Caley McKibbin

JamesP has a pinned thread admitting offloading admin duties here. I'll PM a link to the data at the forum I post on for anyone that is still on my good side. I won't be posting info publicly on FDR again.

A few months ago I decided I had enough of Erwin for a lifetime and enough of mob rule. While Stef complains daily about the IQ composition of electorates, anyone that can push a lawnmower can purchase the privilege to ignore the rules while spamming votes to hide other users and hold posts in abeyance. One can do much better at other forums. Far more concerning is that I posted stats from Bryan Caplan contradicting something Stef has started repeating often. That never got past abeyance. I asked why through "contact us" and got no reply. Stef also ignored or didn't see my comment about this. If I'm not even allowed to post GSS data on race here, it signals that FDR is against the facts that it poses as being all about and there is no point to trying to schedule a call in that case. That's a big problem because it means I will need to start notifying everyone elsewhere both of that data plus the intent to ignore and hide it, if no good excuse is forthcoming.

Very convincing. I take from something you said elsewhere that English is not your first language. So I will verify that you know what a lie is. It is a statement with a deliberate intent to deceive. Is empty libel really how you want to present yourself? Also, if you want to hide my posts from the whole forum by going back through my posts with a flurry of -1 reps because I disagree with you, you only reveal yourself as an insecure troll that is less interested in philosophy and more interested in surrounding himself with an echo chamber to reinforce his ego. Why not just go to my profile and -1 the rest of my posts and get it over with? Since I arrived to this forum I have found that it is quite the opposite of what I would expect from a so-called philosophy community. I've met with little but insults and almost every time people disagree with me about anything they get angry, nasty, fence and try to hide my posts. You embarrass yourselves and make a mockery of the spirit of FDR. I've scarcely ever seen such an anti-philosophical community. I said nothing even close to those being opposites. It's baffling why anyone would give a such a response. I can only assume that Wuzzums somehow did not understand what I said at all or understand the words he uses. An action is not cognitively aggressive or competitive. The concepts of aggression and competition depend on the meaning of actions in a context outside of the person performing it. E.g., if Peter hammers a nail into a board, that is not an aggressive act. If Peter hammers a nail into Paul's head, that is an aggressive act. Experiments adding and removing factors is just elementary deductive research procedure. The logic of this procedure is very simple. If you change something and something else changes following that and only that, then what follows is dependent on what was changed. Experiments that sometimes involve transgendering are the key to understanding men and women. The person that is best qualified to understand and explain the difference in sexes is someone whose experienced extends the most into both. I don't think the fact that genetic males with CAIS have female heterosexuality requires explanation. Libido and even orientation is controlled by sex hormones. Up to this point I'm the only one that has given any evidence for anything. All Wuzzums has done is shovel out empty insults and try to shut me out of the forum. I don't scrape gutters. My patience for keyboard commandos is very close to zero, so unless nothing but substance on the topic is forthcoming and those replying to me decide to act like a person that has come to FDR with an interest in genuine discussion I won't be visiting this site again. You'll have to decide: a community of trash talkers or a community of philosophers. Not an argument. Trash talk. Trash comment. A reasonable response would be something like, "Caley, that makes no sense to me. Can you prove it?" I acknowledge only people that conduct themselves at the standards they maintain when using their real names and speaking to someone's face. You're not in kindergarten. I'm sure you can handle that.

Getting in your way is what they are supposed to do, like how an army gets in the way of a king or president. Little defense is better than no defense. I can't believe you would want your friends to do this instead of strangers. Women are not able to detect specific motives. So Stef's explanation makes no sense. Complicated and correct is better than simple and wrong. Your case was that it is important for lineal survival. However, standing in front of something that will not be stopped anyway does not help that. It's not off topic when your topic is accusing people of being lazy. So feel free to justify it at your leisure. I suspect you would object if I said "Mishi2 is a grimy bastard, but that is a topic for another time." Again, in that case you should not have made that accusation. I don't find 2 words complicated. Those words are not particularly important. Ludwig von Mises said this in Human Action: I say that everyone is only willing to die to reduce dissatisfaction. Let's just say I currently have a painful and de-energizing health problem in addition to a terrible mental state. If I don't at least get medical treatment soon things will go down hill hard and fast and I'm starting from near the bottom.

The feeling associated with looking at women and libido are the same thing. It's like saying the colder you feel the colder you think you are. There's no way to trace what is arousing you in isolated cases. If you look at a person and feel something, you don't automatically know what particular feature is doing that. So thinking that something is pretty is not quite the same as having a feeling triggered by something that went through the visual cortex. Experiments on T supplement and blockers are plentiful, particularly transgenders. People that get T therapy report having higher libido while people that take blockers report the opposite. Women that get HRT often report their libido "going through the roof" within a few months. Women get both a T spike and a libido spike when ovulating. The BC pill is known to suppress both. You would never get aroused at all from looking at women if you didn't already have an androgen response, proven by males born with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome having female heterosexuality. I can't see any basis for claiming that T does not increase libido. I suggest reading transgender stories. It gives an understanding that we would never have otherwise. That is a contradiction. Aggression and competitiveness are omnipresent. Those words refer to actions in a social context, not to motives. They are a result of the combination of any kind of desire and opportunity. A biological factor can only affect them by affecting desire. To claim that testosterone increases aggression is to claim that it increases desire for something. Why do women hit kids much more than men do? Kids are the only humans weaker than them. Hitting kids is their aggression outlet. So what? It's screen version rating on IMDB is 4/10. It probably got a lot of reads because it looks controversial. Most women on Earth struggle to eradicate the existence of billionaires. One does not struggle to eradicate his or her favourite thing. You could make a movie called "Billionaires Should Be Shot" that does nothing but loop a billionaire being shot for 2 hours and it would get a better rating than that, especially from women. We're hard pressed to get most women to even speak to us if we don't want to burn the rich. But everyone is a hypocrite. So women want billionaires so they can quit their jobs and spend all day buying shoes and watching soap operas. What is a relationship? People are vending machines. Insert appropriate number of coins and press button for desired menu item. Buttons have a relationship with menu items. As productivity increases over time and women have more coins the marginal utility of a coin decreases. It seems to me that what has changed is what we need to offer each other, while in places like India and Africa you still get a lot of bang for your coin. I don't know how you are linking that with what I said about hormones.

Less demand for what? I haven't read it. So I don't know why you are bringing that up.

Women are not drawn to resources. Men only appear to select for beauty more because they have a more constantly high libido. Women are able to obtain resources from men only because of that imbalance. What people obtain is a function of supply and demand, not being programmed to pursue those things. The ability of women to select men for resources is entirely the result of testosterone difference. If estrogen made you more horny than testosterone the rule would be hags driving Maserati's with studly waiters in the passenger seat. The roles would reverse just from that.

That is two different statements. Everyone prefers that everyone else is a meat shield slave. This is not a special case. I too prefer men (or women) that soak bullets for me. But preferring people that die for indefinite purpose is generally contrary to that. However, that is not relevant to sexual choice as anyone can be used as such. In either case it's a moot point because there is no means to detect such willingness until the death has already occurred. I'll try to explain this a bit. If some women give out white feathers to men that don't enlist, not receiving one becomes the reason to enlist for some (or for all if motivation to enlist ultimately traces back to that as you essentially suggest). You can't distinguish merely wanting to get a date from any other motive. Women want men that do x, and men only do x because women want it. Doing x is then functionally identical to being motivated solely by giving women what they want. So your criterion culls to: women prefer men that want to give women what women want. Side note: a man wouldn't even slow down a sabre-tooth tiger. Tigers weigh up to 300kg and that ain't beer gut. As normally used it is a malformed concept with no scientific value, like "greedy" and "racist". But scientific meaning can be given to laziness as energy conservation, the composite of somatic feelings that make one reluctant to act, a fundamental necessity for survival. An anti-lazy animal would quickly die off. It is already an ancient topic. It follows from the meaning of self and the discovery process for intent. The self is what decides to act. So all action is selfish. There is no means to determine that an action is not in self interest. It's instructive to think in terms of logic gate programming. A computer program decides what to do according to how the parameters fed into it are operated on. "Self-interest" in the context of a program can only mean whatever operation it attempts to perform. The brain is just another computer. Everything is a value in logic gate terms. There are types of dissatisfaction and degrees of each type. All action is intended to reduce dissatisfaction. The answer to the question: I might. It depends on how the dissatisfaction value of living compares to the dissatisfaction value of dying (as the mental obstacle to being dead).

What women think about a corpse is of no consequence. That interpretation is total nonsense. Order of The White Feather was started by an old man and old hag far past fertility. It's about dogma, not attraction. Even if young women really did reject men for not enlisting, that's just a mundane case of self-inflicting harm for dogma like enlistment itself; it's extending the self-harm of enlistment to women. The war political class knows that shame is not enough because not everyone is ashamed of doing useful things. So young women are organized into a psychological army to fight against smart men. Anyway, you never really explained how list-of-adjectives individuals are different from anyone else. Everyone is lazy. Everyone is selfish. Fat people tend to die sooner like alcoholics. To answer your question, escaping misery is the only thing I'm willing to die for. Everyone is willing to die for a value: a value of dissatisfaction. When I was training at a military base fitness center I said to someone, "You work like a slave." He said, "I am. I don't have anything else."

The first thing that a skeptic needs to do is set the goalposts. Otherwise anyone trying to convince does not know which way to kick the ball and the skeptic can merely say that any way the ball went is not a goal. Anyone trying to argue with a skeptic with no goalposts will simply exhaust himself attempting to kick the ball in every direction.

The problem with discussion on this topic is always the false assumption the the concept of "job" is intrinsically important to life when it is not. Suppose there are two people, Person A and Person B, where Person A has everything down to clipping his finger nails automated. He has no job for person B. However Person B has no less work that he needs done for himself. Time available for doing jobs is variable, but time available to spend working is constant for a given lifespan. In a world with only one person there are zero job hours, but the amount of time available for that person to spend working is the same as with any number of other people. The problem for dumber people is only that they will tend to acquire the means of automation later or never.

Spread your legs cheaply. Not rocket science.

So you admire people that will burst through your door if you don't obey the state. You should be delighted with the status quo. Fanatics externalize the cost of aggression, making the state, other cults and war in general possible. It's unfortunate for such a notion however that because fanatics are functionally cuckolds giving away their opportunity to procreate to those pathetic, lazy, fat, chips-eating, low-testosterone, selfish western kids that those kids will be the ones left to rule and populate the planet while the fanatics simply erase their traits from existence.

He did target them very precisely. He copied Karl Marx from "On The Jewish Question" in some obvious ways. It was all about crushing free exchange, which the jew allegedly represented. https://carolynyeager.net/why-we-are-antisemites-text-adolf-hitlers-1920-speech-hofbräuhaus

I'm not sure whether you dismiss advocating violence sincerely or out of fear of it being taken as a crime of inciting riot. But the sentiment is understandable. A crocodile doesn't care about arguments. It only cares about chomping. Law in the U.S. is tricky. In Canada anyone can perform an arrest with the same force as police. Anyone that prevents the arrest, including police, is guilty of a crime. So it's easier to deal with these situations. It seems that in other places dependence on the police to carry out procedures allows the police to systematically shirk duty to let specific groups that they secretly support get away with crime.