David Ottinger

If I had that sort of evidence, then I wouldn't need to speculate. Hence, my hesitancy to speculate in the first place. What I mean by 'plenty' is that there are women participating on here to gain insight into the female perspective on various topics if needed. But, it is not really necessary because whether something is true or not is irrespective of one's gender. "Lurkers" is forum slang for forum readers that don't post or post so infrequently that calling them participants might mislead someone into thinking they're active contributors when they are not. Given that this is a philosophy forum and not a dating site, my guess is that there is no point for women to advertise their "eggs". Is that even welcome here? Not that I think it would be unwelcome, but maybe there is some fear or concern that making one's femininity known would detract from the intellectual pursuits, not just for oneself but for others as well. After all, there is an unfortunate cultural phenomenon that requires women to fight harder to be taken seriously on an intellectual level, not just because some men will buy into the cultural myth that women are bad at logic and reason (e.g. math and science), but also because a bias can arise from guys turning into 'yes men' because they want the eggs. And, all of this is easily side stepped by remaining anonymous. Thus, I'm more inclined to think that the 5 to 10 percent (whatever the number actually is) are simply the select few brave enough or possibly foolish enough to disclose that information rather than a representation of the actual gender demographic on here. Also, on a side note, this is one of the few times where the distinct female perspective is necessary to see how welcome they feel on this board. Personally, I welcome all the ladies to join in and share their thoughts openly. But, I can't hold it against those that choose to remain anonymous. Hopefully more women will find this place a lot more liberating than they have thus far.

A lot of good that does without sperm to activate the egg. And, because of that simple fact, I don't find that it is a monopoly. The eggs only represent half the reproductive process. Therefore, I cannot reasonably claim that women have a monopoly on reproduction. Please read my above comment to shirgall. All I can add to my above comment is: Women endure great risk by being biologically responsible for carrying the child. So, I fail to see how their particular risk management requirements due to having a womb creates a monopoly on reproduction. Women sacrifice their own body to house a child. The very *least* a man can do is provide a house over their heads. Granted, due to the development of capital goods, this requisite on men is no longer as stringent. In short, women assume great risk when they have sex because the man can always leave without return. Given the degree to which women are biologically required to endure such risk, it would be a lot easier to argue that men can gain all the benefits of sex while assuming none of the responsibility. Thus, framing the dilemma in such terms (i.e. is it a monopoly or not?) is disingenuous. Time is of the essence for women due to their biological clock. Thus, I assume there is pressure on women to develop their somatic mind more thoroughly so that they can, for starters, empathize with men much more rapidly in order to deduce their qualities, as well as what role the particular man can play in her life. When it comes to memory, the intellectual mind is faulty. However, emotional response to patterns is consistent. So, my guess is that the inclination for focusing strongly on the development of the somatic mind is actually a pursuit of intellectual consistency. This development of the somatic mind also allows one to have an empathetic response to society. Thus, this development edifies the intellectual mind because it provides insight into the cultural environment. Thus, I find women are very much involved in philosophy. Although, they are more likely inclined to express their perspective via narration rather than argumentation. However, given that women are typically not respected intellectually, my guess is that women turn to story telling instead of argumentation because their is a prejudice. In other words, it's very similar to literature that served as allegories because the state oppressed free thought. My guess is that there are plenty of women lurking these boards. However, my guess is that they don't feel welcome. And, at the risk of the following commentary coming off as an attack (It's not): My guess is that women are reluctant to participate here because claims like "Women have a monopoly on sex" is construed as immaturity as it signifies that there is a lack of responsibility among the participants here. In other words, it's too risky for women given that time is of the essence. And, to put it more bluntly: Women are looking to become a mother, albeit not your mother.

There is no such thing as natural monopolies. All monopolies arise as a result of force whether directly or indirectly. So, I can agree that collusion among women can lead to set standards and when those standards are enforced by a group, then I agree that a monopolistic organization can be achieved. Other than that, someone is going to break ranks because people, regardless of gender, are willing to take risks for better living standards.

Market principles are in effect anywhere there is an exchange. Using your example, if a guy asks a girl on a date, then he has made an offer. If the lady declines, then she did not accept the offer. That's it. The lack of formalities in romantic discourse does not mean that market dynamics are not in play. It is still a negotiation where consideration is paramount. How else is consent achieved? I call it a really bad assumption. Why would anyone assume that dinner and flowers automatically leads to sex? More importantly, if I'm the one that has offered to host a date, why would I setup the courtship so that a dinner and flowers constitutes as payment for sex? And, just to be clear, the whole premise of me paying for sex bugs me. That's way too complicated of an ordeal when I can just go to a hooker. I mean, that is if youre looking for a vendor for sex. I appreciate your response, but I have to point out that I find this is simply a reassertion of your premise. I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this conclusion. Sexual intercourse is a given in all romantic matters. So much so that any focus on it is really not necessary. So, I'll give you that sexual desire is a safe assumption by women, but that extends to men as well. Women do make offers, but again, it would be presumptuous to assume the offer is sex. Like wise, with any woman that I chat up for romantic interests, it would be highly presumptuous of her to treat my discourse as a forgone conclusion for sex, let alone a serious relationship. The video has to do with market dynamics. And, we are discussing a market despite it not being a business venture. It's a romantic venture. It's certainly an interesting question, and I'd be happy to hear what women think about FDR, especially the ones who participate and even lurk. That's really as far as I can go with it right now. But, I do not buy the notion that it's because the majority of women are not appreciative of philosophy or lack any use for it. If anything, I'd be more inclinded to argue that cultural expectations have influenced women to refrain from such intellectual pursuits just as they have been with science and math.

I don't see how that logic follows. How can I be half the relationship but also have zero percent of the decicion power? That would be a one sided arrangement, thus not a voluntary exchange. If I am half the relationship, then I have half the deciding power. There is no first decider or final decider or any sort of hierarchy like that. I decide my commitment to a relationship. No one can do that for me, unless I am under duress. No, I disagree for the same reason that there is no final decider in a buyer/seller arrangement. It's a mutual agreement. Are you really asking me to speculate why there aren't many women participating on this forum? I disagree with Stefan. He is essentially arguing that women have a monopoly on genetics because of collusion. However, he's already negated his point in the following video:

Thanks for sharing. It takes a lot of courage to put these sensitive dilemmas out there.

I read your posts, and I'm not really sure what your thesis was/is. I suppose you're arguing that a woman is the final arbiter of sexual intercourse and the family. Was that your premise? Personally, I don't find that there is a hierarchy of arbiters, let alone any at all unless we're talking about an arranged marriage. But, even then, I don't see how there is an arbiter unless we're not talking about a voluntary association. Arbiters are great for resolving a conflict, not arranaging a relationship. Now, if you want to say that women are the gate keepers (to put it metaphorically) of sex and family, then I would have to disagree with that. The woman is only one interested party in a consensual relationsip. She can only present her interests -- which will be disclosed throughout the courtship, sometimes subtly and sometimes bluntly.

To answer the question in the title: I forget where I discovered it, but I've come to understand 'anger' as being the emotional response to expectations not being met. So, is it possible that an individual can find oneself having an emotional response to an unhealthy, or better said, unrealistic expectation? I find the answer to that question is: YES! So, generally speaking, it's very possible for the anger to be unhealthy. If, for example, I was angry that god didn't answer my prayers, that would be an unhealthy response. I would be stressing out over superstitious ideals. I suppose such a reaction would be called 'madness' or 'hysteria'.

Kurtis, Very interesting skill development, isn't it? Consider how intuitive you have to be to pull off manipulation. I find that an individual has to have a high degree of empathy to be able to do that. Otherwise, how else can you calculate your way into a winning position? Mind you, empathy does not equal sympathy. Overall, given your expressed disgust with how your mother used this skill, I would say the main question here is: How would you genuinely enjoy using this skill?

^And folks, this right here is exactly what's wrong with this PUA crap -- which he is practicing right now. Posture, reframe, and 1 up your target. Don't be truthful; don't be real is the motto. It's a show/an illusion, and the show must go on! By throwing down the gauntlet like he has, he has esscalated from passive aggressive to aggressive in attempts to keep me engaged. Make a move, and if it fails, then step back, reframe, and make another move. Practice it everyday because soon enough you'll be a regular trickster and none will be the wiser. However, practie logic and reason and you will see the charlatans for the frauds that they are. For example: He addressed me, but turns around and claims I'm ignoring his argument. He admits he is confused by my argument, but then turns around and says he has given me a rebuttal. Where is the integrity? Where is the philosophy? In short, honor among thieves doesn't make anyone any less of a thief.

Since you refuse to substantiate your accusation, I don't think there is anything left for me to say here.

(1) No, you haven't. Clearly you have various misconceptions as to what it is I'm saying. How many more times do I have to tell you that you're not hearing me? (2) No, violence is not the same as manipulation. I don't know how you came to the conclusion as that's not the context of that example. The point of that example was to show how certain acts which would otherwise be deemed as acts of aggression, i.e. violations of the NAP, can still occur without them being immoral. We see this in sports all the time. Or, in a broader sense, we can say: Games. That's all I was giving you evdience of. So, again, show me specifically where I gave you "subjective evidence" of manipulation.

Show me specifically where I did that.

You said there is a gigantic problem with my argument, but you don't actually point it out. You have shown me no understanding of my argument here. Instead, you redirected the focus of the convo to reassert your qualms with calling this behavior manipulation. And, as far as your point goes, I already addressed that perception. Twice even. For the third time: Two fighters getting into the Octagon are still behaving violently despite it being a voluntary exchange. More importantly, with sports there is full disclosure. With seduction -- whether from the female side or male side -- not so much. But, nonetheless, I still recognize it as a game, albeit a game that truly emphasizes the inherent 'buyer beware' nature of a free market -- which I also briefly covered in my last post, but not in those terms. More so, because there is no defined play ground, and understandablly so, the risk of violating the principle of equal consideration is very high. The moment that principle is violated you have immorality. Does it *look* exactly or *is* it exactly like? It only *seems* that way if you put words in my mouth -- which you insist on doing instead of actually addressing my argument. Your presumptions aren't my problem. And your lip service to my arguments aren't productive to discovering the truth here. My response here is to dispell the illusions you're throwing up so that others can see your sleight of hand tactics -- whether you're aware you're doing it or not.

Sophistry is the art of reframing a premise, a point, or principle in order to obscure another's perception of reality. There is no commitment to truth as truth is not the objective. In other words, it's politics, not philosophy. In short, it is a form of epistemological conquest. Hence the saying, "All is fair in love and war." Which, mind you, is not a truth, but a perception. Or, better said: A presumption. It's just another way of saying, "It's all relative." And, this is exactly what the guy in the OP was promoting. These phrases serves to rationalize and compartmentalize one's behavior in order to mentally distance oneself from the truth; from objective reality. This sort of mentality is an adaptation to the social environment. Many of us who are drawn to voluntaryism, as well as this forum, speak out against the inherent violence in today's culture. But, we're not the only ones. (Albeit, I find we have the more thought out perspective.) The typical fate and threat to women in a war is rape, hence the 'rape culture' idiom. Unfortunately, it is too narrow of a perspective to see the larger picture, so it has various misconceptions insofar as to scapegoat men. And, I won't even get into the *politics* of feminism that produced it as that would be a tangent in this thread. What I'm driving at here is that those who want to engage in acts of conquest, thereby adhering to the principles of conquest, have no use for moral arguments except when it serves to establish a centralized form of order -- which, in a word, is: statism. How this order is achieved via epistemological conquest, i.e. winning over the hearts and minds of the people. Of course, on a more micro scale, you can make that a single person or simply the opposite sex. So, the manipulation can go so far as to make others believe you're a god or a goddess, e.g. pharaohs of Egypt. Or, the abstraction can be less grandiose and simply be referred to as "alpha." And, as far as this board is concerned, I respect it too much to engage in a mockery of others who participate here. To do so would be counter productive with respects to the intentions of this forum. So, I think it's silly to think it is going to die because people self-govern insofar as to engage in more productive conversations. Philosophy is not a battle of wits. That is sophistry. There is no race to the truth as it is not a competition. Any conflict that arises is between the self and the truth lest we engage in sophistry. And, before this is misconstrued, it should go without saying that none of us are omniscient, so we all have our blind spots. Consider that truth is universally preferable, so on some level there is always a commitment to truth. So, telling someone who is dealing with a particular cognitive dissonance that he/she is not committed to truth is counter productive as it will not fit his/her paradigm, specifically in respect to one's perception of the self. In other words, I have no intentions of challenging people's self identity. Think of yourself what you will. My interests is to discuss ideas. And, in this particular thread, I find we are discussing the nature and qualities of particular mating strategies. And, as the saying toward a mating partner goes, "If sex with you is so wrong, I don't want to be right," well, to say the least, it highlights very well the hold our most primal instinct has on the topic. And, as I alluded to in my initial post, it can be more sport than war, but that is a fine line. But, either way, the art of seduction is still manipulation, and it is not gender specific. And, when it is a game, there is nothing wrong with it. However, when the principle of equal consideration is violated, then the arrangement becomes immoral.

"I'm outraged by this thread!" Hehe... my bad jokes aside, here is a better bit that I think hits the nail on the head:

My post was far more nuanced than you presume. But, I don't really care to talk to someone who is this passive aggressive.

Yes, it is manipulation. However, there is an unspoken rule about the manipulation. A Fight Club analogy comes to mind. Except, instead of fighting, the outcome is sex. It is a game. The question is whether you want to play it or not.

Glad many of you are enjoying the break down. I've never done a video before, so that would certainly be an interesting learning experience for me.

CAVEAT If you don’t want Mad Max: Fury Road ruined for you, you may want to stop reading here because I’m about to pick apart the symbolism in the movie from start to finish. Granted, I won’t be able to cover it all, but I will give you the meat of it. PREFACE: As you may have noticed from watching it yourself, the 2015 Mad Max movie is full of feminism, but how deeply immersed in the ideology is the movie really? I say through-and-through without question. And, while that might be surprising to some, it’s actually rather common for dystopian fictions to serve as allegories of the current culture as they allow us to view our culture from an abstract perspective, thus allowing the individual to see elements and/or criticisms of our culture that would otherwise be rejected due to prejudice or bias or outright censorship by the powers-that-be. Why would Mad Max: Fury Road be any different except in quality? Historically speaking, the true artists among us use this medium for conveying deep, hidden messages to the people of the lands as it can lead to unfavorable resistance from those in power – at least that’s how moral arguments against the powers that be have usually reacted to such messages since it challenges their authority; their indoctrinated religiosity. But, just like the artist that can use this medium for unraveling the religiosity of the current culture in front of your very eyes, and maybe even without you realizing it by planting an idea in your subconscious through symbolism and emotionality, this same method can be used to indoctrinate the people into a religiosity. When this sort of medium of communication is used for such indoctrination, it is called propaganda, i.e. propagating an agenda. Having an agenda in and of itself in not necessarily bad. But, when it serves to perpetuate deception, especially deception of the masses, then we begin to have a problem. And, yes! Mad Max: Fury Road is a propaganda piece promoting feminism, but ultimately socialism via state proxy. It is literature through cinematography that serves to highlight (via exaggeration) the patriarchal hold on humanity; the infectious nature of this sort of power structure; how that power structure plunges society into a world of toxic corruption; and, the movie even goes on further to essentially depict how feminism, thus socialism, gives humanity hope for a cure. And, the movie does this while entertaining you with explosions, magnificent stunts, and a well thought out story with its own internal logic. So, earlier, what I meant by “quality,” is that there is such attention to detail that every scene is not random. The artist sweeps us up and drops us off on a thrill ride through his mind in order to convey a moral argument against the current culture. Mind you, some scenes simply serve to unfold the plot, but as the plot unfolds there is layer-upon-layer of symbolism moving along with the story in order to project a moral argument. And, when all is said and done, whether one agrees with the message or not, the attention to detail by George Miller is rather brilliant -- so brilliant in fact that the simplicity of the movie is easily under appreciated. So much so that to many it comes off as nothing but an action pack thriller through the dessert with pirates on cars. But, again, it really is so much more, and I will do my best to go through some of the symbolisms I discovered while watching the movie, albeit I’ve only seen it once so I would not be surprised if there are various details I’ve overlooked. And, while the following might go without saying, I will put this additional caveat here anyways: How an artist decides to express his/her views of an ideology via story is always at the discretion of the artist. There is no set mold. All that is important is whether or not the message comes across, even if esoterically. So, by all means, do not make the mistake of confusing the artist’s interpretation, understanding, and intent of an idea, in this case feminism, with your own version of how you think that message would go, or ought to go. In other words, as I go through this, be sure not to make the mistake of assuming YOU know how a pro-feminist movie ought to go instead of trying to grasp the artist’s intent. Because, again, the notes they choose to hit is completely at their discretion. They are the composer. We are the audience listening. So, what is the message? And, how was it expressed? THE MEANING BEHIND THE MADNESS First, we have Max starring out across a blank canvas as he begins to introduce the audience to the world we live in, but it is portrayed as a dystopian fantasy, specifically a wasteland, to keep what the artist intends to convey via imagery in the abstract in order to prevent *conscience* rejection of the message. What we learn about Max is that he is struggling with madness internally and so is the world thereby implying the struggle is systemic. If a dilemma is systemic, it is inescapable, hence, again, the internal and external struggle. And, before we know it, the world (external struggle) is upon him running him down -- a world of warlords – before he finishes conveying the internal struggle. After they catch him, we see that he is a rugged individual; animalistic even in his nature. In other words, we learn that Max represents the feral man. And, his captors raise him out of the sands and drag him to civilization where he is processed and forced into providing utility to the civilization. In other words, the current state of affairs in civilization are against his will, thus his struggles are not of his making, but rather a part of him anyways as a result of circumstance. During his processing we learn that there is an even deeper and special quality to him, not only in the internal logic of the story, but in the metaphoric sense. His blood is universal. Thus, what Max represents is humanity itself. And, what we can further conclude is that the struggle he has is with the self, i.e. selfishness. In other words, Max is also intended to represent individualism. The feral man only thinking of himself. When he gets branded, he is thus scarred and marked by the current culture and now subject to its power structure. Many times he is depicted as caged and chained. Thus, he also represents humanity enslaved. Immediately before we can see the branding occur on Max, we cut to the introduction of Furiosa. As the imagery of branding shifts from Max to Furiosa, we are being told that certain metaphoric qualities also extend to Furiosa. However, to what extent has yet to be unfolded. And, just as those questions begin to arise, they are quickly answered. We learn that the society she lives in has scarred her deeply given the amputation. But, we are still left with the questions: Who is she? What is her role? And to begin understanding who Furiosa is, we need to better understand the society she lives. The society itself is a character of its own. And, we quickly begin to see the poverty of the people, the way people are debased to utility, and the major commitment to war by the society. And, soon enough, we learn who or what it’s all for. George Miller has no intention of hiding who the villain is, so right off the bat we begin to see the vilification of the leader that represents the power structure. We see scarred and diseased flesh that is quickly covered up thereby informing us the extent to which the leader goes to project strength and order of the self, even if it’s just an illusion. What we are seeing is the corrupted self. And, all the theatrics carried out by Joe serve a purpose for both the story and the metaphor Joe is intended to represent. Overall, he is intended to represent the all father; albeit the false Buddha or the false god that brings false hope to the people -- hence, the vilification. So, we have our first introduction to the patriarchy – which again is portrayed by Joe. Further more, all the illusions are intended to inform the audience that the true aim of his theatrics is to serve the self. Thus, we also have the immediate vilification of individualism. In other words, right of the bat, we are being told that individualism leads us to the worst traits within human nature. We are further shown all the medals and badges on the fiberglass armor to show the extent to which Joe goes to decorate himself so that he is seen as superior to the masses. The medals serve as a metaphor for fascism and/or capitalism. The intent is actually both as the common societal myth is that fascism and capitalism are one in the same. And, with the introduction of Immortan Joe we get one of our first myths of current society confirmed for us on the big screen. The message being: Individualism and capitalism lead to fascism, and thus the oppression of the people. And, this is substantiated with the above scene where Joe controls the flow of water – which represents wealth. And, the distance between him and the poor is the wealth gap. And, Immortan **trickles** down wealth from atop the citadel, the capitalist pyramid of power, all while giving a speech of how he will bring prosperity to the people. And so during his speech he defers this responsibility to Furiosa as he sends her off to gather wealth from the surrounding tribes thereby signifying that Furiosa is the champion of the people. But, shortly after the speech, we learn via the all seeing eye sitting upon the pyramid of power that there is fowl play afoot. Who is she to think she can disobey the all father? Does she not know it will disrupt the order and prosperity of current society? These are just a few of the questions raised by Immortan Joe to infer to the audience the delusion of individualism since, again, that is what he represents. Further more, when he opens the vault we see various cultural wealth. But the room is open and exposed indicating it’s all false luxury. Instead, it is a cage. A cage of the self created by the self. And now we are informed as to who Furiosa is as we are introduced to the rape culture manifested by the patriarchy and imposed upon the people via fascism/capitalism, and overall war. Furiosa is feminism incarnate. She is also altruism incarnate. So, we now have our main theme: Individualism VS Altruism. It’s pretty self evident that these are intended to represent the war machines produced by capitalism. And all the mechanical lifts and huge gears represent industry -- which are full of workers corrupted and made sick by the patriarchy. Also, the rituals around the war machines illustrate the religiosity associated with war in the culture as well as religiosity in general. All in all, these machines represent the military industrial complex in society. The skinned heads; the exaggerated whiteness; the Viking rhetoric; and, the fascistic undertones all lead to one conclusion: These characters represent the evil white man and his might. The evil white man is the privileged class that gets access to all the wealth. The evil white man is the oppressor. The premise for the movie is set and now the war drums are ready to sound out what it all means for the future of the human race. And, in this movie it is literally a race. Engines are fired up. The bloodlust is injected into the war boys. Get set. Get ready. GO! Let the blood bath begin! Just a reminder of humanity caged by the evil white man, the patriarchy, the warmongers, the fascists, the capitalist, and individualism. And the culture wears it proudly like a hood ornament. Feminism and the Humanity that is struggling with individualism (which, again, is another characteristic that Max represents) meet for the first time, but only as a distant thought. They are two struggles running parallel to one another in current society. Natural circumstance mixes everything up and causes all these ideals to collide. “What a lovely day” for the ignorant masses as this means change is afoot. The bonds of rape culture imposed upon women is broken thanks to Feminism – again, represented by Furiosa, the infuriated woman whose chastity was sullied. “Hell have no fury like a woman scorned.” Now, we are being given an introduction to women in society for the first. Their purity; their beauty; their chastity; their raw sexuality; their motherly, thus nurturing, capabilities; and, their desire for community welfare with the sharing of water are all depicted in a single shot. You might be inclined to interject with, “But Charlize Theron is female.” Well, yes, yes she is. But, again, she represents Feminism. Feminism is intended to represent the female. In other words, the wives of society represent women in society, and Furiso represents the ideal woman. The wives of society still have their false mother. Splendid is the false mother. She is put out in front to show she is the leader and protector. However, her position is intended to be illusory as she is the ideal woman chosen by the patriarchy. She represents false beauty, but mainly the false mother of the matriarchy. Granted, this is not evident by this scene just yet. We will actually learn this later. Even though the bonds of rape culture have been broken, we are not free yet. Here we have Humanity burdened by the evils of the white man. And until those burdens are free, the women of society are at risk of being subdued back into rape culture. (didn’t have pic of the scene) We begin to see the false mother standing up to Max trying to be the ideal woman. But, she is weak. She can’t fight back against the patriarchy. She continues to nurture it by giving it water. Mind you, we have been informed Max is humanity struggling with individualism. But, they are unaware of who Max is. So, again, he is mistaken for the patriarchy because of the burdens he bears. The women of society are offered opportunity to break the chains that bind humanity to the patriarchy. But, as they are weak since they are still not free of the patriarchy completely, Feminism steps in instead. It’s hard not to note how easily a one armed woman subdues a man. But, this is actually a metaphoric battle between feminism/altruism and the individualism Max represents. In other words, it shows the intent of feminism wanting to eradicate individualism from humanity. Again, Max is mistaken for pure individualism given he only cared about saving his self. Thus, this fight scene raises the question: Why should humanity, especially men, trust feminism? And, given that Furiosa pulls the trigger, she shows that feminism is not yet to be trusted by humanity. It’s too extremist at this junction of the movie. In other words, the imperativeness of feminism has yet to be substantiated. We’re still being introduced to the ideas and struggles, albeit in full throttle fashion – which highlights the brilliance and attention to detail of George Miller’s work in this film. Now, we see the same hierarchy in women, except now feminism is the leader of the group, although not important than the group, hence on her knees. Furiosa is the ideal beauty; the ideal heroine; and so on. We also have further established that humanity is ready to be freed in order to allow humanity to choose. After all, can’t have socialism without democracy, right? But, let’s not allow that to push us ahead of ourselves before we lose ourselves in the myths we’re being expected to absorb without question in this propaganda piece. Any perception of choice is an illusion because you’re intended to sympathize with the artist. And, so, before you’re allowed to falsely assume individualism has won, one of the women quickly emasculate the ideal. Masculinity rejected! If you sided with individualism after Max won the fight, sorry, but individualism isn’t the answer. It’s too small of an idea. To small minded. Premature. Etc. And, this is further substantiated when Max tries to drive off but can’t get very far since he didn’t know how to work the G spot. So, in order for humanity to progress, individualism needs to get out of the driver seat and at least accept Feminism on some level for survival. (Going to jump ahead here.) Here we learn that the toxicity of masculinity is not isolated. It doesn’t matter where women go, wherever there are men in power, they will try to subdue them for their own interests. But, we also learn another character piece of Max. A little comic relief with the intent to point out that humanity is only limiting itself. It is actually full of potential. And feminism is the key to unlocking that potential, but only if humanity is willing. And we get the half hearted thumbs up from Max indicating, “Yeah, ok, I’ll play along.” From here we learn that humanity and individualism is beginning to separate, and we see this confirmed by singling out Immortan from the war party, and thus his ideal society. In other words, rulership via the patriarchy is at a turning point at this impasse, and the artist is beginning to show us that it holds no hope for humanity. Again, the problem plaguing society has been isolated. “Argh! Property!” (I paraphrase.) Such few words spoken throughout the movie that when we actually are exposed to dialogue, the few words end up providing significant insight into the artist’s intentions. The emphasis of ‘property’ by Joe is to vilify private ownership of property, not of just women, but in general as the modern day myth is: Private ownership of property leads to consolidation of wealth in the hands of a select few, i.e. monopolies – which, if gone unchecked, leads to feudal lordship. And, from this we can infer that it is this obsession with property that leads to the degradation of women insofar as to create a rape culture. That very degradation leads to the dehumanization of society – which the women represent. Thus, Immortan Joe’s line is actually a culmination of that sentiment. Hence, once again, the significance of separating Immortan Joe from his ideal society. In other words, the community of people Joe has is actually all illusory, i.e. it is a false congregation. Instead, it is a cult. At this point, it is also very clear what the dystopian society is intended to represent: unfettered capitalism. The “blank canvas” is a world without regulation, thus allowing testosterone filled masculinity to run amok until it turns the world into a wasteland of disease, rape/war, famine, and death – which, in the past, has been referred to as the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse. So, all this vilification is a warning: If you accept capitalism and/or individualism, you will bring upon the destruction of civilization. Mind you, this is all simply fear mongering propaganda perpetuating the modern day myth that there can be no regulation without a state. In other words, the state is the source of law. All good propaganda perpetuates the modern day mythos. Also, it’s important to note that, historically speaking, the notion of law, i.e. natural order, was that it was always the product of the Creator, i.e. god or a god depending on the era. To deny god was to deny order and embrace chaos. What we see here is the same mantra, but in a modern context. The state is the new god – i.e. the god expected to be perceived as missing from the dystopian fantasy George Miller has given us. But, that is one of the great illusions of this film. More importantly, it’s paramount to acknowledge that historically the “law,” i.e. in this case the order of an era, the law was always maintained by the statist institution that claimed to be the bridge between god and man -- at least until the separation of church and state. However, what happens when you no longer have a god? You’re left with simply the state. Does religiosity end simply because there is no god? This movie inadvertently shows that the answer to that is no. If you’re asking why I’m bringing this all up, it’s because I’m trying to highlight the cognitive dissonance of the artist. In other words, the movie is perpetuating modern day religiosity. So, like with most dystopian fictions, if not all, they actually represent the modern day culture. In other words, an artist of such genre will entertain you with a story with it’s won internal logic to keep your attention, but he/she is actually pondering modern day culture and presenting an argument in favor of his/her ideals via symbolism. Being that it’s a dystopian fantasy, it’s actually a prophetic warning of where certain ideas held today will lead – well, at least where the artist thinks certain ideals will lead. This is intended to provide you with a revelation. And, if you buy into it, you buy into the propaganda. Immortan Joe, for example, does indeed symbolically capture fascistic sentiment rather accurately. But, the dystopian fantasy we’re following here does not actually capture a world absent of regulation accurately. In fact, such a notion is a logical impossibility. There will always be some form of order among men even if it is something you do not agree with. However, that order does not necessarily infer the rule of law (i.e. logic and reason) as it is perfectly possible to rule by might thereby creating law via fiat, i.e. by decree. In other words, the idea that you’re watching a world without law or regulation is an illusion. In all its complexity, the “law” is very much there as well as the artist’s interpretation of modern day law. What we’re actually seeing here is G. Miller’s interpretation of modern day law – which, again, is held and maintained by the state. However, George Miller blames capitalism and individualism for the nature of law, thus the injustice we see in our current culture. So, what does Immortan Joe really represent, albeit inadvertently given George Miller’s cognitive dissonance? Immortan Joe is the modern state incarnate; statism incarnate; and, religiosity incarnate. But, again, this is not the intent of the artist. His intent was to anthropomorphize capitalism and fascism as Immortan Joe. And the vilification of Joe is actually a vilification of a part of himself. The struggle between feminism and individualism is a struggle within George Miller. In other words, while watching this movie, we are in the mind of George Miller, and this is his view of the world, but masked by stunts and theatrics to minimize the trauma of war we see in society today. This intuitive insight allows us to better understand the upcoming scenes, as well as the 2 horsemen that have yet to be revealed: the black horseman, and the pale horseman. But first we need a sacrifice before the black horseman can release his righteous indignation upon society. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmaxsplendidpriortodeath.jpg http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015deathofsplendid.png http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015deadsplendid.jpg And, so we have the sacrifice of the false mother; the false beauty; the false heroine so that the true mother can be brought to us via feminism. But, the dead baby signifies the death of the patriarchy. It would have been the heir, thus signifying the continuation and rebirth of society in the name of the patriarchy, which would have been “perfect in everyway.” And, now we know why Mad Max is haunted by a dream of a little girl lost rather than a little boy. In the previous movies Mad Max had a little boy that died. But, this is a movie that promotes the installment of a matriarchy. A matriarchy we have yet to meet. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015blackhorse.png If this was a blind women holding scales, you’d know exactly what this represents. But, **sings** this is a man’s world. And, thus, instead of real justice, you get the man’s version of justice. Or, at least that’s what it’s intended to be. Mind you, it’s justice corrupted, hence it being the black horse. So, hopefully, at least by this point some of you are agreeing with me just how full of shit and propaganda this movie is. Although brilliantly done, right? http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015toxicpasturesenvironment.png Since we’ve all seen the movie, we know this area was the green pastures. It is not a coincidence that this is disclosed to us after the black horse has been unleashed. The black horse brings upon humanity famine and thus despair. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmaxdespair.jpg This is a very important turning point for Furiosa, and thus feminism, or at least the artist’s intent regarding feminism. Up until this point, Furiso believed she can survive without men. All she needed to do was get to her mother, i.e. the true mother, and all would be good. However, this is not the reality of the world we live in. There is no society without men. Also, one more time for clarity sake: Furiosa’s mother is a metaphor for the true mother. Thus, what we’re being shown is the struggle with manifesting this ideal, i.e. the matriarchy. Hence, why the mother is not there. It was Furiosa’s false ideal. Thus, if feminism wants to be the hope of society, then it needs to embrace men. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015nuxlovescene.png Who could resist those puppy dog eyes? Throughout the whole movie George Miller has been setting up sympathy for masculinity corrupted and thus misguided by the evil white man; the false father; the false god; and so on. It’s not his fault he is the way he is. He just another one of god’s children corrupted by the war/rape culture. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015nuxsickness.png He is separated from humanity, hence his sickness. And, so he needs the blood of humanity to survive. Hence, the blood lust. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmaxjustaboy.jpg But, Nux is also labeled as the fool. Immortan Joe calls him as such after he was entrusted with the task of shooting Furiosa in the back thereby killing feminism and becoming the glory of the patriarchy. However, he drops the gun because, again, he is just a fool that believes in false gods. False gods are false truths. ‘False truths’ is an interesting oxymoron isn’t it? (Unlike the true trues in Cloud Atlas to provide contrast if you’ve seen the movie.) Why not just say falsehoods? Because, a false truth is a truth that logically follows a premise, however the falseness is overlooked because the thinker or the viewer is oblivious to the logical fallacy in play. In a word, these are: Superstitions. Historic superstitions are easy to see because they’ve already been dispelled for you. ‘Dispelled’ and ‘spelled’ are very fascinating words when you consider the implication of these words as denoting the definition of ‘spells’ like in the magical sense. Although, not in the fantasy way you might see in video games, but more of a phantasmal way, i.e. illusions. Illusions that can create whole worlds in front of your very eyes. Technology like cinematography helps of course. And, this all might sound loony to you right now, but you’ve most likely heard and accepted this notion before, but in a different context. “The pen is mightier than the sword.” I’m just going deeper into the wizardry if you will, i.e. the word play. In short, I’m alluding to the history of propaganda throughout the ages as it is a tool for perpetuating the myths and superstitions, i.e. false truths (or false gods), of a culture. How much of it is conspiracy; and, how much of it is incompetence? Well, I leave that to you to figure out or decide. But, I mention it because it’s not always clear how aware the artist is of these mythologies. And, I’ve already noted some of the cognitive dissonance I’ve seen in George Miller’s work. Also, full disclosure, I’m not aware of my own either, nor do I consider myself a master of the arts, i.e. artist expression. I’m just thinking out loud here whether you agree with my madness or not. And, just to add: An artist might present mythologies in a colloquial sense or a modern day sense, or they might present mythologies in an archaic sense. That is completely up to the artist’s discretion. Mythologies are always metaphors for something even though we, the viewer, may not always be privy to their meaning. If, for example, we were discussing Thor from the marvel movies, we’d be discussing a mythology in the modern sense as the character has been reformed with respect to modern cultural views. In other words, these figures are our odysseys; epics; great stories; heroes; gods; and, so on bearing our perceived truths. We would be very arrogant if we were so naïve to believe we have moved beyond mythologies simply because we no longer believe in Greek gods, for example. No, we’re just as human as our foolish ancestors. So, even though we have science, we are just as superstitious as ever. We just have better philosophy at this point thanks to the “titans” before us – an ode to the quote of standing on the shoulders of giants popularized by Isaac Newton. But, I digress from Nux. Nux allows us, the viewer, to forgive the evils of the patriarchy, capitalism, the evil white man, and all the things Immortan Joe represents in order to prevent harboring a desire for righteous indignation – which allows one to entertain the illusion of vengeance leading to justice as we’ve seen with the black horse. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015bagofseeds.png A glimpse of the true mother is revealed. A pouch bearing the seeds of life, thus providing hope of rebirth if a genuine (i.e. de jure, aka consensual) bond of matrimony can be made since the one between Immortan and Splendid was a de facto bond imposed by the patriarchy, therefore promoting rape culture. And, if you’re hung up on the term ‘matrimony’, understand this: There can be no matri-archy (motherly hierarchy) without a matri-mony (motherly role). So, since the false mother is dead, the position is ripe for the taking. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015furiosaoffersplacetomax.png So, based on the circumstances available, feminism offers the opportunity to form a bond with humanity thereby granting masculinity a position in the matriarchy, thus bringing hope to men. She offers the fool hope because she recognizes his potential to be a “pillar of strength” for the matriarchy. However, in order to embrace this hope, he would have to shed his individualism – which Max is not yet ready to do. So, he tells her, “Hope is a mistake,” which also serves to infer that despair is vast in these wastelands -- meaning these capitalist/fascist filled lands is full of testosterone driven toxicity, and overall individualism. (Again, these are the particular associations the artist has displayed for us via symbolism throughout the movie.) But feminism is not giving up. The women are not deterred by the challenge. Instead they, the fragile matriarchy, embrace their fate and push forward despite the fool’s errand that it might be in such a toxic world. Wherever there is foolishness, there is opportunity for growth. The fool, i.e. the joker, is the wild card in the deck that can be any card at anytime. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015matriarchy.png And, we see the matriarchy led by feminism. But, it is a withering and destitute order as many of the members are old, albeit still full of vigor and ready to fight to the bitter end regardless of the circumstances. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015handshake.png Max doesn’t offer to save them. Rather, he supports their hopeful idea for a better society -- that idea being a matriarchy led by feminism. Because Max also represents individualism, what he is showing is the willingness to sacrifice himself for a cause greater than himself, thus embracing the altruism that feminism is touted to infer. Thus, the bond between humanity and feminism is now established, but it is not yet complete. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmaxeviladultwhiteman.png Can the matriarchy survive the test of death? So, the new, fragile bond is put at risk at the hands of death, i.e. the pale rider. In this case, it’s the only dude in the army that has no white powder on him. He is white enough, thus pale enough already. He is huge and intimidating so his whiteness, and thus evil, need no further highlighting via exaggeration. He is a madman, i.e. wrath, intoxicated and driven by testosterone -- hence, his costume. The pale rider being wrath is a self destructive force thereby killing anything and everything in its wake. Hence, why it is the rider of death. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015redriderwar.png Now that death has been unleashed, war (the red rider) has been satisfied and all that is left is destruction. Destruction of the self. Self sacrifice for the holy order. That order being the matriarchy led by feminism. But, there can be no rebirth without death. And so the ideal woman must be sacrificed to serve as ransom for the sins of man, more specifically men since they are blamed for the current woes and ways of the world. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmaxuniversalhuman.png When Max gives her his blood, it completes the acceptance of the bond between humanity and feminism mentioned earlier as there is now a blood bond. If you recall, first they, Max and Furiosa, were shown enduring the scars of society together during the branding scene – meaning that there was an external bond. That’s what the branding represents and it’s emblem is seen all throughout the movie. In other words, that brand is the mark of sin upon man that all can see. Furthermore, because of the blood transfer, the merger between the two dichotomies are complete, or better said the conflict between the two is resolved. i.e. there is an internal bond. The external and internal conflict are complete. i.e. Know thy self. And, as a result, Max can now give his name because he is no longer the fool, thus he (i.e. humanity) has embraced its potential by transferring the water of life back into the holy ideal: Feminism/Altruism/Socialism. Also humanity is only a ‘he’ in this movie because it is about the death of the patriarchy, i.e. humanity enslaved by men -- the little girl, i.e. premature feminism, trapped in a man’s body, although still strong enough to guide humanity throughout his ordeal with the order of men, and constantly trying to kill the ideal of individualism within humanity – which humanity resists until the little feminist ideal saves his life. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015societyspoverty.png Now that the water of life has been transferred to feminism, it can now be extended to society. And sure enough, it is released by the freed mothers who were trapped and exploited by the patriarchy. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmax2015societyreborn.png Again, only after death can you have rebirth. Thanks to feminism we have the rebirth of society -- which embraces altruistic ideals, i.e. socialism. Society can now thrive and begin to cure the toxicity within the environment plaguing humanity. The cure is made evident by showing us the dead body of the white rider, Immortan Joe, which is distributed among the survivors of the ruins. In other words, they serve as relics of the past. But, it also serves as foreshadowing as it infers the religiosity still has a hold on society. http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmaxhumanitygivenbacktothepeople.jpg Humanity is still out there in the wastelands of “capitalism” struggling with the sins of men and their selfish ideals. And, one last thing of note that I think is important: Notice that Immortan Joe had no wench. Even Skeletor had Evil Lyn. Thus, no female villain also infers that this is a feminist movie. The wench would have been Furiosa, however, she has freed herself from the evils of the patriarchy. Something she’s done many times thereby inferring she was never really his to begin with, unlike Splendid the false heroine, the false mother – who we were also positioned to sympathize with. The White Rider in case you missed it: http://www.imagegainer.com/images/rbdave2/madmaximmortaljoe.jpg

I hope you don't mind me breaking your post apart like this. It's just easier for me to reference things to ask questions. If it is a mistake, I fail to see it as such. Maybe you can elaborate? How is that descriptive? I find NAP to be the basis for morality. So, I hold a similar view, but I say: Morality is irrelevant to those who desire war, i.e. conquest -- which is referring to rule by might or achieving ends by force (i.e. NAP violations). I've argued with others that the NAP is not prescriptive because I'm constantly running into people who bring up Hume's Law. So, I point out that the NAP is not prescriptive. It doesn't tell us what we ought to do. What we ought to do is always derived from an 'if', not an 'is'. So, I'm looking to confirm the accuracy of my claim/logic.

Given that today's market is the product of interventionist policies, things like patents are part of the business model. However, in a vountary society, I don't know if intellectual property would emerge. Certainly, contracts would still be used, thus one can put copyright claims on a product, thus whoever purchases that product implicitly agrees to that contract. So, that's a possible model one can use. Another way is to use a prototype to serve as proof of concept which would allow you to promote the benefits of your idea, and then selling that concept to the highest bidder or just going around and selling teaching services to bring everyone uptodate. Or, in the age of the internet, putting it online and granting access to the info after payment -- which again can bring us back to the copyright model mentioned above. Another model is like what artists do. They put themselves out there and ask for donations so that they can continue working in their field. Same model you see with FDR. So, those are just some ideas off the top of my head.

Is the non-aggression principle ("NAP") prescriptive or descriptive? NAP (short-hand definition): No one has the right or right to claim a right to initiate force against another in order to cause harm to another or to another's property; to defraud another; to extort another; or, to break contract without cause*. *Cause being a moral argument. Now, I found that the NAP was not precriptive but rather descriptive, though I might be in error and any help would be appreciated. My reasoning is as follows: For it to be prescritpive, the NAP would have to derive an ought from an is. And, I fail to see how it's telling anyone how they ought to act when the ought is derived from one's interests, i.e. in this case, what outcome people want as far as human discourse goes. In other words, if you want a voluntary society, then you ought to abide by the NAP. To say that's prescriptive would be like saying a tuning fork tells you how you ought to tune a piano. But, that's not what it does. The tuning fork serves as a medium for deducing the harmonics of a sound as it provides a standard, i.e. a principle. Ultimately, it is the user that decides how the piano ought to be tuned. A valid moral theory works in the same way. What you ought to do is always going to be derived from your interests. What is going to happen is derived from governing principles be it NAP (a moral principle) or theory of gravity (a physics principle). Needless to say, since no one has a working crystal ball, the best we can do is use probability to predict outcomes. So, by understanding principles we can deduce probable outcomes, and with such understandings, one can make a more informed choice as to what he/she ought to do in order to achieve a desired consequence. Thus, moral theories help us extrapolate plausible outcomes of human action. The NAP is such a principle, and its function is to help one determine what actions will lead a society to more voluntary exchange as opposed to acts of conquest. Thus, to put it analogously, it is a compass (describes a direction, i.e. descriptive), not a heading (prescribes a direction, i.e. prescriptive).

The whole point of the pricing mechanism is to allocate resources, especially finite resources, to those willing to assume the risk of using such resources for their creativity. This serves to optimize efficieny of resources. Thus, to grant people money without conditions would be to undermine the metric we have for evaluating supply and demand.

^It's been so long since I watched that documentary, but I know that article certainly didn't do it justice. If I'm not mistaken, I think they were adding another layer to appetite aside from the insulin focus. In other words, what you said about insulin is true, but this cycle you're referring to is part of the symptom of obesity. So, how does one's appetite contribute to getting one to that point. And, I think that's the question they were tackling. The idea is that there is an environmental influence that triggers a gene insofar as to cause one to have a more active appetite in order to protect oneself from periods of famine. If this sort of biological imperative (if you will) is triggered in an environment that actually is abundant in food, and not just abundant, but calorie dense, then there is good reason to believe that there is a biological drive to consume food. As such, assuming this is correct, if the individual puts him/her-self through a period of what would be considered a calorie deficit, then the body is treating it like a confirmation of a period of famine. So, the overall point is that it doesn't matter how much will power one has, this higher rate of food consumption is the result of one's biological programming, and obesity is a product of this biological error. Insulin resistance or leptin resistance exacerbate the error, thus are symptoms of a larger issue. And fat shaming tends to contributes all this lack of integrity or lack of virtue to people struggling with these biological imperatives in an environment abundant with food. Body signal: "Keep a look out for food; it's an imperative to our survival. Eat when available." Mind attempting to will power a diet: "Keep a look out for food; it's an imperative to our survival. Treat it like a threat when present." Doesn't the latter get overwritten once the reward signals kick in? i.e. The "threat" becomes a mere thought, while the food is empirically verified as beneficial. Feminism be damned. I have to agree that there is some merit to their stance on this one. Though, their approach is terrible as it doesn't really provide an answer either. They're just throwing poo right back, but hitting those celebrating health. Personally, it makes me sad because neither side is helping those who are struggling with obesity.