PatrickC

Well since your only reading of UPB (from a different thread) was a docile attempt at philosophy and a poor critique at that. Read the book for yourself and then this community might help you out. Until then, consider yourself at sea. At least you'll be glad to know you do have a paddle. In the form of free links to the book and a whole 8 year forum and podcasts to search for your questions in.

These responses with the same videos are frankly irritating. Of course, perhaps that is why you are here to irritate this community. It is the sabbath afterall, so perhaps you are doing Gods work. That said, do you actually have a mind of your own that you might care to share with us all.

You're a project manager right? Like me. Oh boy do I learn a lot of skills in my job dealing with this kind of thing. Slightly different of course, but certainly parallels exist. I always remember an early podcast where Stefan decided to point out an issue that involved a collegue that had been giving him trouble in a meeting they were in together with their mutual collegues and bosses. Knowing full well that he would blow a gasket and end up getting himself removed from the company he was working for. Whilst seemingly somewhat risky, it works quite well when you defer to rational thinking. I know this because I've done the same myself.

Yeah, it's not an exact science of course, as you're probably experiencing. But I generally ask myself whom does my response profit. The OP, participants, audience or just myself. If I think all of them will either know anyway or wont respond rationally or it's just for myself, then I generally go mute. If that makes sense. The only time I might do it for myself, is to get clarity on the person and their position.

Yeah that might be true. But I think it takes a beta mindset (for want of a better word) for men to be attracted to polyamory. Sharing my wife with another guy just gives me the shudders.

Leftist beta males, I knew it!

Too many to mention recently. It must be the hot weather huh? I mostly prefer the Shirgall method of using humour to highlight stupid arguments. It's a lot less confrontational, since it's often an emotional attachment that people have with bad arguments. But for the audience sakes it's sometimes worthwhile going for the jugular. Metaphorically speaking of course. We're all about the NAP here.

Yes this is true mellomama, but the highlighted point bilogically speaking will always compel men to be suspicious about their paternity, and especially within a polyamrous relationship, where it's openly questionable. Short of having paternity tests he will never be sure that his children are his. And if he were, what then? Women are far easier placated biologically speaking, if they know those resources are still available to them. Which presumably they are within a polyamrous relationship. One of the things I believe women particularly like about polyamory is the honesty and openess about what each partner is doing with whom. This provides them the security they need, which allows them to better ignore the sex their partners are having with other women. Jealousy would only flare, if she saw a threat to her relationship with the men in her polyamrous family unit and the subsequent loss of access to their resources. Men whether they tell themselves too or not, simply cannot ignore the sex his partners are having with other men. Of course this all begs the question as to whether polyamory can really work as a long term child raising strategy. I'm not sure it can, particularly if the men and women in that polyamrous group are deliberately ignoring the primal biological motivations and risks for the men in that group. Women would need to be scarse for those considerations to be reasonably ignored.

Don't encourage him into further contradictions Kevin.

A +1 Shirgall for adding some well needed humour to this thread.

Ad hominem is an entirely valid way of responding to really poorly constructed arguments. Of course it can be taken too far, which can be seen as unecessary and vindictive. But we should have no problem for showing someone up for their own foolish arguments and or hypocrisy. Within reason (and perhaps civility) of course.

High quality genes (eggs if you prefer) from a beautiful skinny hippie chick comes as no surprise. There were probably times when I could have been tempted into a polyamorous relationship with one, pre philosophy days. Albeit would have been a temporary but terrribly sweaty affair. (with a desire and approach that avoided actual baby making) Interesting that she expected you to escort her in case she strayed sexually. A way of garnering your protection and resources with the threat of being usurped by another male. Manipulative indeed.

Alternatively female reproductive strategies have often been attracted to mixing within a larger and more diverse male gene pool, in order that they procur the strongest and healthiest of offspring. This is why you see women being attracted to men of different ethnicities or nationalities (tribes). Polyamory probably appeals to a subset of women, because it provides many of the usual safety and resource gathering mechanisms of monogamy that women require. Whilst they can freely enjoy the fruits of a wider and more diverse male gene pool. However, it still comes with a risk attached for her, because she probably has to assuage the jealous feelings of the men in her life. She could potentially still be left entirely alone, if all her male partners decided to leave her. I would say it might be cautious R strategy women that are drawn to polyamory, having seen failure in the K strategy of their parents. Likewise it could be ambivalent/insecure K strategy beta males, that are willing to risk raising chilldren that aren't their own for those risks to be offset by the increased access to potentially fertilising more females or regular shared sex with just one high qualIty (gene wise) female that they may only fertilise once. All within the confines of an assumed relationship secure zone (polyamory). This last paragraph is just my opinion of course, for what it's worth. However, if my last statement is true, then this would be why I instinctively feel a distinct primal aversion to polyamory as a man. At least a polyamorous family unit that involved other men.

Yes, it's interesting because when I imagine myself sharing two women sexually then it's not a problem. At least not in the primal way I discussed earlier. Quite the opposite as you can imagine. This doesn't surprise me of course, because as a man you are potentially sowing your seed (genes) further and wider. Whereas, you are in direct competition with a man that you are sharing a woman sexually with. Scientifically it's been proven that sperm deposits will remain in the womans vagina actively waiting for other mens sperm, so as to attack and kill them off before they impregnate the woman. I have no particular interest in sharing two women either, because of the connection issues I mentioned earlier. But I think it's useful to acknowledge our base instincts and biology when it comes to the discussion of polyamory.

Well I look forward to reading that. The thing is I have no doubt that Freemasons have been responsible for any number of considerably shady deals with govts in the past. They are no different to CEO's (Corporations) that lobby govts to improve their market share. Or in Britain like the fledgling British Medical Association (BMA) that lobbied govt for the National Health Service (NHS) to undermine the then powerful Mutuals, that were driving down the costs of heath care, including doctors pay. State power has always been one method many private groups and institutions have used (and continue to use) to gain access to subsidy, increased profits and better market share. However, none of that interests me, as the cause is 'state power' and not the institutions and individuals that successfully lobby them. I'm much more interested in the concept of Freemasonry and what it has (and can) achieve for the good. For which there is plenty of evidence. You can actually find Masons that were responsible for building Mutual Associations that brought cheaper and more affordable health care and widows pensions to their members on the one hand. And then find other Masons in direct conflict with them within the BMA that were actively seeking ways to undermine those Associations via the state. There was once apparently a fight that took place in one of Londons top Gentlmens clubs, the 'Marlborough-Windham Club' on Pall Mall (now closed), between those members that supported Mutuals and those that supported the BMA. So there was clearly strong opposition amongst Masons themselves. Maybe the institution of freemasonry as it stands now is defunct (corrupted by state power). At least for the purposes for which it was originally intended. It's certainly significantly weaker than it once was, despite all the conspiracy theories that continue to surround them. I'm not looking to join a Lodge myself any time soon. But I think it's reasonable to look at its concept and see how similar but better institutions can be built in future perhaps.

Well you could say their meaning is subjective, but they may have an objective purpose perhaps.

My only issues with polyamory, is that it takes a lot of time to build trust and rapport and keep it with another person you're having children with. There just aren't enough hours in the week to share and keep that connection going with more than one person. You end up sacrificing some of that connection I think. Also I'll be honest, there is no way I could share my partner sexually with another man. It just feels primal and instinctive for me to feel that way.

YouTuber Justicar gives an interesting perspective on the confederate flag debarkle and the way symbols and flags are read and understood by individuals for often quite opposite reasons. The most compelling part starts at 9:36 when he discuses the use of the Star of David by Jewish American GI's during the second world war. Symbols can also be ceremonial too. Take the one minute silence that will take place this weekend in Britain, after the recent massacre of 30 Britons in Tunisia by Islamist terrorists. This is a way for people not connected to the tragedy personally. But is our best attempt at collectively showing empathy and compassion for the victims of that heinous crime. As well as a way to connect with each other over a dreadful event that could have happened to any one of us. Symbols are always subjective and can be used for good and bad. They can also be sentimental or ornamental too, which has often put me off them. They certainly can't replace philosophy in any meaningful and rational way of course, but they can have a place at times.

Right, you raise a good point Bluecat. You have to be invited and be of good character. In other words men had to show qualities that were of reputable value. I see no problem with this. Sure they may have some strange ceremonies and much is said about their voodoo handshake. Much of that has been toned down in the last 100 years. But rituals have been a big part of men reaching manhood. I don't hold much significance to them myself, but I can appreciate that historically this was how men often showed their allegience to each other. In particular with those that they shared values with.

Symbols now as well as hearsay.. Seriously chaps, this is a philosophy forum.

I'm sorry but I don't know what any of that means. Religion, spoonful of sugar to disguise the poison? You need to give specifics, rather than just nefarious suggestions.

Befree yours is a common misunderstanding of the Masons. Sure Masonry has been used for evil (and benign) purposes on occassions (like all instituitions) by certain Lodges. But it has mostly been used for the good and a way for men to improve their lot in life, as well as that of their local communities. Much charity and philanthropy came about as a result of the Masons. The famous Dr Barnado who literally saved the lives of thousands of children on Londons streets was a very famous Freemason that used hs connections within his Lodge to further his cause. http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/news/lodges-chapters-a-individuals/item/1165-dr-thomas-barnardo-freemasons-children-s-saviour-historic I think it's quite sad that most of these 'private' instituitions barely exist anymore. And what's left is often ridiculed and much maligned. These were great opportunities for people to connect with their local communities and build real bridges together. These days it seems the expectation is that the state will perform all these duties on our behalf.

You might want to note, that you probably need a further answer in number 2. I used to go to comedy clubs a lot in my 20's and 30's, but haven't been to one in years. So the 2nd question's answers were irrelevant for me, but I was forced to answer it. I put down once this year, because I saw a Shakespeare comedy.

For those of you in London (UK) that would like to see the opening for this documentry next Wednesday, which I believe will be a longer version than the intro above. Here is the flyer you can print off. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3h8PahzAwcySHBSdDE3TTYyWWs/view

Hi RoseCodex, I've been puting together a presentation around the history of Friendly Societies and Mutual Associations recently. Organisations mostly set up by men to protect their families more efficiently and collectively. I've noticed that masonry seems to feature quite a lot in my research. Leading me to believe that masons have been misrepresented over the years. But this shouldn't come as a surprise to us I think, since mens spaces (of all kinds) have been routinely pilloried in recent decades. Masonry seems to tap into that competitive urge in men to perform better. As far as I can see it was often a method by which working class men could aspire to the middle or even upper classes by merit and reputation alone.