PatrickC

lol, 'sometimes you have to think outside the box'.. too funny.

Can you give me the time stamp, if you know it. Because I wasn't under that impression.

Yes Wesley, I was only thinking of it in terms of economic ideology I guess. I know AnCaps who consider themselves as feminists too. (sadly)

You're hypothsising though Boris. It's all 'ifs', 'buts' or 'maybe's'. Most of which you seem to think can only have the worst outcomes.

Yes you can.. Although I can hear some of them quibbling already, but ignore them.

It does seem this conversation has gone full circle. You must realise Boris, that by the time our species consumes every acre of land, is about as far off as one can imagine. However, it's not impossible to consider that by that time (if it ever happns) most people will have had most of their land and property passed onto them by their familes. The idea that people out of the blue will find themselves destitute in this way, will likely be for some other reason like mental illness or some other dysfunction. I imagine people will have sympathy for such a person and will contribute to charities who would try and rehabiltate them. Also lots of people often don't need any land and are quite happy to rent property from another whilst they move around with their work This Mad Max (lifeboat) scenario is the last thing civilised people want. People will negotiate and some people will put their hands in their pockets. There are countless ways such conflicts can be either averted or resolved peacefully. The only fatal flaw I see, is that you imagine conflict as always escalating into violence.

I'm wondering why you felt I was critcising you. If I misunderstood your irony, then it should be a little pause for some light laughter at my error.

The whole point of recalling trauma is as a means of making sense of your own history and thus allowing you to understand the triggers in your current life that cause you to make poor decisions for yourself. It's not meant to be a way to be subsumed by it. Rather it's meant to help you grow into a person that is conscious of their past, but no longer let's it control their present or future. After some time and practice this does shift more into the subconscious. It's analgous to exercising an unused muscle, at first it will be a little painful or sore, but more and more as it strengthens you will become less conscious of it.

Well Syndicalism is all about cooperatives or mutualities. Whereas an-caps are also about those things, as well as individuals or groups of running their own private businesses.

I'm not sure it is an exception. What about the 66 virgins or the honour amongst their islamic brethren. It's just another example of how selflessness just allows people to do the most heinous of crimes.

Yes, cynicist has kind of hinted at this already. Selflessness is of course a piece of propaganda we have all been subject too. Whether by teachers, parents or priests. The media love to laud over acts of bravery, but then berate those that are less brave because they most likely understood the danger. It is mostly a shaming tactic to get us to do something for others. So I'm always cautious around arguments that assume it to have any relevance. Ayn Rand very cleverly unpicked this vile piece of propganda, which she referred to as alturism, in both, 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Virtue of Selfishness'. You often hear parents claiming to have unconditional love for their children. All the while expecting their children to act in ways that will make them happy. A selfless act is often said by a partner as some kind of claim to virtue. You see this all the time amongst leftists. They treat selflessness or alturism as a noble thing. All the while ignoring the violence that underwrites their ideology. It's all faux virtue of course, since no one can be 100% selfless.

I think the point is, that since we live in a world of plentiful men and women, that we are better able to make more rational choices about who we have romantic relations with. Granted this has only really begun to happen since the industrial age, which has seen massive population growths. Not to mention technology which has made all our lives easier with more leisure time too. The fact that sexual attraction can happen even with a physically matured 14 year old doesn't mean we have to act on it. Perhaps in an age of scarcity those urges may have helped our survival as a species in the past. But that's hardly the case these days. We are much better able to treat the minds of the young with a responsible degree of age appropriateness. I don't know about the 25 year old threshold. Certainly a 21 year old that is working and living in their own place, is someone that very likely possesses a degree of maturity. Compared to say a 23 year old that still lives with their parents. Yes, I think some kind of leadership quality is probably the only way forward for men who follow philosophy. Because anecdotally that seems to be the point reached at which people drop away from these principles, often claiming frustration as their reason. Whilst that can seem a long way off for some folk and I've yet to get their myself even. I do think if you don't have that as your end game, then drop philosophy and anarchism. Because it will be a world of mental torture and frustration otherwise.

Yes, but you didn't address my point about how anarchists see the granting of an institution with the monopoly on violence actually encourages these sociopaths to it. Remove the monopoly and they have no where to go. However, as an aside point. I do think Stefan makes a good case for peaceful parenting as a means to reducing the degeneracy and sociopathy. Not entirely I grant you, but perhaps enough for people to take stronger measures against them.

I don't really understand why the need to date a 16 year old in your 30's. Of course as it's voluntary then it's not really a moral issue. But it does raise eyebrows, when you can adequately meet a range of ladies in your 30's that are fit, healthy and fertile between the ages of let's say 21 - 28 who will share a better understanding of the relationship dynamic.

Yes, very sorry to hear your story Aikenrooster. It reminds me of someone very close to me that married a much older woman. He was 16 and she was 32. They'd actually started the relationship as a late 14. I tend to not really understand the dynamic between older women and younger guys, because it seems to screw up the biological aspect unlike the other way round. Insofar as an older man has resources and a younger women has a more healthy fertility. Regarding this couple I knew, well she had no resources other than a state granted property, because she already had children. And at 16 he was hardly in any position to gather many resources either. This relationship ended when he became 30. But frankly it was certainly an abuse of power on her part and most certainly dysfunctional in the most horrible of ways. This guy had no idea what he was getting into and bitterly regrets the relationship now.

Blimey, quite a lot to digest, but thanks for the time. I will get to the other points you raised. But I just wanted to clear up the above notion. Anarchists do have some idea of the remedy. Not least but they understand the propensity for most people to be peacefull and non aggressive. However, inherently understanding that if you give one institution the monopoly on force, that you will attract the smaller minority of degenerates and sociopaths to that institution. Added to that, anarchists have some theories about how a society free of the state could run things. Check Stefan's book Practical Anarchy.

I do find the term MHRA even more problematic than MRA. Insofar as it's a rather naive attempt at seducing the left with human rights. Rights are such a non plus topic for most anarchists, since we stand by the all encompassing principle of the NAP. I think it will backfire mind. Mainly because the left are so ensconced with feminists, who wont let go of their state privilege that easily.

Yes, I dated a 22 year old when I was 35 and the relationship was probably one of best ones I had at the time. I do remember thinking that she was a little young at first and wondered how her family might view me. She was foreign too, so people could be forgiven for thinking we had very little in common. This wasn't the case mind and her family weren't at all reticent. She got to travel the world and enjoy some of my own hard earned capital. I got a very pleasent, attentive and great companion for 4 years. There were issues of course, which is why the relationship ended. But this had nothing to do with the age difference. However, I'm not sure I would have even introduced myself if she had been 16/17 mind. It does seem like an age in which my senior years could have been seen as problematic. Whether other people felt this or not, I know I felt the immaturity would have been too stark. But I kind of understand what you mean by the shaming part. Often made by older women, that want to take out the younger women from the more successful older men. At 44 I have little choice, but to date much younger ladies, if I want to have children. But of course, they would probably be within their late twenties or early thirties by now.

Speak for yourself old chap

Kevin, I can't believe you attempted to misguide this young lady.. PUA clearly stands for Philosophically Upwardly Agile..

GOA - God of Athiests EA - Everyday Anarchy PA - Practical Anarchy and a new one PMS - Philosophical mental stretches You know who you are..

BBW - Big Beached Whales.. just joshing Great idea Mishelle!

So Roger, I'm curious, I assume you agree that we cannot return to a tribal state. My point being, aren't those ancient (tribal) identifiers mostly redundant these days. With some obvious exceptions of course, haven't races mostly assimilated enough with each other to be much less of a threat today. I only say that, because in my particular part of West London I don't feel threatened, despite being a minority in my own neck of the woods, so too speak.

Whilst that's all well and good, it still doesn't answer the essential question, 'why does it matter'. These scientific theories seek to evade the question by suggesting the question as irrelevant. Race is seemingly an issue for a lot of people. I think it's reasonable to ask them why, rather than getting bogged down in what pheno or genotypes we are. Clearly it's about looks for most people I imagine. Race just happens to be a definition that has been used to categorise those looks.

The real question is 'why does race matter'. Saying it's not real is similar to how some people consider gender an anachronism. Saying it doesn't exist because human DNA is inseperable from one race to another is too miss the objective truth that people can look significantly different to each other and very similar to others.