Feb 3, 2020, 10:25 AM People who want status or attention because they are rejected by the groups they work, live, or associate with, seek some sort of means of feeling they are winning – so they find a single lever (libertarianism, leftism, a philosophical frame, or a religion) and double down on it because it is their only means of obtaining some sense of success in the world through the expression of their preferences by dominance rather than by cooperation. This is an understandable human behavior. We cannot expect people to not negotiate or advance (or bully) for obtaining resources, status, cooperation, in a world where all three are scarce. … However, regardless of our preferences and wants we can argue for reciprocity or we can argue for irreciprocity. Or we can simply act irreciprocally by conquest if negotiation does not succeed, and separation is not possible. So one can argue in concert with the physical world or not. One can argue in concert with the social world or not. One can act in concert with the social world or not. But the reverse of each of those statements cannot be said, without one being a fool, a liar, and a thief – and thereby abandoning your sovereignty and entering into a condition of war where all morality is off the table. P is a method. That method defines reciprocity. And it states the limit of that reciprocity. And beyond that reciprocity there is no moral question – only war.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Coming to Closure on Abortion
—“How is my plot of land not my property? I can let you plow my fields and even plant your seed within, but ultimately I own this plot of land and have the ultimate say on what grows here. Perhaps I need more understanding of what a right is. Should I not have the right to uproot any weeds forcibly planted in my fields? “—AunMarie Grooms
Analogy not equality. You can’t own a human, even a fetus or child without others insuring you can. I’m not arguing in favor of this. I’m just stating the facts.
—“Study admiralty/merchant law”—Justin Coone
—“Please explain further, as this is not computing. I don’t need anyone else’s authority nor insurance over a fetus no one else may know even exist. Personally, I would not murder any offspring of mine, pending it was not what I consider an act of war (rape) and therefore the result of said act of war an enemy combatant.”—AunMarie Grooms
^No but the minute you involve someone else in the abortion you are not acting on your own. For example, why do we resist assisted suicide? Because it involves another party in a decision closed to restitution (reversal).
—“Interesting. Thank you for the clarity. So as long as you know how much juniper berries it takes to cause a miscarriage or can brew yourself a herbal tea when you wish to take the elders walk, and you are not having to enlist anyone else’s help, you have ownership of yours and your offsprings life.”—AunMarie Grooms
“I have ownership of my offspring’s life” Do you? When does that ownership end? When they can survive on their ow ie take ownership of their life? Infants will die very quickly without care so do we assume that Mothers (in your scenario it appears Fathers don’t have any Ownership of their offspring) are free to kill their infants? It’s the same argument, ‘My offspring is inconveniencing me (or maybe it’s simply whimsical decision with no reasoning whatsoever) and since it’s mine I can kill it if I like.’
—“Please understand that personally I am pro-life. However, there are logical arguments to be had here contrary from my own personal feelings. The weed analogy makes perfect since to someone who actually tends to gardens. It’s an …See More”—AunMarie Grooms
Fetuses don’t manifest in Wombs by happenstance\forces outside of a Woman’s control (barring rape). ‘I allowed a gardener to tend my garden and now I have a weed. I’m going to remove the weed as is my right because I own the garden’ – this is your analogy? “Is the agreement that she will manage the garden in his absence?” Don’t ask me how to make your ridiculous analogy work, I’ve rejected it from the start because it makes no sense. It serves as a diversion\argument suppression tactic whether by design or accident.”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Yes, the woman, from what I understand, has complete and utter control over what she does with her womb.”—AunMarie Grooms
—“So she is responsible for the life growing inside it and bares the responsibility for ending it. Deliberately ending a viable Human life without consent would be called…?”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Whose consent? The unborn child cannot consent neither to life nor death. However; it could be viewed as a parasite. (Which I understand is a new post modern explanation/excuse).”—AunMarie Grooms
—“Could consenting to risking Pregnancy be legally considered consent to a 9 month contract\obligation to seeing a pregnancy to term? I can agree with Men having a similar 12-18 year (financial or otherwise) obligation to a viable Life. Is there not a negative psychological impact to the Commons by allowing Women to kill viable Human lives which wouldn’t exist with their consent?”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Seems more than fair to me.”—AunMarie Grooms
—“Is it an issue that a fetus doesn’t have the ability to ‘exchange rights’ with the Mother? I wouldn’t have thought so since infants\toddlers don’t have that ability either and I don’t see any Pro-Choice people saying it’s morally acceptable for a Mother to kill them…”–Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Until recently, with the VA laws and abortion up to delivery and after. “Make the baby comfortable and let the parents decide”. Historically speaking men had the right to life and death not only of their children but also their wives and livestock. Women would kill them selves and their children to prevent them from becoming slaves should their husbands lose the war.”—AunMarie Grooms
Correct. by having sex (enjoyment) you took responsibility (manufactured, produced) for a fetus and it had no choice. Thats simply a fact. What we choose to do about it. Abort, externalize costs, create an unwanted and unloved child, and create broken dysfunctional families is the trade off. So to say we prefer abortion, to infanticide, to producing unhealthy people, to But to say it’s not an act of murder is simply false. It’s murder. We have capital punishment and it was always a good thing to have. We have warfare and it’s always a good thing to have. So, it’s not like we don’t justify intentional murder. We do. This is one of those cases where we do. The solution of course is self control by both parties. Or, failing self control, protection.
—“So by your calculations, Legal Abortion transfers the least amount of cost to the Commons vs other options? I’d be very interested to know if\how you estimated the ultimate cost (ie primarily psychological and perhaps also the Selection\Epi-genetic effects on Personality of the group) of allowing the murder of otherwise viable life of our In-Group/Kin? Is it a case of, it would be a minority of under-class or borderline underclass Women who get abortions so the gene pool would still ultimately be selecting against such behaviour?”—Grant Cameron
I’m not making that argument. I’m saying that IS the argument that’s being used. The data is increasingly convincing though. But it’s at the low end (reduction in crime), and is offset by the decline in middle and top end (reduction in aggregate Iq)
—“Sorry I like P, but baby murder is baby murder. Don’t care what system we are under or how you justify it.”—Jesse Daughtry
—“I agree. But like the argument above sometimes murder is a necessary evil. You don’t like baby murder. Some people think that capital punishment in general is equally as evil. Where is P going to land with this?”—AunMarie Grooms
P lands with “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”
-
Coming to Closure on Abortion
—“How is my plot of land not my property? I can let you plow my fields and even plant your seed within, but ultimately I own this plot of land and have the ultimate say on what grows here. Perhaps I need more understanding of what a right is. Should I not have the right to uproot any weeds forcibly planted in my fields? “—AunMarie Grooms
Analogy not equality. You can’t own a human, even a fetus or child without others insuring you can. I’m not arguing in favor of this. I’m just stating the facts.
—“Study admiralty/merchant law”—Justin Coone
—“Please explain further, as this is not computing. I don’t need anyone else’s authority nor insurance over a fetus no one else may know even exist. Personally, I would not murder any offspring of mine, pending it was not what I consider an act of war (rape) and therefore the result of said act of war an enemy combatant.”—AunMarie Grooms
^No but the minute you involve someone else in the abortion you are not acting on your own. For example, why do we resist assisted suicide? Because it involves another party in a decision closed to restitution (reversal).
—“Interesting. Thank you for the clarity. So as long as you know how much juniper berries it takes to cause a miscarriage or can brew yourself a herbal tea when you wish to take the elders walk, and you are not having to enlist anyone else’s help, you have ownership of yours and your offsprings life.”—AunMarie Grooms
“I have ownership of my offspring’s life” Do you? When does that ownership end? When they can survive on their ow ie take ownership of their life? Infants will die very quickly without care so do we assume that Mothers (in your scenario it appears Fathers don’t have any Ownership of their offspring) are free to kill their infants? It’s the same argument, ‘My offspring is inconveniencing me (or maybe it’s simply whimsical decision with no reasoning whatsoever) and since it’s mine I can kill it if I like.’
—“Please understand that personally I am pro-life. However, there are logical arguments to be had here contrary from my own personal feelings. The weed analogy makes perfect since to someone who actually tends to gardens. It’s an …See More”—AunMarie Grooms
Fetuses don’t manifest in Wombs by happenstance\forces outside of a Woman’s control (barring rape). ‘I allowed a gardener to tend my garden and now I have a weed. I’m going to remove the weed as is my right because I own the garden’ – this is your analogy? “Is the agreement that she will manage the garden in his absence?” Don’t ask me how to make your ridiculous analogy work, I’ve rejected it from the start because it makes no sense. It serves as a diversion\argument suppression tactic whether by design or accident.”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Yes, the woman, from what I understand, has complete and utter control over what she does with her womb.”—AunMarie Grooms
—“So she is responsible for the life growing inside it and bares the responsibility for ending it. Deliberately ending a viable Human life without consent would be called…?”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Whose consent? The unborn child cannot consent neither to life nor death. However; it could be viewed as a parasite. (Which I understand is a new post modern explanation/excuse).”—AunMarie Grooms
—“Could consenting to risking Pregnancy be legally considered consent to a 9 month contract\obligation to seeing a pregnancy to term? I can agree with Men having a similar 12-18 year (financial or otherwise) obligation to a viable Life. Is there not a negative psychological impact to the Commons by allowing Women to kill viable Human lives which wouldn’t exist with their consent?”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Seems more than fair to me.”—AunMarie Grooms
—“Is it an issue that a fetus doesn’t have the ability to ‘exchange rights’ with the Mother? I wouldn’t have thought so since infants\toddlers don’t have that ability either and I don’t see any Pro-Choice people saying it’s morally acceptable for a Mother to kill them…”–Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Until recently, with the VA laws and abortion up to delivery and after. “Make the baby comfortable and let the parents decide”. Historically speaking men had the right to life and death not only of their children but also their wives and livestock. Women would kill them selves and their children to prevent them from becoming slaves should their husbands lose the war.”—AunMarie Grooms
Correct. by having sex (enjoyment) you took responsibility (manufactured, produced) for a fetus and it had no choice. Thats simply a fact. What we choose to do about it. Abort, externalize costs, create an unwanted and unloved child, and create broken dysfunctional families is the trade off. So to say we prefer abortion, to infanticide, to producing unhealthy people, to But to say it’s not an act of murder is simply false. It’s murder. We have capital punishment and it was always a good thing to have. We have warfare and it’s always a good thing to have. So, it’s not like we don’t justify intentional murder. We do. This is one of those cases where we do. The solution of course is self control by both parties. Or, failing self control, protection.
—“So by your calculations, Legal Abortion transfers the least amount of cost to the Commons vs other options? I’d be very interested to know if\how you estimated the ultimate cost (ie primarily psychological and perhaps also the Selection\Epi-genetic effects on Personality of the group) of allowing the murder of otherwise viable life of our In-Group/Kin? Is it a case of, it would be a minority of under-class or borderline underclass Women who get abortions so the gene pool would still ultimately be selecting against such behaviour?”—Grant Cameron
I’m not making that argument. I’m saying that IS the argument that’s being used. The data is increasingly convincing though. But it’s at the low end (reduction in crime), and is offset by the decline in middle and top end (reduction in aggregate Iq)
—“Sorry I like P, but baby murder is baby murder. Don’t care what system we are under or how you justify it.”—Jesse Daughtry
—“I agree. But like the argument above sometimes murder is a necessary evil. You don’t like baby murder. Some people think that capital punishment in general is equally as evil. Where is P going to land with this?”—AunMarie Grooms
P lands with “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”
-
Low Agency People Are Overwhelmed by Impulse
bt Noah J Revoy People respond to anger in different ways, depending on their level of Agency. For low Agency people anger is an overwhelming experience. They want quick, violent action. They get physically affected. They yell, stop their feet and rage. Really, they are seeking rapid relief at any cost from an emotion they are not trained to handle. (Reminds me of a toddler). For high Agency people the anger experience is different. We get angry, but it makes us calm, focused, quiet. We ride the anger, we dont let it ride us. In the end we are far more dangerous this way. Proof: Ask yourself, how does a special operations soldier (high combat Agency) react to fear and anger vs a normal soldier vs an untrained civilian?
-
There is no libertarian fantasy. You cannot run. You cannot hide
Feb 3, 2020, 12:12 PM
—“if we can get even just a few thousand to move their we can elect our own people basically creating our own union”—
Never works. Libertarian Fantasy. They will come for you like a disease overwhelming healthy cells. You must capture an economy. To capture an economy requires you capture a market. To capture a market requires you capture a city. To capture a city requires conquest, raiding, sieging depending upon numbers speed and external risk. There is no libertarian fantasy. You cannot run You cannot hide They are the plague. They have islam’s numbers They have islam’s strategy: exhaust. The only thing you can do is show up and fight. Plan for action not for retreat.
-
There is no libertarian fantasy. You cannot run. You cannot hide
Feb 3, 2020, 12:12 PM
—“if we can get even just a few thousand to move their we can elect our own people basically creating our own union”—
Never works. Libertarian Fantasy. They will come for you like a disease overwhelming healthy cells. You must capture an economy. To capture an economy requires you capture a market. To capture a market requires you capture a city. To capture a city requires conquest, raiding, sieging depending upon numbers speed and external risk. There is no libertarian fantasy. You cannot run You cannot hide They are the plague. They have islam’s numbers They have islam’s strategy: exhaust. The only thing you can do is show up and fight. Plan for action not for retreat.
-
Most Common Lie in Genetics: More Similar than Not
Feb 3, 2020, 12:26 PM
—“More similar than different can be said about us and chimps”–Göran Dahl
When discussing genetics “more similar than different’ is a pseudoscientific, and pseudo-mathematical lie. There is even a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. Or we can just call it postmodern denialism and igorance. Any of those labels will do. Very minor changes appear to have very vast consequences and some groups have accumulated better minor changes and others worse minor changes (genetic load). Same is true for rate of calculation of adaption. The rate of adaption depends largely on the number of life forms, the life span, the frequency of generations, the environmental pressures of a given locality, the available means of expressing fitness, the possibility of non local reproduction(travelled); the complexity of the life form(size of the information), the expressed population of the genome, whether it’s RNA(adaptive) or DNA(error checking), asexual or sexual, and the number of points in the replication process that errors can insert, delete, and survive, and some factors we don’t clearly understand yet, that facilitate or inhibit those changes and rates of change. DNA(RNA) is a supercomputer that works at chemical rather than electrical velocity. There are say, 5m SNP’s (blocks, instructions) and that is not all that can change – in an individuals genome, and 100m active SNPs worldwide. Edit
-
Most Common Lie in Genetics: More Similar than Not
Feb 3, 2020, 12:26 PM
—“More similar than different can be said about us and chimps”–Göran Dahl
When discussing genetics “more similar than different’ is a pseudoscientific, and pseudo-mathematical lie. There is even a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. Or we can just call it postmodern denialism and igorance. Any of those labels will do. Very minor changes appear to have very vast consequences and some groups have accumulated better minor changes and others worse minor changes (genetic load). Same is true for rate of calculation of adaption. The rate of adaption depends largely on the number of life forms, the life span, the frequency of generations, the environmental pressures of a given locality, the available means of expressing fitness, the possibility of non local reproduction(travelled); the complexity of the life form(size of the information), the expressed population of the genome, whether it’s RNA(adaptive) or DNA(error checking), asexual or sexual, and the number of points in the replication process that errors can insert, delete, and survive, and some factors we don’t clearly understand yet, that facilitate or inhibit those changes and rates of change. DNA(RNA) is a supercomputer that works at chemical rather than electrical velocity. There are say, 5m SNP’s (blocks, instructions) and that is not all that can change – in an individuals genome, and 100m active SNPs worldwide. Edit
-
They Are Unfit for Service – and The Constitution
Feb 3, 2020, 12:36 PM Western Civilization has been since its foundation, A militia. An army. A militarized society. We gain harmony from doing our duty, and sovereignty for having done it. Sovereignty is harder that liberty by permission, and freedom by promise. And all those who have come to us postwar to undermine that civilization are unfit for service. They are unfit for service. That is why they resist our constitution our natural law our markets, our responsibility – because they are not capable of sovereignty. Therefore we have choices: to lose our sovereignty.
-
They Are Unfit for Service – and The Constitution
Feb 3, 2020, 12:36 PM Western Civilization has been since its foundation, A militia. An army. A militarized society. We gain harmony from doing our duty, and sovereignty for having done it. Sovereignty is harder that liberty by permission, and freedom by promise. And all those who have come to us postwar to undermine that civilization are unfit for service. They are unfit for service. That is why they resist our constitution our natural law our markets, our responsibility – because they are not capable of sovereignty. Therefore we have choices: to lose our sovereignty.