The Challenge

Jesus Christ I wish I'd get a new response once in awhile. You know where they got the idea to ban cloning? From all the damn clones.

Time and again I get the same attacking argument-free responses, to virtually everything.

But the most verbose, homogeneous, and hateful are those from a particular group.

Women who are so accustomed to be worshiped for the perceived pleasurability of their various orifices, that they post advertisements of them in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Women who are quite obviously to me attempting to auction themselves off to the highest bidder or to secure the future of their thus acquired contracts.

Women for whom honesty is not an option because of the doublethink implicit in their vitriolic attack on what they perceive to be a lower class.

You see, I tell a woman she's trying to profit off of her breasts, and she thinks I'm calling her a whore.

Far from it. I respect whores. Whores are honest and direct and obey the will of the market. No, I see both whores and sluts as sacred almost, doubly so because of the society in which they grew. Whores are usually from poverty, which means the know the truth about society eve if they may not be able to articulate it or exploit it effectively.

And sluts are generous, or at least honest with themselves and unashamed to take what they want when they can get it regardless of social finger waggling. If nothing else, if a woman is a slut and that is her chief "problem" then she's caused more happiness than the average person. And in my view, all it takes to be a good person is causing more happiness than you destroy.

So no I'm not calling you a whore, you don't deserve such a compliment.

Let me run down the usual list of bullshit I get.

For my audacity I am called the follow, or the following claims are made about me. I'm going to answer each one, so that i can post this link as a response to the canned responses I regularly get. I wish I had thought of this approach before but a form letter just didn't seem needed. Looking back, it clearly was. I've spent hours of my life, maybe even days or weeks solid when added up, responding to the human intellectual equivalent of mayflies.

Homosexual: Besides being totally irrelevant, I'm straight. I can't offer proof of this, but then again nor do I feel the need to. I haven't been offended by attacks on my sexuality since 7th grade.

Male chauvinist: Actually I'm closer to a feminist. Men by and large are addled by constant testosterone overdose, and they are unquestionably the most violent gender, this in my view makes them weak. Although I do blame women for this generally in the modern world because of the constant preference for cavemen. It is a biological fact that speciation is a power that rests squarely in the hands of the females. Sexual selection is fueled by the chooser gender and by definition, that is the female of the species. No, if I were a male chauvinist I'd swallow the party line of innocent victim princess mommys that need to be protected and obeyed and sheltered and catered to for all time, and I would ask them to be responsible or accountable for their choices as a group, as men are clearly expected to be. I ask of them what is asked of me because I see them as AT LEAST equal.

Pitiful: Heh, I think you mean pitiable. Anyway, maybe. That's really not up to me. I have pain as much as the next human. to me pity is something reserved for a victim, so if you honestly pity me then it's not my fault anyway. I don't pity myself, I see my life thus far in many way as absurdly lucky, almost ideal in both what I have experienced and what I haven't.

Pathetic: Impossible to rationally counter, too subjective.

Ugly: Impossible to rationally counter, too subjective.

Fat: I'm 6'5" and I weigh 245. I ride my bike twice a day, weather permitting. you call.

Stupid: Not according to my most recent psych evaluation.

Narrow minded: Read my whole blog.

Hateful: Read my Whole blog.

Judgmental: Uhhh, yea, I'm a conscious human, I make judgments constantly. I balance them with being open minded. If people would actually try to argue these point maybe I'd have a different opinion, but calling me names isn't going to persuade me or anyone else. If that's even the point.

Rude: Yea, and so was bring up women's suffrage. Social convention matters to me about as much as a gram of navel lint.

Insane: That's a matter of numbers, and therefor depends on how you look at it. Sure I may be insane by today's standards but if I'm far enough ahead of my time, I'll be vindicated later.

Petty: In anything I'm a lofty minded narcissist. I see everyone else as being petty specially if they can't see past their own genitals.

Troll: I believe every word I say, I am not trying to get a rise out of anyone, I'd prefer universal agreement, but I wont pander to get it either. I don't care if I piss you off, one way or the other, at least not enough to do much about it.

Belittling: See Troll.

Insecure: I advocate polyamory, I post my real face and name online, I posted my psych evaluation. I think of myself as a modern Buddha. If anything I'm an ego maniac. I have one secret that I don't post because of its embarrassing nature, and that's all. I assure you it has nothing to do with these matters anyway.

Friendless: Ironically, As I write this I'm pressed for time due to a social function. I'll admit I don't have many friends, but since everyone is so fond of cliches, I'll repeat one, its not about quantity, its about quality. Besides my circle would be much larger if the Company hadn't set upon them like a pack of velociraptors.

Uneducated: In that I have no degree, sure. However you'll be hard pressed to find a subject of scientific importance that I cannot intelligently discuss. I may not be able to rattle off names and dates without Google's help, but I've got the concepts down. Besides, Bush graduated from Yale, nuff said.

Causeless: HA! Wow. Saving humanity from an Orwellian future isn't a worthwhile cause? I'm trying to show you the one tool which they most use to control you.

Which brings us to The Challenge for my detractors. My supports can do this easily.

If you can answer this question with any degree of insight, you'll have my respect.

The question is this: Why is it advantageous for any of the following, to suppress polyamory and/or support monogamy? Religion/Government/Commerce

You may choose one or all. The only rule is you must not use a self referencing defense. For example you may not say that religion supports monogamy because adultery is a sin, or that government supports monogamy because polygamy is illegal, or that commerce supports monogamy because it is profitable, you must tell me WHY these things are.

It must at least pretend logical rigor and objectivity.

Your move.

Screw Your Rules: Delivery

This post is in response to the general type of statement mocked below. It pisses me off mightily, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is that pandering to the idiot masses for power is what every worthless politician in history has done, and I'm not looking for votes, I'm looking for truth.

Once again, for the cheap seats, if it matters to you more how I say something than what I say then your opinion is worthless to me. You are not human to me, you are a consumer, a demographic, a mindless automaton that follows instructions delivered with the proper syntax. You've abandoned your ability to think critically, and with it your right to influence the future beyond the unavoidables of your physical existence.

I will not feed you what I consider be truth like a bitter pill to a mindless dog.

*Dress it up. Tone it down. Why be so "rude"? Honey than vinigar. People don't want to hear it. Spoon full of sugar. * blah blah blah

I'm going to say what I like, and if you don't like it you can choose to not read it.

You seem to assume its possible to convince people of anything. It is not. At best you plant the seeds in receptive soil, and much like in nature, either it will grow or it will not. Soil/environmental conditions are the prime concern, not how gently I dug the hole.

You seem to think as if this generation is the only one. You seem to think the environment will stay like this forever, and to adapt myself to it and the thinking style that gave birth to it is not a waste of time, when in fact it is.

My delivery and the bitterness of it is precisely the tone I want because my target audience is not the people happy with being lemmings, my target audience is the group that is sick to death and very angry. they are and will be the marginalized intelligent who have been passed over again and again by a culture with a teenager's grasp of profundity and a greed to rival Midas.

And no, those who demand polish and hat-in-hand delivery don't matter. They are meat byproducts. The meek shall inherit, is that it? Funny how those odious sentiments ooze from the lips of the not-so-meek.

My position will have value and find adherents or it will not, and my delivery matters little. Freud was an insufferable asshole, as was Mandelbrot, and Nietzsche and countless others with high self opinion and a deep desire to explore and share their work.

Either I am one of them, or I am a crack pot. I leave that up to your children to decide. Either way they won't care how polite I was.

When thinking of my tone, in the face of my positions correctness or lack of, ask yourself, in 100 years who's gunna care?

I will not pander to you or anyone else's idea of what is "proper". Because when you get right down to it, my position itself is technically "rude" since its basically terrorism according to our current society. Proper is subjective.

Newsflash, I advocate the eradication of the basic need for government using the non violent forces of economics and memetic engineering. I'm a variety of anarchist, I've developed my own religion, and I despise corporations of all stripe, and I think monogamy is a scam. Do you really think that how I explain my position and reasoning matters?

I plan to live for the next 2000 years at the minimum, the people that scoff at my words because of my tone will die out long before me and frankly if we cared what the dead thought, we'd still be worshiping the sun and chasing bison.

This is not the 19th century, and honesty trumps etiquette in the minds of all who matter. Because as comfortable as euphemism and self deception is, I don't want lying morons on my side, savvy?

However, while my goal is merely the discovering truth in order to aid happiness and life, the propagation of it is not against my goals. If those who make these claims of improper delivery see past it, and recognize something of value, you have my leave to translate my work. Just try not to lose the spirit of it.

Gladatorial Meat

Multiplex #48: Happy Birthday, Becky

Now I'm not a moron, I get it, and I do have a sense of humor, I did laugh. But... to me this is a bit like a racist joke, not that ti IS a racist joke, just that it illustrates something that is actually a deep social problem.

Here's what I'm on about... Notice in the first panel how the idea to torture the guy was totally mutual? It looks to me like they both had the same idea at the same time and executed it with equal skill.

Why then does the guy get attacked and the "girl" (despite being 18, and therefor a woman) merely have to announce the presence of a vagina to avoid an assault that most would agree was earned? (If one subscribes to the idea that one CAN earn assault, as most of you do judging from the latest poles on bar behavior and child rearing.)

Quite simply because, like so much gladiatorial meat, men, have almost no value beyond their production capacity. Thus, it's ok for us to fight, even if a slip could result in death for one and life in (or associated with) jail for the other. Further, since the people depicted are low income its not like anything they do matters anyway, except the girl, her job is just to stand around and be hot and pick through suitors, again, like so much meat.

Unlike the worthless (judging from their jobs and income of course, the only things about men that matter besides thier familial status)men, she's not a loser, she's merely unmarried. Which ironically makes her more valuable socially, as she represent a potential sex slave, domestic worker, and status symbol to all who are in the market for such things.

So yea, while I did get a chuckle, I am not amused.

Spanking: More mindlessness.

One can really tell critical thinking is prized highly among the pro assault crowd. /sarcasm

Just recently I saw the following gem.

I think that most people feel that spanking is bad. in some cases, a spanking can help. I very rarely had to spank my kids,,but when I did, they knew that it was because they were doing something that they had been told time and time again not to do.

Beating and spanking are two different things.

Spanking with the goal of producing healthy happy socially adjusted adults is about as adept as the rubber mallet approach to TV repair.

"Duhhhrrrrrr it not doing what me want HIT HIT! I not hit hard... see now it work YAY! Me good parent!"

It's quite simple, on a number of levels. (albeit apparently not simple enough for the shockingly limited average intellect of the pro spanking parent.)

Would you tolerate a spanking from your employer? If he or she were to give you one, what would the charge be? Assault? Sexual battery? Can you talk your way out of assault saying "Well I didn't hit X very hard."

News flash: Children are human citizens and deserve equal protection under the law. Can you legally hit a citizen just because they annoy you?

Past all that, who says what you are asking is reasonable? I knew plenty of people well beyond their parents in both wisdom and intelligence. Knocking some girl up or getting knocked up does not instantly make you fit to parent responsibly or issue order backed by physical force.

That's why we train police and soldiers, and even they have a very hard time of it.

If you're too inept to trick or convince a child into willfully undertaking the desired set of actions, and the only recourse you can think of is punishment, (of any kind, in my opinion) then you're too stupid and callous to be a parent in the first place.

http://nospank.net/arnall.htm

The only reason this is still a debate at all is because The Company wants absentee teen morons raising children so they can provide TV, School, military, and religion, as alternates. Thereby halting social evolution, which is the largest threat to established institutions ever devised.

The average American parent actually raises their own children about as much as the sap paying a 20$ a month guilt check to some kid in Somalia.