Equality is impossible. Women and children should come first and have rightfully won the equality wars.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Equality is impossible. Women and children should come first and have rightfully won the equality wars.

 

This is not to say that I do not believe in equality under the law. I do, but would ignore it for my higher duty to family if the need should arise.

 

The protection of home as the family hub and backbone of society is why moral men should and do put women and their children above themselves.

 

That is the highest of a male’s duty to humanity and our evolving species and is a part of our instincts.

 

If a man, and you do not live by the law of the sea and put women and children and their needs above your own, even on land, then you would not be doing your highest or first duty to humanity.

 

Do you agree?

 

Regards

DL

[smarterthanone]

Forget children for a moment because they are not adult entities. If women were not as capable as men then sure, for example if I were to take out a young woman who lived at home with her family and had no source of income I would be glad to pay for her to go out to eat. But if I were to date a young woman who had a job especially if it was equivalent to mine there is no way you would get me to pay for dinner for her. So if women are in a worse position than men sure women first. In today's society no freaking way. If anything women ought to be last because statistically women barely even have children anymore and that is what gives them value so the typical woman you meet will have no more than one child so compared to women of the past who had 8 she's not nearly as valuable

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I disagree.

My woman and children first? yes. Other women first? No. Other children? Not over mine, nor over myself nor my woman, but I definitely think children in general should be given priority as they are the future. However I don't think one gender should sacrifice itself for the other. I do, however, think a man should be willing to sacrifice himself for his woman and children and his woman should be willing to sacrifice herself for her man and children.

Anything other than this and it's a raw deal, to say the least.

[smarterthanone]

On 8/17/2018 at 6:20 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I disagree.

My woman and children first? yes. Other women first? No. Other children? Not over mine, nor over myself nor my woman, but I definitely think children in general should be given priority as they are the future. However I don't think one gender should sacrifice itself for the other. I do, however, think a man should be willing to sacrifice himself for his woman and children and his woman should be willing to sacrifice herself for her man and children.

Anything other than this and it's a raw deal, to say the least.

I agree with one distinction. Say you just got married and you could sacrifice yourself to save her or you could let her die. Its a simple A or B situation. And assume she is the one who got into the mess, you aren't the one who put on the situation. I would let her die because I have no children. If she had already gave me children or something then I would consider it, but my priority is the kids.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

20 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

I agree with one distinction. Say you just got married and you could sacrifice yourself to save her or you could let her die. Its a simple A or B situation. And assume she is the one who got into the mess, you aren't the one who put on the situation. I would let her die because I have no children. If she had already gave me children or something then I would consider it, but my priority is the kids.

That's a hard one. If she set up the mess, then yeah I agree with you (heck I'd wonder why I fell in love with such a crazy girl lol hard not to imagine an action-movie-like chain of events) but if it was me or neither then it'd be a lot harder. If we had children then it wouldn't even be a question. If me or a third party caused the problem, I'd sacrifice myself. If she caused it, I'd take my children away from her and let her sacrifice herself. No children involved, then it's a matter of ownership (i.e. who dealt it takes it).

Ultimately what matters is she isn't stupid enough to put our lives at risk to fulfill this hypothetical scenario, and that she's willing to sacrifice herself for me and our children as much as I am her and my children. I would never sacrifice myself for someone who either wouldn't do the same back or I don't consider more valuable than me (like my children or--hypothetically--Emperor Donald III of the Trump Dynasty).

[ticketyboo]

Equality: The Impossible Quest, by Martin van Creveld

This book looks at the history of "equality". The summary is that equality has never existed.

It's never been defined consistently.

 

[Meister]

Wtf did I just read ...  No, thank you ... 

[ticketyboo]

On 8/29/2018 at 9:54 AM, Meister said:

Wtf did I just read ...  No, thank you ... 

Is this about the Martin van Creveld book?

[Meister]

11 hours ago, ticketyboo said:

Is this about the Martin van Creveld book?

No ... Why? ... What?

[ticketyboo]

On 8/29/2018 at 9:54 AM, Meister said:

Wtf did I just read ...  No, thank you ...

 

4 hours ago, Meister said:

16 hours ago, ticketyboo said:

Is this about the Martin van Creveld book?

No ... Why? ... What?

Sorry, I couldn't determine what you were replying to.

[Meister]

2 hours ago, ticketyboo said:

 

Sorry, I couldn't determine what you were replying to.

Ok. I was replying to the original post.

I think it’s bizarre and makes no sense.

[ticketyboo]

4 hours ago, Meister said:

Ok. I was replying to the original post.

I think it’s bizarre and makes no sense.

It's got some merits (the argument). From a purely Darwinian, biological perspective.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/the-fundamental-premise/

Quote

Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.

 

[Meister]

4 hours ago, ticketyboo said:

It's got some merits (the argument). From a purely Darwinian, biological perspective.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/the-fundamental-premise/

 

This doesn’t fit my anectodal life experience. At all. So from my subjective standpoint it has no validity.

But for the sake of argument let’s assume that he is correct. Why would I care? What’s in it for me?

[ticketyboo]

14 hours ago, Meister said:

15 hours ago, ticketyboo said:

It's got some merits (the argument). From a purely Darwinian, biological perspective.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/the-fundamental-premise/

 

This doesn’t fit my anectodal life experience. At all. So from my subjective standpoint it has no validity.

But for the sake of argument let’s assume that he is correct. Why would I care? What’s in it for me?

 

On 8/17/2018 at 1:16 PM, Gnostic Bishop said:

If a man, and you do not live by the law of the sea and put women and children and their needs above your own, even on land, then you would not be doing your highest or first duty to humanity.

You get to pass your genes onto the next generation.

[Meister]

28 minutes ago, ticketyboo said:

 

You get to pass your genes onto the next generation.

I have no interest in that. But I am aware that a lot of people do. So again, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that for whatever reason it is my goal to pass on my genes.

Anybody can pass on their genes. I bet I could find a way to pass on my genes within the next 48 hours if I really wanted to. It’s not rocket sience.

I have no idea what passing on genes has to do with this thread ...

[ticketyboo]

On 9/2/2018 at 2:04 PM, Meister said:

I have no idea what passing on genes has to do with this thread ...

99 men and 1 woman means 1 baby. 99 women and 1 man means 99 babies. [In a single 9 month period.]

Men will throw themselves under a bus to protect their women and their tribe in order to pass on some of their genes and their tribe's genes.

Hence the argument that men and women are not equal, because they do not have equal value when it comes to survival of the tribe or the human species.

[Meister]

5 hours ago, ticketyboo said:

99 men and 1 woman means 1 baby. 99 women and 1 man means 99 babies. [In a single 9 month period.]

Men will throw themselves under a bus to protect their women and their tribe in order to pass on some of their genes and their tribe's genes.

Hence the argument that men and women are not equal, because they do not have equal value when it comes to survival of the tribe or the human species.

[BTW, there is no way in hell that this dude has an IQ "north of 130".]

 

 Nice try at an insult. Big words coming from a guy who can't figure out if someone is actually replying to his posts.

I value my life and I see no reason why I should throw myself under the bus for some woman. Neither you nor the OP have presented any arguments why I should do such a stupid thing.

And that's why I wrote:

On 8/29/2018 at 6:54 PM, Meister said:

Wtf did I just read ...  No, thank you ... 

 

And if your main goal is to pass on your genes then sacrificing yourself is going to lower the chances of that happening, because the longer you stay alive and healthy the longer you can spread you precious seed. On top of that females tend to not mate with males who appear to value them.

[ticketyboo]

2 hours ago, Meister said:

6 hours ago, ticketyboo said:

[BTW, there is no way in hell that this dude has an IQ "north of 130".]

 

 Nice try at an insult. Big words coming from a guy who can't figure out if someone is actually replying to his posts.

It wasn't a try at an insult. It was a statement of fact. I don't see why you needed to bullshit about your IQ.

2 hours ago, Meister said:

I value my life and I see no reason why I should throw myself under the bus for some woman. Neither you nor the OP have presented any arguments why I should do such a stupid thing.

And that's why I wrote:

On 8/29/2018 at 9:54 AM, Meister said:

Wtf did I just read ...  No, thank you ... 

 

And if your main goal is to pass on your genes then sacrificing yourself is going to lower the chances of that happening, because the longer you stay alive and healthy the longer you can spread you precious seed. On top of that females tend to not mate with males who appear to value them.

Tribe members carry copies of the same genes, and women possess the only means to pass those genes forward in time (see the 99 babies rule above). So, you should throw yourself under a bus so that copies of your genes that are inside the women of your tribe can be reproduced. And of course, your own children will have copies of your genes.

This is why society is organized the way it is. This is why men throw themselves under that bus. This is what the original poster means by "doing your highest or first duty to humanity".

I'm not saying I 100% agree with the sentiment expressed by the original poster, but I do understand it.

I'm not even considering the moral aspect.

 

[Meister]

13 minutes ago, ticketyboo said:

It wasn't a try at an insult. It was a statement of fact. I don't see why you needed to bullshit about your IQ.

Tribe members carry copies of the same genes, and women possess the only means to pass those genes forward in time (see the 99 babies rule above). So, you should throw yourself under a bus so that copies of your genes that are inside the women of your tribe can be reproduced. And of course, your own children will have copies of your genes.

This is why society is organized the way it is. This is why men throw themselves under that bus. This is what the original poster means by "doing your highest or first duty to humanity".

I'm not saying I 100% agree with the sentiment expressed by the original poster, but I do understand it.

I'm not even considering the moral aspect.

 

I wasn’t bullshitting about my IQ and I wasn’t arguing morals either. 

If your goal is to pass on your genes then throwing yourself under the bus is a terrible, terrible strategy.

Just do it like this guy and give away your sperm for free and have lots of unprotected sex with as many partners as possible. Stay alive and healthy as long as you can. That is obviously the best strategy. And that’s why low-IQ sociopaths on wellfare multiply like rabbits.

I don’t see how what you and the OP wrote could possibly be a better strategy. It makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

[ticketyboo]

13 hours ago, Meister said:

Just do it like this guy and give away your sperm for free and have lots of unprotected sex with as many partners as possible. Stay alive and healthy as long as you can. That is obviously the best strategy. And that’s why low-IQ sociopaths on wellfare multiply like rabbits.

This is r vs. K strategy. You are suggesting the r strategy, which works in an r-selected environment, but fails in a K-selected environment.

The West is heavily r-selected right now.

 

[Meister]

On 9/3/2018 at 9:58 PM, ticketyboo said:

This is r vs. K strategy. You are suggesting the r strategy, which works in an r-selected environment, but fails in a K-selected environment.

The West is heavily r-selected right now.

 

As with most traits, humans can go both ways. In a free market scenario, I'd agree with you, but the west is far from a free market.

As we know all western countries have an extensive welfare state that raises the kids.

Infanticide is low and the more you multiply, the more your DNA spreads. So if that is your goal, you can go ahead and spread your precious sperm like a garden hose, because that is obviously the most effective method.