Joss Post at Whedonesque by FireflyPassenger

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

AgentRourka -

In my personal experience, and of those in my circles, the only time women really put more thought into their mate than they did when they were 13 years old is when they have a kid and they're looking for a dad. Of course, it's unfair of me to generalize and throw every woman into a category like this, but this is the general trend I've seen.

Wow. My experience has been very different. Most women I know are in stable relationships with men who have I have never seen behave anything but respectful (silliness and joking aside).
In fact, there are no men in my circle of friends and acquaintences who have ever shown disrespectful behavior toward women. I, apparently, travel in rarely mature spheres.

I suspect that the true average of behavior is somewhere between your end of the spectrum and mine. Whether it's in the middle or closer to either of our experience, I don't have data to say.

Quote:

We're told to behave one way, but we see the guys that are acting another way enjoy all of the benefiets we were told we'd enjoy if we acted a certain way.

See? This is where you lose me. "Benefits".

Respect is not about benefits. It's not a means to an end.

Do you treat women with respect because you do respect them as equals or because you expect more than respect back?

If it's the former, you have my blessing to lose respect for the particular women who you feel don't deserve it.

If it's the latter, well, you're bound to be disappointed. Sexual attraction, as I said, is not a reward behavior, nor rational.

When is the last time you dated a woman you weren't physically attracted to, just because she was nice to you? And if that's your MO, do you think you should be obligated to do so, in order to justify other people being nice to you and not being considered a hypocrite when you ask for respect?

Quote:

Perhaps it's the women who are being dishonest with themselves about what they're really looking for in a mate?

Women don't look at all men as potential mates. Potential mating should not be the sole basis of our mutual treatment.

Quote:

I get this vibe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you're a borderline-to-fullblown man-hater now anyhow, so maybe you already know the answer to that rhetorical question.

I'm sorry WHAT?

I'm torn between being offended and honestly concerned why I come across that way to you. What about me makes you think I hate men?

I have a high opinion of them. Men aren't villains. Some mind-sets and behaviors and the people who perpetuate them are villainous or thoughtless, but that's men and women both.

Care to enlighten me what's so man-hating about my opinions?

Quote:

I'm a pretty damn good looking guy now, and I was back then too (even with the glasses and braces). My problem is that, even to this day, I get extremely toung-tied around beautiful women and I probably always came off as semi retarded when I tried to have any dialogue with her. I would never have imagined slapping her ass like that guy did, lol... I couldn't even talk coherantly to her in the first place. Even if I didn't come off as bad as I imagine it in my mind 12-15 years later, I certainly wasn't oozing any style when I tried chatting her up.

Confidence is sexy, of course. Maybe it's the shyness thing that threw her off? Women, sadly, will sometimes mistake arrogance for confidence. That might be the whole problem.

Quote:

I will admit that sexual attraction still plays a very large part of who I choose as a mate, but I'm not ashamed of that. I'd have a very hard time believing you're any different in that regard, no matter how old or mature you are.

Which is exactly my point. :)

Women are just as much slave to their nature as men are, when it comes to who they are sexually attracted to. Confidence, physical attractiveness, youth and power all figure as much if not more so than behavior.
(Though, as I said, while you have met many, I have met no women who would let themselves be mistreated merrily past the age of 16.)
If benefits are your only reason for treating women with respect, you may just as well give it up and enjoy a life of honesty.

Quote:

AgentRourka -
Quote:
"In terms of species survival women as individuals are more important, because it just takes one healthy man. That makes most men really expendable. They matter in terms of genetic variety, but with all individuals healthy, this can be skipped over for a couple of generations."

Yeah..... well, um..... that's all well and good, but, with 6.5 billion humans and counting, I think this is rather moot.

I wasn't trying to make a contemporary point, just explain how there is a difference in terms of procreational importance that might have an impact on the male psyche in a way akin to "womb envy", since you argued against that earlier. I was just offering a perspective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:24 AM

6ixStringJack wrote, in reply to AgentRourka:

Quote:
...AgentRourka -

Quote:
"In terms of species survival women as individuals are more important, because it just takes one healthy man. That makes most men really expendable. They matter in terms of genetic variety, but with all individuals healthy, this can be skipped over for a couple of generations."

Yeah..... well, um..... that's all well and good, but, with 6.5 billion humans and counting, I think this is rather moot.

Between this and...

Quote:
...PONYXPRESSINC -

Quote:
"The human excuse may be religion, or honour, or pride but I think (and I really do accept that I could be wrong, it’s just an opinion) that this is just cloak for a basic animal desire to ensure that it's our genes that are passed on."

Very interesting concept. I've never looked at it this way before, but when you say it like that..... I think I'm sold...

...and...

Quote:
...J1M - "The myth has been perpetuated for hundreds if not thousands of years that women are the weaker sex, its a belief that has been bred into the human race, and its the kind of brain washing on a global scale that will take another hundred if not thousand years to breed out of us."

This wasn't brainwashing. This was survival and this is just the way it was. Of course there is no denying that there are many differences between men and women. Before there was all of the cool technology that leveled the playing field in many respects, men for the most part had to do things such as hunting and protecting their villages and familys from harm. There is no denying that with a majority of the population, pre-performance enhancing drugs, that males are physically stronger and were just better equipped to do these tasks. Because basic survival was linked so strongly to the physical attributes to males for so many thousands of years, it may explain how this mindset is still being employed today, but it was not due to "brainwashing". Today these traits aren't very necessary in most aspects of civilized human life and as we've moved from a production society to a service industry society (particularly in America), these traits have been all but antiquated and there is no reason that a woman couldn't do everything as good or better than her male peers...

...Along with your examinations about 'why good girls like bad boys', you should be able to derive a profound truth about the human animal's mating practices, driven by biological imperatives below the level of conscious, rational thought.

A simpler rhetorical question is this:
"If Male physical superiority is no longer important, why do women still flock to procreate with big, muscular men even if they're assholes...instead of highly intelligent, emotionally stable and behaviorally gentle males?"

You are generally correct when you say that women profess wanting the latter, while actually fighting tooth and nail to get undressed before any of the other girls for the former. The evidence shows that American males are still getting taller and heavier, even though the technological advances have "leveled the playing field" for men and women, as you say. So why are women still subconsciously selecting for stronger, bigger males?

I don't think they know.

The decision's made by their ovaries before the question ever reaches their brain. The simplest way of putting this is: Females -- of any animal species, to include humans -- instinctively seek to mate with the dominant male, regardless the later consequences of that dominant nature of their mating partner in long-term pair-bonding.

Men, otoh, are much simpler to please, in terms of mating partners: They'll mate with any female. Because we lack the responsibility of ovaries, carrying and bearing fetuses, and -- realistically -- any responsibility for post-partum child raising, we instinctively trust the female's decision to bear children by (i.e., engage in sexual intercourse with) us.

As far as what we find 'attractive' in a female, well, that's a highly mutable thing. From decade to decade, century to century, the image of the desirable female changes to match environmental challenges. Following a plague, for example, heavier women with more subcutaneous fat (reserves for fighting off illness) are instinctively more attractive. Go to an art gallery and look at the depictions of desirable women; none are skinny and blonde (with cartoonishly large siliconed breasts and collagened clown lips). They are 'fat girls' with small breasts to indicate that they have never borne children (i.e., virginal). In times of relatively benign environmental challenges like our current era, slimmer women are allowed to appeal to us as 'attractive', while heavier women (for which we've actually selected in prior generations) are derogated as being excessive. Wider pelvic girdles ('child-bearing hips') were 'attractive' in previous eras, because c. 50% of all women died during childbirth. In the modern age of advanced medicine and caesarean births, 'wide hips' are no longer strictly necessary to indicate ability to carry a fetus to term. But, throughout history males have instinctively selected for 'wide hips', so the vast majority of females today have them...

Follow this line of reasoning accurately, and you'll come to some similar consciousness-raising conclusions regarding breast size, in an age of plastic surgery, and the appeal of the youthful form in both sexes...

If we humans, as a species, could elevate a little rational thought over our instinctive mating prerogatives, there'd be a lot less confusion and pain, on both sides of the fence. But I strongly doubt we ever will.

Genetically,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:09 AM

Another thought, because I can't help myself.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Before there was all of the cool technology that leveled the playing field in many respects, men for the most part had to do things such as hunting and protecting their villages and familys from harm. There is no denying that with a majority of the population, pre-performance enhancing drugs, that males are physically stronger and were just better equipped to do these tasks. Because basic survival was linked so strongly to the physical attributes to males for so many thousands of years, it may explain how this mindset is still being employed today, but it was not due to "brainwashing".

Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but with regard to basic survival... wasn't the gathering that women did a much more reliable and necessary food source than the hunting, which had only sporadic success? Or at the very least of equal importance?

And how effective, in the very early days of humankind when our basic instinct came into shape, were male humans really at protecting their people from dangerous predators? How effective was fighting back, compared to fleeing, unless it was a whole group with tools attacking, anyways, which already lessens the influence of individual strength?

Looking at our closest relatives, assuming there is a notable difference in physical strength, how much of chimp and bonobo and gorilla male superior strength is spent on those activities as opposed to competing with sexual rivals?

I'm all up for being convinced differently, but I think at least part of considering physical strength and hunting/protecting activities as superior is its presentation as such, not an actual superior impact on survival, and that men's superior strength did not necessarily evolve for primarily those purposes originally.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:20 AM

AgentRouka queried:

Quote:
Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but with regard to basic survival... wasn't the gathering that women did a much more reliable and necessary food source than the hunting, which had only sporadic success? Or at the very least of equal importance?

Red meat is a superior source of protein and enabled the rapid development of large brains in early hominids. In addition, red meat promotes heavier muscle mass. All of these were very important, in terms of natural selection, in the early stages of the human species. We were challenged by a wide variety of predators, of a scope unimaginable in today's 'civilized', tamed environment. That we as a species have all but made extinct all of those predators, is your primary clue. Left ungoverned, we would have long since exterminated every animal larger or more dangerous than ourselves. It's in our nature; but we need large brains to overcome their physical superiority, as well as 'athleticism' to redress some of that physical inequality with large predators or food animals (i.e., herds of cape buffalo, bison, etc.). You can't kill an animal with your brain alone.

Female roles were equally important, and were selected for by instinctive breeding habits. A population of early humans could not succeed with only physically strong males who were intelligent enough to function effectively as a team. The females had their parts to play as well, and did those things as well as the males did, else we would have died out as a species (as the Neanderthals did, presumably when their males were not as 'team smart' and physically aggressive as Cro-Magnon males).

Quote:
...And how effective, in the very early days of humankind when our basic instinct came into shape, were male humans really at protecting their people from dangerous predators? How effective was fighting back, compared to fleeing, unless it was a whole group with tools attacking, anyways, which already lessens the influence of individual strength?

Examine the animal kingdom, particularly the predators. It's nice to think of ourselves as anything but predators; but, the evidence dictates otherwise. In a predatory species, the dominant male's primary job is to mate with all the females he can, and protect the group from outside attackers. Why not just all run away? Because, apart from yielding prime real estate for ever poorer hunting/gathering grounds every time the group is challenged, a significant portion of the population will be young animals and females caring for them. If you run, they will die. This is not a successful evolutionary strategy. Males, therefore, protect the weak members of the group, even if they themselves die in the process. This is why all the females will yield to the dominant male, hoping to breed subsequent generations of champions for the group.

Quote:
Looking at our closest relatives, assuming there is a notable difference in physical strength, how much of chimp and bonobo and gorilla male superior strength is spent on those activities as opposed to competing with sexual rivals?

...And when the human scientists or photogs get too close to the group, who rushes out to protect the females and young? Big mama? Nope. The dominant male (silverback). He puts himself in harm's way while the rest of the group attempts to hobble off to safety.
(NB: ...which they can do at a pretty respectable clip, by human standards; but, not by leopard/lion/tiger/wolf/dingo/hyena standards. Humans are pretty weak of limb, jaw, eyesight and smell compared to other predators, which we have nevertheless hunted to extinction. Now, rethink the importance of hunting for meat in early human ancestry with that evidence in mind.)

Quote:
I'm all up for being convinced differently, but I think at least part of considering physical strength and hunting/protecting activities as superior is its presentation as such, not an actual superior impact on survival, and that men's superior strength did not necessarily evolve for primarily those purposes originally.

Yeah, they did.

With modern humans, all these millions of years of evolutionary selection criteria are no longer necessary. But we still behave the same way instinctively because it's hard-wired into us by the process itself.

There is hope, though. While roughly 50% of first marriages end in divorce, second marriages tend to last much longer. Why? Because most people take control of their biological urges the second time around, having learned the hard way the first time that their biological impulses have led them hopelessly astray. That would seem to indicate that -- as long as we are cognizant of our ultimately baseless and vestigial evolutionary drives -- we can overcome our biological imperatives, and use our brains to choose appropriate mates.

Now, if only we could overcome our ultimately baseless and vestigial evolutionary drives where it comes to the roles of modern females and males, and what 'attractiveness' is, we'd really be making some progress. I just don't think it'll happen. People don't pay enough attention to the why and how...

Behaviorally,

zoid

P.S.
Somebody look up the meaning and full etymology of the word 'cuckold' and then extrapolate here, specifically: Why do men and women revert to instinctive behavior (men with nubile females, women with brawny young males) when they cheat? I'd do it, but I've said too much already...
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
AgentRouka queried:

Red meat is a superior source of protein and enabled the rapid development of large brains in early hominids. In addition, red meat promotes heavier muscle mass. All of these were very important, in terms of natural selection, in the early stages of the human species.

Oh, I'm not saying hunting and meat weren't important to our evolution and development.

But was hunting successful enough to spell basic survival and thus promote strength and masculity as superior? Because, if I recall correctly, hunting was a sporadic success, and especially in the early days humans ate meat they'd found more than hunted themselves.

In terms of basic survival, I'd rate gathering as superior. Not because it yields the better quality food but because it has a steadier and bigger success rate.

Quote:

We were challenged by a wide variety of predators, of a scope unimaginable in today's 'civilized', tamed environment. That we as a species have all but made extinct all of those predators, is your primary clue.

Questions:
Did we really make all those predators extinct? What role did climate play? Ice ages and such?

And when did we drive them (close to) extinction? At a time when they were still a serious threat to our daily lives? What weapons did we have an our disposal when most of the extinguishing took place?

Note, my point is not to prove an inferioty in these activities. I'm just questioning that an inherent superiority led to these masculine activities as being regarded superior, creating a lower status for "women's work".

Bis this quote:

Quote:

Female roles were equally important, and were selected for by instinctive breeding habits. A population of early humans could not succeed with only physically strong males who were intelligent enough to function effectively as a team. The females had their parts to play as well, and did those things as well as the males did, else we would have died out as a species (as the Neanderthals did, presumably when their males were not as 'team smart' and physically aggressive as Cro-Magnon males).

I figure we are essentially in agreement.

Which just leaves me to question when and why the "mens work is superior, thus men are superior" attitude came about.

Quote:

Examine the animal kingdom, particularly the predators. It's nice to think of ourselves as anything but predators; but, the evidence dictates otherwise.

We are not primarily predators, though. Humans were prey more than predator early on, and our predation evolved along with our brains and mating preferences. We're omnivores and have learned to hunt, but our origins aren't really... scary. We have aggressive instincts but hunt-kill-eat is probably more learned than a natural compulsion like it is with real predators. (Cats, say, who can't help but follow little moving things and jump on them.)

Quote:

In a predatory species, the dominant male's primary job is to mate with all the females he can, and protect the group from outside attackers. Why not just all run away? Because, apart from yielding prime real estate for ever poorer hunting/gathering grounds every time the group is challenged, a significant portion of the population will be young animals and females caring for them. If you run, they will die. This is not a successful evolutionary strategy. Males, therefore, protect the weak members of the group, even if they themselves die in the process. This is why all the females will yield to the dominant male, hoping to breed subsequent generations of champions for the group.

Okay, you seem to be right there. I'll agree that protecting the females is a big factor in males evolving stronger than women. But simply not being attached to an infant is already helpful in that situation, so I figure that aggression and strength against sexual/status rivals was also a big factor.

Quote:

...And when the human scientists or photogs get too close to the group, who rushes out to protect the females and young? Big mama? Nope. The dominant male (silverback). He puts himself in harm's way while the rest of the group attempts to hobble off to safety.

Of course, a silverback is giant and generally doesn't need to act in a group to be really damn imposing. Weaker and punier humans would have to act in a group to be similarly effective against a real thread.

But like I said above, I concede this point.

Quote:

(NB: ...which they can do at a pretty respectable clip, by human standards; but, not by leopard/lion/tiger/wolf/dingo/hyena standards. Humans are pretty weak of limb, jaw, eyesight and smell compared to other predators, which we have nevertheless hunted to extinction. Now, rethink the importance of hunting for meat in early human ancestry with that evidence in mind.)

... I fail to see the connection? Remember, I'm thinking about it's importance in terms of ensuring every-day survival, not in terms of effort or tasty result.

I'm pretty sure we hunted most predators to extinction when we were way past a time when basic survival of the group was a problem.

Quote:

Quote:
I'm all up for being convinced differently, but I think at least part of considering physical strength and hunting/protecting activities as superior is its presentation as such, not an actual superior impact on survival, and that men's superior strength did not necessarily evolve for primarily those purposes originally.

Yeah, they did.

There's an intersting quote I found in this article - feel free to mock my inferior research skills.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/biuschimps.htm

I found it googling "chimp social status".

"While females may mate with any number of males, sometimes a male may attempt to control sexual access to a tumescent female through aggression toward the female or interested males, with coercion, or consortships.

Aggression toward the female is more common than aggression toward an interested male for several reasons: the male attempting to control the mating of the female can avoid a fight with the interested male, the female is less likely to copulate with other males in order to avoid punishment, and controlling the female rather than the male prevents a third male from mating with the female while the first two fight."

I think physical strength would figure into this kind of behavior just as well, so I consider it a primary strength-selector right along with hunting and protection.

Female selection is important but in a lot of species, status and physical strength play a big role in limiting selection choices through rivalry.

Big and dominant wins, hands down, but not just by selection. So, hunting and protection not necessarily the primary purposes. Competition is probably on equal footing with those two.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:26 AM

AgentRouka replied:

Quote:
...There's an intersting quote I found in this article - feel free to mock my inferior research skills.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/biuschimps.htm

I found it googling "chimp social status".

"While females may mate with any number of males, sometimes a male may attempt to control sexual access to a tumescent female through aggression toward the female or interested males, with coercion, or consortships.

Aggression toward the female is more common than aggression toward an interested male for several reasons: the male attempting to control the mating of the female can avoid a fight with the interested male, the female is less likely to copulate with other males in order to avoid punishment, and controlling the female rather than the male prevents a third male from mating with the female while the first two fight."

I think physical strength would figure into this kind of behavior just as well, so I consider it a primary strength-selector right along with hunting and protection.

Female selection is important but in a lot of species, status and physical strength play a big role in limiting selection choices through rivalry.

Big and dominant wins, hands down, but not just by selection. So, hunting and protection not necessarily the primary purposes. Competition is probably on equal footing with those two.

First off... Mock you?! Quite the contrary. You're thinking. I'd never mock that. If we disagree somewhat, that is not equivalent to mocking, at least as far as I'm concerned. Those who refuse to think objectively may get a sharp jab in the ribs from me, but you are in no need of being awakened.

Second, it's important to note that I said that homo sapiens is a predatory species. As proof, your eyes, apart from being limpid pools, are both located on the front of your head for better stereoscopic vision for locating prey. Non-predators' eyes are located on the sides of the head, for wider field of vision to locate predators. I did not say, nor would I, that we are strictly (or even primarily) carnivores. I then went on to say that in predatory animals a certain set of behaviors prevail. I was thinking of lions, by the way. But the same sorts of dominant male behaviors exist in cattle, too.

Which brings us to the establishment of male dominance by (mostly) non-lethal system of challenge, in our 'unintelligent' mammalian brethren. Every year, the males queue up and fight their way to the 'championship' round against the current champ. They don't play chess to get there. They fight tooth and claw/hoof, usually just until one of them yields. (This is what our cute little doggies are doing when they roll over for us; they are signifying that we are dominant.)

If the dominant male retains his position at the top, he 'celebrates' by copulating with all the females in the group he can manage. Everybody else gets the leftovers, by 'pecking order' established through the 'tournament'. You now know everything you ever wanted to know about football, basketball and baseball.

But why are strength and aggression necessary in a champion of a scrawny group of primates that has 'decided' to leave the relative security of the trees for an existence on the veldt? What factors might a 9-month gestation period and a prolonged childhood-to-maturity process play? What might cause males to value teamwork when defending or hunting, rather than solitary championing?

As early as the onset of tool, implement and weapon-making, ur-humans were eradicating or driving off the predators in their various regions of habitation. Before that, yeah, they did a lot of running away, but it wasn't a very successful strategy. The earliest tools were not farming implements, writing instruments, or weaving tools. Those all came later. The first tools were cudgels, later axes. They were simulacra of fangs and claws. The first tools were weapons for hunting and defense. Some early examples of teamwork (in otherwise competing males) were in setting elaborate traps of feint and surrounding larger predators and food animals. This 'strange bedfellow' behavior amongst competing males precisely explains modern two-party politics.

All levity aside, if strength and agility were not primary desirable mating characteristics, then potentially crippling contests of strength would not have made any sense evolutionarily speaking. So, from the standpoint of 'which came first, the species' need for strength in its males or the individual males' need for strength in order to ensure primary mating rights', I believe it's apparent that form followed function. You argue that strength for mating rights came first and that strength for protection/hunting was a happy coincidence. I don't think that argument is effective...

But, please, I beg of you, do not forget that I strongly assert that these factors are no longer valid in the modern environment. Strength and predatory prowess are virtually useless in the modern human. I mean, for what? Opening that recalcitrant bottle of pickles? Being a risk-taker, enough to kill spiders in the shower, or climb the ladder and put up Christmas lights?

Most of the essential characteristics that will either advance Humanity to the stars or enable us to live in balance with Nature are traditionally female. Nurturing the young, living in peace with others (generally speaking), and not over-'gathering' our resources...these are the talents we desperately need. The strength, aggression and teamwork we once needed to overcome our physical shortcomings as a species are no longer necessary, in such abundance. The essential tasks that do require such skills can now be performed as well as by a female.

If we ever lapse into a pre-industrial civilization (e.g., wholesale collapse of fossil fuel-based society), then we may need the return of 'he-man'. Otherwise, it is incumbent upon males to adopt the 'feminine virtues', before we rape the entire planet.

That's why I'm a feminist-leaning humanist. Even though I'm also a certain-as-a-stone Christian (and Creationist!). In the finest feminine tradition, I am mysterious...

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
In answer to the question this is bound to raise:
God created the world in 6 days, approximately 6,000 years ago. But S/He created it with a past: the Big Bang ("In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded"), stellar and planetary formation, the earthly biosphere and its evolution. For visual analogy: Blow a soap bubble. Watch as it floats around the room. It is intact, and you cannot point to the spot on its surface where it began. And yet, we know it has a beginning, because we created it. Thus is God's creation intact.

My belief is scientifically sound (since there is no natural law that requires time to 'flow' in only one direction, and no evidence other than our 'time sense' to prove that it doesn't flow both ways; classical causality is ruptured by uncertainty) and it is no more preposterous than any currently held theory of the origin of the universe (see, 'Big Bang', above).
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

First off... Mock you?! Quite the contrary. You're thinking. I'd never mock that. If we disagree somewhat, that is not equivalent to mocking, at least as far as I'm concerned. Those who refuse to think objectively may get a sharp jab in the ribs from me, but you are in no need of being awakened.

Why thank you.

I was mostly mocking myself, really. The standard of discussion in some threads here can be intimidating, and googling isn't exactly the high art of research. Oh well.

Quote:

Second, it's important to note that I said that homo sapiens is a predatory species. I did not say, nor would I, that we are strictly (or even primarily) carnivores. I then went on to say that in predatory animals a certain set of behaviors prevail. I was thinking of lions, by the way. But the same sorts of dominant male behaviors exist in cattle, too.

I take that to mean that you consider all primates predatory creatures? Or at least chimps?

Hmm. In that case, humans are predators to a degree. But not in the same way that solely carnivorous hunting animals are, since the main food sources of human beings still are plant-based.

A steadier supply of animal products, like milk and eggs, probably entered our life with animal domestication, at which point hunting lost considerable importance as a food source.

Quote:

But why are strength and aggression necessary in a champion of a scrawny group of primates that has 'decided' to leave the relative security of the trees for an existence on the veldt? What factors might a 9-month gestation period and a prolonged childhood-to-maturity process play? What might cause males to value teamwork when defending or hunting, rather than solitary championing?

That's why I keep bringing up the primates. They are not direct ancestors but still very close to us. They never left the trees and yet exhibit many if not all of our social behaviors, including aggression and teamwork, suggesting they were already present in our common ancestors before our branch turned all human and smartified.

The real question is: why were these bahaviors needed before? That's the answer, to me.

Generally: Hunting - while having the side benefit of supplying brain-enhancing foods and training our intelligence - in a mating context probably mattered much less than social dominance.

Quote:

The earliest tools were not farming implements, writing instruments, or weaving tools. Those all came later. The first tools were cudgels, later axes.

Is that certain? I could imagine that food-related tools would have come first, just like primates use to smash nutshells or fish termites out of hard-to-reach places.

Quote:

All levity aside, if strength and agility were not primary desirable mating characteristics, then potentially crippling contests of strength would not have made any sense evolutionarily speaking.

I'm not saying they were not desirable. I'm saying that they self-select by limiting female choice, which erases the question of desirability in some cases.

It doesn't matter whether a female primarily desires physical strength if the physically strong one chases away all the weaker competition.

I think this existed parallel to female choice, giving physical strength an edge that is outside of mere desirability.

Quote:

You argue that strength for mating rights came first and that strength for protection/hunting was a happy coincidence. I don't think that argument is effective...

No no, I'm saying they both had importance. Possibly equal importance. One boosted the other, making physical strength and general aggressive tendencies somewhat self-perpetuating.

Quote:

But, please, I beg of you, do not forget that I strongly assert that these factors are no longer valid in the modern environment.

I wasn't thinking that you meant that at all, no worries.

Quote:

In the finest feminine tradition, I am mysterious...

All the good ones are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:41 PM

AgentRouka:

You only missed one point, which I had added later, but before your response posted. As regards humans being predators:

"...As proof, your eyes, apart from being limpid pools, are both located on the front of your head for better stereoscopic vision for locating prey. Non-predators' eyes are located on the sides of the head, for wider field of vision to locate predators. .."

This is the generally accepted criteria.

As far as tools are concerned, palm-sized shaped rocks with crafted pointed edges appear alongside the tools to make them, beginning around 2.6 million years ago. From there to axes (fixing shaped rocks with crafted pointed edges to the crook of a branch or bone to increase leverage and blow force). Undoubtedly, there were more than 'hand axes' in the way of tools. But, weapons were in the first grouping of tools as well. Please read http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/ANTHRO/plummer/Plummer_2004.pdf for a readable (and enjoyable) account of Olduwan tool makers and their societies.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

KAYLEEWANNABEE - Well thank you. I'd like to think I had pretty good taste in women, but reaffirmations always a nice thing. And I knew you were a Ron Paul guy. I'm just hoping that he's not a planted "token patriot" and that he really gets the shot that he diserves. We all diserve it, I think. I know that somebody like that could do wonders towards rebuilding my faith in the government.

Well, I lost whatever faith I had long ago...if Ron Paul gets anywhere, it may restore my faith (if I had any...debatable) in the intelligence of the "Average American Voter."

Quote:
KayleeWannabee - LOL.... then you go and follow up Zoids post with a beautiful post about how important our right to arms is. I couldn't have said it better myself. (How young is too young, BTW? )

Again with the compliments! *head swells* Uhm...I'm 42, and I think that 27 is a tad too young...although my aunt is 18 years younger than my uncle, and it has worked for them!

Quote:
Sorry to the both of you that I couldn't continue reading the gun/anti-gun debate that that escelated into. No offence to you personally Zoid, because I'm sure you're a great person, but Anti-gun stuff really gets under my skin, particularly when the anti-gun folks think and speak of themselves as superior and more spiritual than pro-gun folk, which starts to get downright insulting for the most part....

Yee haa! Let's go shootin!
(Of course, you knew I'd agree with you, right?)

I used to be a gun banner myself, before I graduated from high school and made my way out into the real world. At the time I held my anti-gun views with the same religious fervor that Zoid does. Then real life intruded into my mental Utopia and I realized that the rhetoric and the facts didn't add up. Dang it if reality doesn't win out over fantasy every time! What's up with that!?!

Whatever...to each his own.

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:05 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

AgentRourka - I don't feel the need to go through all of your posts and disect them one at a time, but if you feel that my opinion here needs more justification, I'm sure I could oblige. It's obvious by the general tone of your posts, in this thread and the thread where we were discussing the legalization of prostitution, that at some point in your life you have been slitghted by a man or you feel that you've been slighted by men in general. I'm venturing a guess here that perhaps your parents were divorced when you were young and your dad wasn't exactly Mr. Role Model from that point forward (possibly never was in the first place). You seem almost hell bent on justifying women's equality and oftentimes come off as trying to establish women as superior to men. Maybe you aren't even aware that this is how you come off yourself. To your average guy who doesn't hate women and doesn't feel himself to be someone who goes out of his way to disrespect them, this is a point of view which can come of as very combative and would be frustrating if I really cared enough to go out of my way to prove that not all guys are bad guys to people who just don't want to believe that. Truthfully, there is probably a lot more that you say that I agree with than you think.

That being said, I'm sorry if you're not a man-hater by practice and I appreciate the fact that you didn't lash out at me for making such a bold observation. My parents were divorced at 5, so I am in no way speaking down about being in that situation if I'm right about your parents. It's tough being in that position and I know after 22 years of being in the middle of their shit since they divorced that I have absolutely no clue how to raise children or have a family because of it. I don't see a family life anytime in my near future. Maybe when I can finally get over myself and things like that become more important on my list of priorities, but at this point in my life I know that in any long term commitment such as marriage I am far too self centered to put any woman or children through my idiosyncrasies. At this point, I feel to do so would be to just extend their bullshit one more generation and I don't want that hassle anymore than I want to put anybody through it.

----

As for the rest of our discussion about what women want and what women say they want, I can't really argue any of your points that you've made today. All I can do is to ask you to put yourself in a man's shoes and realize how confusing it is. We really don't know what the hell you want. In the end, it's not that I disrespect women now, but I don't go out of my way to buy them things or hold open doors for them anymore either and I find that I have a much easier time with women now that I don't dote on anybody. Personally, I think it sucks. I used to be a romantic and I liked really being into a girl, but there's only so many times that a man can go through that and be shot down or discarded before his heart gets hardened and he is incapable of feeling that way anymore. What's the point? I remember watching Married With Children when I was a kid and wondering how Al could be so cynical about love, but for the past couple of years I've felt a lot like Al myself. I don't think I'll ever care about a woman again half as much as I care about myself and that's pretty sad. I don't even really like myself all that much to begin with. I'm kind of a self hating narcisist now, to rip of how Dr. Cox from Scrubs once described himself.

The truth is, there aren't really many people I do respect. This isn't so say I mistreat people or go out of my way to belittle anybody, but I just don't really enjoy the company of others all that much. The older I get and the more truth about the world that is revealed to me, the more I find I don't really care for human beings as a whole. I didn't really understand why HP Lovecraft would describe humans in the morbidly negative light that he did when he wrote, but sometimes I get to thinking that we're nothing more than evil incarnate wrapped up in a pretty package. There are certain individuals, either that I know personally or whos opinions and actions have meant a lot to me. These people have managed to earn my respect, but generally I don't really hold anyone in too high a regard, male or female. Respect is earned, and not based on what gender or race or religion you happend to have been born to, and I'm not going to bend over backwards for anyone who I feel hasn't earned it, regardless their genetic makeup.

----

In regards to your questions about the validity of my statements playing up the man's role in society, pre-civilization, I feel Zoid did a much better job than I could validating those opinions. All I can really add is that there was no police force back then. There were no supermarkets back then. There were no other modern conviences which provided the safety and securities with which we have grown so accoustomed to over the last 200 or so years. Bottom line is, if a man in a "tribe" were to just go nuts and decided he wanted to kill all of the women and children in his own tribe, nobody would be there to stop him except for other men in the tribe. I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but all the "Girl Power" in the world wouldn't save them from this rogue man. I was in no way discounting womens role in society, but the bottom line is the survival and safety of the tribe rested solely in the hands of man before we became civilized. If the men needed to, there is nothing, short of birthing a child, (and possibly a mother's nurturing) that a man couldn't have done for himself or his tribe. Because of the physical limitations of most women, however, there are many things that a woman would not have been able to do for her tribe, such as hunt dangerous animals or defend their "homes" from predators and other males from other "tribes". This is not a knock on women by any means, this is just the way it was and I feel it's a large part of why until recently these attitudes have prevailed for so long.

--------------

Zoid - I have to say that I found your post to be very informative and thought provoking.

I always thought the word cuckold was derived from a slang word for male genitalia. I had no idea it was from the female cukoo bird and her mating habits. Fascinating:

The allusion to the cuckoo on which the word cuckold is based may not be appreciated by those unfamiliar with the nesting habits of certain varieties of this bird. The female of some Old World cuckoos lays its eggs in the nests of other birds, leaving them to be cared for by the resident nesters. This parasitic tendency has given the female bird a figurative reputation for unfaithfulness as well. Hence in Old French we find the word cucuault, composed of cocu, "cuckoo, cuckold," and the pejorative suffix -ald and used to designate a husband whose wife has wandered afield like the female cuckoo. An earlier assumed form of the Old French word was borrowed into Middle English by way of Anglo-Norman. Middle English cokewold, the ancestor of Modern English cuckold, is first recorded in a work written around 1250.

I also found this to be very interesting:

Quote:
In answer to the question this is bound to raise:
God created the world in 6 days, approximately 6,000 years ago. But S/He created it with a past: the Big Bang ("In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded"), stellar and planetary formation, the earthly biosphere and its evolution. For visual analogy: Blow a soap bubble. Watch as it floats around the room. It is intact, and you cannot point to the spot on its surface where it began. And yet, we know it has a beginning, because we created it. Thus is God's creation intact.

My belief is scientifically sound (since there is no natural law that requires time to 'flow' in only one direction, and no evidence other than our 'time sense' to prove that it doesn't flow both ways; classical causality is ruptured by uncertainty) and it is no more preposterous than any currently held theory of the origin of the universe (see, 'Big Bang', above).

I've never bought into any particular religion, but I find myself thinking about it constantly. (More than is probably healthy anyhow). I've always thought that there was no reason why Religion and Science always had to be at each other's throats. Why can't Science be the hows even if we never even know the whys until we're dead?

I never wrote it yet, but I had an idea once about a short story involving me (or someobdy, probably more Science-minded, and more than likely an Athiest) speaking to God after they died, based on the whole 6,000 year concept. I thought it would be interesting for God to laugh playfully at his child and explain to the person that things like the Big Bang and dinosaur fossils were just things he added after the fact to add mystery to it all and to see what his creation would come up with to explain it away.

The most interesting thing I thought though about your posts was to find out you were a man yourself. We've had several discussions before and I never had a clue till you said it here. It's not that you've ever come off as effeminate or anything, but you even admit to being a "feminist-leaning humanist" and I was probably picking up on that from your writing .... Plus anytime somebody uses the opposite sex for an avatar it always confuses me.

-------------

Kayleewannabee - Yeah... you probably put it better than I did. It would take a lot more than just Ron Paul to restore my faith in Government, but it would be a nice start and refreshing to know that maybe the sheep might be stirred up enough to try something other than the lesser of two evils for once in my lifetime.

42, huh? I'm probably not the first to say it, but you come off as much younger than that... not that 42 is old or anything. The only girl I dated that was older than me was a Senior in High School when I was a Sophmore... I don't know if I would know how to act...

Have you got any like-minded daughters, in case our age differneces prove to be too much for our love to blossom?

It would be a shame if you didn't. I think a woman with your views on life and the world should pass that on to future generations.

I know what you're saying about changing your mind about guns and gun ownership. When I was a kid it was beaten into our heads in school and the media constantly that guns were bad and they killed people. I bought that growing up. It wasn't until a) I read "1984" & "Brave New World" b) I listened to Mancow Muller's views on gun ownership (which is very similar to things you posted earlier about mass exterminations which always seemed to follow gun ban laws) and c) I got stabbed in the back and nearly had my life beaten out of me that I changed my views myself. Not to mention that I have no faith in our Government, their employees, or their intentions for the immediate and distant futures. Here's a pretty interesting article about a Democratic Senator in Cleveland and what made him change his stance against guns: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3047

Admittedly, I'd like to hear his own account of the incident and his thoughts afterwards, rather than read them off the NRA's website. I'm not naive enough to consider everything on the NRA's site as the absolute truth simply because I happen to support the right to bear.

Did you ever give that story a look yet? Zoid read it back in the day when I made a post about it and enjoyed it, although he doesn't agree with me that it is where Joss got the idea for Firefly. Of course I don't have any proof to back that opinion up, but I thought the similarities between the two 'verses were quite staggering.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:35 PM

I'm only replying to this bit for now..

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
AgentRourka - I don't feel the need to go through all of your posts and disect them one at a time, but if you feel that my opinion here needs more justification, I'm sure I could oblige.

I'd hate to pollute the thread with this subject but, in all honesty, I don't think an "it's obvious" without saying what about it is obvious really answers my question, so if you could PM me about this, I'd appreciate it.

I'm not requesting much, just a pointer at what about my tone seems so obviously man-hating when I feel nothing of the sort.

Quote:

It's obvious by the general tone of your posts, in this thread and the thread where we were discussing the legalization of prostitution, that at some point in your life you have been slitghted by a man or you feel that you've been slighted by men in general.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but I have not been slighted.

My experience has been very lucky. But it's certain attitudes that disturb me, such as limiting women's freedom and right to govern their own body. Or excusing one gender or the other for behaviors they are well capable of controlling.

I do remember you saying this to me back in the prostitution thread and felt at certain points that you were using this argument to avoid answering my questions.

Quote:

You seem almost hell bent on justifying women's equality and oftentimes come off as trying to establish women as superior to men. Maybe you aren't even aware that this is how you come off yourself.

Now, that makes it really hard for me to argue against this, doesn't it? Saying I'm not aware of coming across that way.

Where in this post have I not emphasized that I see no difference in value between men and women?

Is it because I question the inherent superiority of all things male back in the stone age? Or because I pointed at men's own self-control in the prostitution thread?
Because that's not man-hating, I think.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:09 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
Okay, sansmercy's rude, unpleasant, and childish. But, I still think she has the right to her opinion and that it shouldn't be squelched.

I just went back and read posts that I missed originally here. I think you're absolutely right Redhead. This is censorship and it's bullshit. Though I don't agree with everything she said, I feel she made some good points. Obviously Whedonesque is not opposed to censorship and shutting down anyone who would dare speak ill of Joss. I would hope, after watching Firefly and loving it, that Joss would not approve of such practices. If he approves of this censorship, even if it's censorship of someone who doesn't like what he has to say, he's lost any respect I have for him.

I wouldn't post here if I was censored.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
Okay, sansmercy's rude, unpleasant, and childish. But, I still think she has the right to her opinion and that it shouldn't be squelched.

I just went back and read posts that I missed originally here. I think you're absolutely right Redhead. This is censorship and it's bullshit.

To be precise, this isn't censorship. Censorship can only be carried out by government agents through the use of force ("shut up or we'll imprison or kill you.") Here's an example:
Chavez to shut down opposition TV
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm

[To return briefly to the previous topic, I predict that the next genocide will take place in Venezuela...the country imported 100,000 AK-47 military assault rifles from Russia, is building its own AK-47 plant, is systematically shutting down opposition media, and last year, announced a sweeping plan to disarm the populace to "reduce crime." Private ownership of guns is illegal in Venezuela...and yet Venezuela has the highest rate of gun deaths in the world. Since any policy analyst with a brain knows that gun control causes crime to increase, there must be another reason why Hugo Chavez doesn't want his "subjects" to have guns. Wonder what that is...
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1999]

The owners/operators/people paying for Wheadonesque.com have no obligation to give anyone a free platform from which to spew venom. This sansmercy person is free to pay for his/her own website/blog/sandwich board/bullhorn and espouse whatever views he/she wants, and no one from Wheadonesque.com can stop him/her without committing physical assault.

In other words, you can say whatever you want, but no private individual is obligated to furnish you with a stage and a sound system.

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 5:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Kayleewannabee -

42, huh? I'm probably not the first to say it, but you come off as much younger than that... not that 42 is old or anything.

I'm continually suprised to find that my age starts with a "4". But since my parents have never grown up, I feel no obligation to do so myself.

And most of the people I know assume me to be in my mid-30s. I allow them to believe that...hee hee hee.

Quote:

Have you got any like-minded daughters, in case our age differneces prove to be too much for our love to blossom? It would be a shame if you didn't. I think a woman with your views on life and the world should pass that on to future generations.

You're sooo good for my ego.

No, I can't have kids. I'm an evolutionary dead end. Probably the main reason I never got married...most guys are interested in creating little versions of themselves. Or at least practicing to do so.

Quote:
I know what you're saying about changing your mind about guns and gun ownership....I got stabbed in the back and nearly had my life beaten out of me that I changed my views myself.

That's what I meant about fantasy vs. reality. In my mental fantasy world, "gun control" sounded like a great idea. But in reality, the only way it could work would have to involve the application of magical powers that would cause all guns everywhere to disintegrate when the law was passed.

Quote:
Did you ever give that story a look yet?

Not yet...spending too much time writing posts.

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 5:22 AM

REDHEAD

Okay, I have to confess to an irrational prejudice in Sansmercy's favor. Anyone who references Spencer's The Fairy Queene deserves a bit of a break.

Seriously, KayleeW, you are right that

Quote:
no private individual is obligated to furnish you with a stage and a sound system.

.

But, while no site is obligated to provide Sansmercy or any other individual with a place to sound off, nonetheless, giving her a place to vent and responding in a reasoned manner is more likely to change both her behavior and her mind than shutting her off. And , I would like to think that Joss Whedon fans are capable of listening, taking a deep breath, and then kindly trying to help her express herself less hurtfully. The world would be a better place if every verbal outburst was treated calmly and sensibly.

I don't like what she said, I don't like how she said it, and I understand the frustration of the site moderator. However, unless Sansmercy repeatedly made personal attacks, the danger of suppressing opposing viewpoints is such that I do not think she should have been shut down-- for if we are Sansdissent then we are Sansfreedom.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 5:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
Okay, I have to confess to an irrational prejudice in Sansmercy's favor. Anyone who references Spencer's The Fairy Queene deserves a bit of a break.

Seriously, KayleeW, you are right that
Quote:
no private individual is obligated to furnish you with a stage and a sound system.
.

However, unless Sansmercy repeatedly made personal attacks, the danger of suppressing opposing viewpoints is such that I do not think she should have been shut down-- for if we are Sansdissent then we are Sansfreedom.

I liken this situation to throwing a party at my house. Some friends show up and bring along some other folks, and one of them gets all abusive and nasty. Now, I've had everyone over so we can all have a good time and enjoy each other's company, but here's a loudmouth that's making people uncomfortable and causing a scene. In short, she is the Anti-Party. I've spent all this time cleaning the house, and spent a lot of money on cocktail weenies and filing the bathtub with gin. But my guests are leaving because one person is being vicious, even after having been warned that her behavior is inappropriate. Now as the party host, my loyalty is to my well-behaved friends, not the boor. The boor gets put out on the street if she can't behave herself.

She can stay if she can express her opinions in a civil manner...otherwise, she's welcome to find another place to start a bar fight.

That's how I see it...not a free speech issue, but a rudeness issue.

P.S. I'm a redhead too...and we definitely have more fun.

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 6:19 AM

REDHEAD

I would have to agree that I would put the vicious drunk out but...Only after having attempted several times to talk her down.

Don't get me wrong. I am a huge fan of Whendonesque and a good part of this is because of the quality of discourse. Perhaps I am unaware of some previous behaviour issues on Samsmercy's part and the 2 posts she did on Whedon's thread left me angry at her self-righteousness and willingness to jump on Whedon without taking the time to even fully comprehend his post. However, she also had some valid points. She had a different take on the blog than most and I felt cheated that she was thrown off so quickly. So, IMHO, vicious drunk would be out but only after repeated attempts to feed her warm milk of human kindness and listen to her woes. Maybe a some Hot Liquid of Listening and some homemade bread with a slather of common sense might settle her down.

PS. Got Freckles? Then not only do you have more fun but "A face without freckles is like a sky without stars!"
Stephen Majercik

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 6:43 AM

KWb posted (a couple of times, but more succinctly thus):

Quote:
...That's what I meant about fantasy vs. reality. In my mental fantasy world, "gun control" sounded like a great idea. But in reality, the only way it could work would have to involve the application of magical powers that would cause all guns everywhere to disintegrate when the law was passed...

I am 49 years old. *does math, realizes that he is 7 years older than KWb* I guarandamntee you that I have seen more horrific things than you have...and more sublimely good things than you have, in my time here on Earth.

You ain't thinking.

..But, that's every American's God-given right.

And I wouldn't take your precious handgun from you. Would I like to see a ban on handguns and assault weapons? Yes. Would I like to see everyone who commits a crime (whether intentional or not) with a handgun or assault weapon sentenced to a 'Hard-40'? Yes. Do I write letters to Congressmen, sign petitions, stand in picket lines, et cetera, to get them outlawed? No. I just go my own way and let people behave any way they choose to. But if I hear somebody standing on a (website) corner advocating handgun ownership, they're gonna get a disputation from me, whether it makes them uncomfortable or not.

I'm a staunch supporter of the rule of law. It may not be perfect, but it's the only way in which a society may govern itself. So, you are breaking no laws by owning a handgun. Motorcyclists who operate their bike without a helmet (in states that allow it) are breaking no laws by refusing to wear a helmet. But anyone who does so is a damned idiot.

I grew up in Texas. People in Texas love their weapons. I have first-hand experience of handguns, and first-hand experience of the gamut of pros and cons that accompany their utilization. The cons outweigh the pros by an overwhelming margin, based on that experience.

I used to ride motorcycles, from age 15 to age 42 (same age you are now, coincidentally). I have an Advanced Riders' card. I never rode without a helmet, even though the state in which I now reside allows it. One morning, on the way to work, the unforeseeable occurred and the motorcycle and I parted company in the classic 'T-bone', which any biker can describe for you. In the process, the bone (ulna) inches above my right (dominant) wrist snapped; my left tibia fractured and ruptured the flesh of my leg below the knee; my left kneecap shattered into eight fragments and took with it all of the ligaments in my knee. I also struck the car with the top of my head; my helmet saved my life. I stood up, looked at my left leg and observed that it was in a configuration that can only be thought of as gruesomely incorrect; I decided to go ahead and flop back down to the pavement and await the meat wagon. While I was waiting, I called my boss and informed her that I wouldn't make it to the tower on time to run the opening checklist, because I had been involved in a motorcycle accident...

Now, I don't ride motorcycles anymore. For the rest of my days I will walk with a limp; I'll be unable to use my right hand normally; I'll live in constant pain from nerve damage in my lower left leg. No amount of preparation or experience could have altered what happened to me that day. My mistake was in thinking that I was the master of my own fate, learned, experienced and skillful. I'm not stupid enough to make that mistake twice.

Maybe that makes me different from you. You tell me: Who lives in a fantasy? A person who fully understands that humans are fallible and that Reality doesn't care about our carefully laid plans? Or a person with a total disregard for the power of Chaotic Effect and the self-centered, unrealistic belief that one's fate can ever be mastered?

Incredulously,

zoid

P.S.
The day that Chaos entered my life and taught me how foolish I was to believe that I could ever control or conquer it, I paid a high price, and I could have died. When Chaos schools you, hopefully it will only be you shooting yourself accidentally or in a fit of depression, et cetera. That would be just desserts. Hopefully, you don't kill or maim an innocent person. If that is the way it plays out, I hope you get the chair/needle, if your state allows capital punishment in addition to CCH permits; failing that, a Hard-40; failing that, that you righteously use your handgun on the perpetrator of the murder. As Dennis Miller put it, "Lean in and take one for the team."
_________________________________________________

"He's the one who likes
all our pretty songs and he
likes to sing along and he
likes to shoot his gun, but he
don't know what it means,
don't know what it means, and I say yeah, yeah."
-"In Bloom", Nirvana, Nevermind

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 7:22 AM

*covers ears* I can't hear you....lalalalalalala

As I said previously, I'm done responding to you regarding self-defense issues, Zoid. If you want to exercise your fingers for the benefit of other readers, go ahead, but I've tuned out your frequency.

Have a nice day!

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 7:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
I would have to agree that I would put the vicious drunk out but...Only after having attempted several times to talk her down....I felt cheated that she was thrown off so quickly....Maybe a some Hot Liquid of Listening and some homemade bread with a slather of common sense might settle her down.

PS. Got Freckles? Then not only do you have more fun but "A face without freckles is like a sky without stars!"
Stephen Majercik

I never said she was a drunk, just vicious. Drunk eventually wears off, but some people are vicious 24/7.

I can see your point...but I can also see the moderators' point. It's much harder to have a civil conversation than it is to name-call and make ad hominem attacks. The anonymity of the message boards makes it even easier to say things online that you'd never dream of saying to someone's face.

I think that generally speaking, you're just a much nicer and kinder person than I am, Redhead!

That's where my age shows...I'm reached my lifetime quotient of being around nastiness, so I like it when people stand up against it.

And no...I don't have freckles, since L'Oreal doesn't make them (they're responsible for my red hair, LOL!) But I do have green eyes, so people tell me I look Irish.

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 7:42 AM

KayleeWannabee replied:

Quote:
Have a nice day!

You too!

v/r,
-zed

P.S.
If you really meant the other stuff about not engaging me anymore on the subject, then stop saying that I live in a fantasy world and implying that I don't know 'the reality' as well as you, because you are so much older and wiser than anyone who disagrees with you. You are neither. Buh-bye!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 7:58 AM

MALICIOUS

MY hair is currently "Sparkling Amber."

Mal-licious

I'm going to add cursing and the hurling about of things to my repertoire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 8:56 AM

REDHEAD

I'm not sure I'm a

Quote:
nicer and kinder person

but I do know that age isn't likely to change me. I'm 47. I've also reached my lifetime quota of nastiness but I've found that most times (as in martial arts) confrontation only exacerbates hostility whereas a graceful sidestep and a pat on the back can help people to at least see your side and drop their confrontation level even if they never agree with you.

--too bad about the freckles but having green eyes makes you lucky.

Lots of us redheads here apparently whether natural or new. Maybe we should run a pic thread and flaunt our colors

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 9:19 AM

PONYXPRESSINC

Hello 6 String

Thanks for the link, I read it with interest and it was well worth it. Because of the subject matter of our conversation I had a pretty good idea of what was coming, but still, the contrast between the almost carnivale atmosphere and the ending was pretty sharp.

With regard to remembering our pasts, I'm a history buff so I'm right with you there.

Quote:
PONYXPRESSINC -
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The human excuse may be religion, or honour, or pride but I think (and I really do accept that I could be wrong, it’s just an opinion) that this is just cloak for a basic animal desire to ensure that it's our genes that are passed on."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting concept. I've never looked at it this way before, but when you say it like that..... I think I'm sold.

Wheeeeeeeeee! I've sold a theory.

I may have more if I ever get the chance to sit down and read the rest of the thread . :D

~*~

"The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see." - Winston Churchill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
I'm not sure I'm a
Quote:
nicer and kinder person
...I've found that most times (as in martial arts) confrontation only exacerbates hostility whereas a graceful sidestep and a pat on the back can help people to at least see your side and drop their confrontation level even if they never agree with you.

Ahem...[stage whisper] I've been trying that for a few posts now...not working, apparently.

[/stage whisper]

So....how about those Red Sox?!?

Quote:
--too bad about the freckles but having green eyes makes you lucky.

Hey, I could use some o' that!

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 9:45 PM

'Lish? Is that you?!

I thought you'd shuffled off to Buffalo. Where you been hanging out?

I hope you are keeping well. ...And having some fun. Remember: You deserve it. It's not good to be a grown-up, all the time. Gives you lines. (NB: I've got so many new ones, I thought my mirror was busted the other day.

)

'Sparkling Amber', hmmm? Sounds like a microbrew. Errr, so, that would be like a darker strawberry blonde/light brunette or sumfin'? I bet it looks good on ya'... (but then again, what doesn't?)

Yours always...

Devotedly,

zoid

P.S.
Did you ever get your house painted?

_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 2, 2007 5:16 AM

MALICIOUS

BUFFALO?!? Why would I go someplace COLDER?? I'm not a Bills fan. Plus, I don't like their wings: too hot, not enough meat. Give me a nice, juicy thigh anyday.....Oh! I think I doubled my entendre without realizing it.

I hang out here once in a while, trying to keep up on any news. I make fun of ChrisIsAll and ManWithPez. That's always fun.

I am doing very well! I just finished school (at MY age, that's an accomplishment!) and I will receive my certificate in inferior design in August. Yay me!!

Nick and I are back together, sans the booze. Yay Nick! We are not yet re-married, I want to give the sobriety a full year before discussing it. But the prognosis is on the positive end of the scale (Fingers are crossed. Other limbs......not so much!

).

The house is painted, the bathrooms are redone, the kitchen is redone, the fence is going up. All of which makes the property value go up as well. Things are good for me. Which balances how badly things were just a few years ago. A time I thought would never end, my friend.

Firefly and Serenity are still in my DVD player (it holds 5 discs, coincidence? I think not). Every time I re-watch, I STILL cannot believe they took it off the air. What singular stupidity hovers over Hollyweird? All this time we've thought it was smog.

I avoid mirrors these days. I am no longer reflected in them. Some over-weight old lady is in there! Spooky.

Love and miss you,

'lish

Mal-licious

I'm going to add cursing and the hurling about of things to my repertoire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 2, 2007 7:05 AM