself.

 

[too larry]

Genetics used like that is is a scapegoat in dealing with the educational and social aspects involved. All that would serve is self fulfilled prophecy by predefined children.

Studies of twins separated at birth show that much of what we do in live is heavy influenced by genetics. Not saying it's everything, but it is a big part.

 

[schuylaar]

Studies of twins separated at birth show that much of what we do in live is heavy influenced by genetics. Not saying it's everything, but it is a big part.

identical twins are clones of each other.

 

[londonfog]

Somehow I find this disturbing as a method of disciplining your child in 2018 for unruly behavior.

What do you think?
I'd call DCF, personally

Naw making the kid walk in the rain is something I would do. Putting up on Facebook is the no no. Hell I lived in the time of kids getting whipped with belts, extension chords, or branch off a tree

 

[too larry]

identical twins are clones of each other.

That was the point of the study. In many of the cases, they had married women or men who looked exactly like the person their twin had married. Drank the same beer, ate the same food, liked the same sports, dressed the same, etc,etc. These were folks who had been separated at birth, raised by very different adoptive parents, yet in almost all aspects of their life, did pretty much what their twin did.

It was just a good indicator of how much influence genetics have on our lives. When the sperm and egg meet, you are pretty much who you are going to be.

 

[Fogdog]

That was the point of the study. In many of the cases, they had married women or men who looked exactly like the person their twin had married. Drank the same beer, ate the same food, liked the same sports, dressed the same, etc,etc. These were folks who had been separated at birth, raised by very different adoptive parents, yet in almost all aspects of their life, did pretty much what their twin did.

It was just a good indicator of how much influence genetics have on our lives. When the sperm and egg meet, you are pretty much who you are going to be.

What kind of background would these twins, have? Raised together by a stable family? Separate raise in stable families? Spit up with one raised in foster care by a child abuser and the other adopted into a stable family? Split up and one experiences long periods of hunger while the other has the life of Riley?

It's a fact that an abusive parent has a huge influence on outlook and behavior of the kid much less a pedophile. Genetics and environmental effects can't be separated as cleanly as you say. Environmental stress, accidents and recovery, one really good teacher all affect outcomes.

 

[too larry]

What kind of background would these twins, have? Raised together by a stable family? Separate raise in stable families? Spit up with one raised in foster care by a child abuser and the other adopted into a stable family? Split up and one experiences long periods of hunger while the other has the life of Riley?

It's a fact that an abusive parent has a huge influence on outlook and behavior of the kid much less a pedophile. Genetics and environmental effects can't be separated as cleanly as you say. Environmental stress, accidents and recovery, one really good teacher all affect outcomes.

Separated at birth and adopted at that time. This was years ago, because I had an ongoing fuss my my Mamma about it. She was in the 75/25 nurture/nature camp, while I think it is 75/25 nature/nurture.

But you are right about how much negative effects things like that can have. In this study, everyone was in stable homes. No way to tell about incest, and the like, because the vast majority of it doesn't get reported.

 

[zeddd]

@Flowki you mentioned “dangerous soft left” that’s a bit weird for an English bloke, I’ve only ever heard Neo Nazis talk like this, do you celebrate 4/20 (1889)?