Post: #76

(01-17-2015 09:04 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 06:59 AM)dads Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 12:49 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Lot of guys saying "Thank God I'm not having kids!"

So shortsighted. You're only going to grow older and weaker. Meanwhile society becomes ever and ever more fucked up. You'll be a weak, bald old man in his 60's, with nothing left to fight or live for, watching people turn into animals.

Had you children, at least you'd be able to fight through the will of your sons. Of course, finding a woman to raise kids with in this environment, plus the laws, is a Herculean task. But let's not kid ourselves. This is a tragedy. And your life will most likely be a part of that tragedy.

I'm sorry, but isn't there something selfish about this sentiment? You want to bring human beings into this continually more fucked up world so... you'll have something "left to fight or live for"? What happens when you die after having "fought and lived"? You're in your eternal rest while your offspring live amongst animals?

I'd rather go down fighting like a man than cowering like a woman

Fair enough. I guess we have two very different perspectives on this.

Post: #77

How has this topic reached 4 pages ?!? This is something I want to just go away!

Was going to put the family guy gif of puking, but dont know how to

Post: #78

Now you guys know why the church used to burn heretics at the stake.

Post: #79

(01-17-2015 12:04 PM)KeepMovingForward Wrote:  How has this topic reached 4 pages ?!? This is something I want to just go away!

Was going to put the family guy gif of puking, but dont know how to

Why are you even reading this then?

No one forced you to click on it.

Maybe you'd feel more comfortable in the Newbie Forum.

Post: #80

This is one of those subjects that, obviously, generates strong reactions.

I remembered that the historian Will Durant, in his book "Our Oriental Heritage", mentions the strange practice of institutionalized incest in ancient Egypt. (See his book, Ch. VIII, sect. 4).

He notes that very often, the pharaoh married his own sister, and occasionally his own daughter, as a way of preserving the royal stock. Apparently the custom had deep roots in the nation, and persisted for thousands of years. The institution of "sister marriage" spread among the common people, too.

It is not clear whether the genetics of the people suffered from this sort of practice. Common sense would suggest so, but hard data is lacking.

We are told by another historian (quoted by Durant) that as late as second century A.D., around two thirds of the inhabitants of the city of Arsinoe were practicing institutionalized "sister marriage."

In ancient Egyptian poetry, the words for "brother" and "sister" have the same significance as "lover" and "loved" in our common usage today.

My point is not to justify the practice, but only to mention that human sexual practices have varied widely across time and space. Some things that are now taboo, were, in another time and place, not taboo. This doesn't mean that morals are worthless, of course. It only means that human beings have found diverse and creative ways to adapt themselves to a variety of climates, regions, and circumstances.

I would guess that, if we probed deep into this subject, we would make many discoveries that people would find abhorrent.

Q

Post: #81

(01-17-2015 01:39 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  This is one of those subjects that, obviously, generates strong reactions.

I remembered that the historian Will Durant, in his book "Our Oriental Heritage", mentions the strange practice of institutionalized incest in ancient Egypt. (See his book, Ch. VIII, sect. 4).

He notes that very often, the pharaoh married his own sister, and occasionally his own daughter, as a way of preserving the royal stock. Apparently the custom had deep roots in the nation, and persisted for thousands of years. The institution of "sister marriage" spread among the common people, too.

It is not clear whether the genetics of the people suffered from this sort of practice. Common sense would suggest so, but hard data is lacking.

We are told by another historian (quoted by Durant) that as late as second century A.D., around two thirds of the inhabitants of the city of Arsinoe were practicing institutionalized "sister marriage."

In ancient Egyptian poetry, the words for "brother" and "sister" have the same significance as "lover" and "loved" in our common usage today.

My point is not to justify the practice, but only to mention that human sexual practices have varied widely across time and space. Some things that are now taboo, were, in another time and place, not taboo. This doesn't mean that morals are worthless, of course. It only means that human beings have found diverse and creative ways to adapt themselves to a variety of climates, regions, and circumstances.

I would guess that, if we probed deep into this subject, we would make many discoveries that people would find abhorrent.

Q

If it's good enough for Jamie Lanister it's good enough for me.

Post: #82

(01-17-2015 03:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 01:39 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  This is one of those subjects that, obviously, generates strong reactions.

I remembered that the historian Will Durant, in his book "Our Oriental Heritage", mentions the strange practice of institutionalized incest in ancient Egypt. (See his book, Ch. VIII, sect. 4).

He notes that very often, the pharaoh married his own sister, and occasionally his own daughter, as a way of preserving the royal stock. Apparently the custom had deep roots in the nation, and persisted for thousands of years. The institution of "sister marriage" spread among the common people, too.

It is not clear whether the genetics of the people suffered from this sort of practice. Common sense would suggest so, but hard data is lacking.

We are told by another historian (quoted by Durant) that as late as second century A.D., around two thirds of the inhabitants of the city of Arsinoe were practicing institutionalized "sister marriage."

In ancient Egyptian poetry, the words for "brother" and "sister" have the same significance as "lover" and "loved" in our common usage today.

My point is not to justify the practice, but only to mention that human sexual practices have varied widely across time and space. Some things that are now taboo, were, in another time and place, not taboo. This doesn't mean that morals are worthless, of course. It only means that human beings have found diverse and creative ways to adapt themselves to a variety of climates, regions, and circumstances.

I would guess that, if we probed deep into this subject, we would make many discoveries that people would find abhorrent.

Q

If it's good enough for Jamie Lanister it's good enough for me.

I'd like to see some red pill analysis of Jaime Lannister.

Post: #83

(01-17-2015 03:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  If it's good enough for Jamie Lanister it's good enough for me.

The problem is that you have to remember the little psychopathic shit they sired.

Post: #84

(01-17-2015 07:03 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 03:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 01:39 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  This is one of those subjects that, obviously, generates strong reactions.

I remembered that the historian Will Durant, in his book "Our Oriental Heritage", mentions the strange practice of institutionalized incest in ancient Egypt. (See his book, Ch. VIII, sect. 4).

He notes that very often, the pharaoh married his own sister, and occasionally his own daughter, as a way of preserving the royal stock. Apparently the custom had deep roots in the nation, and persisted for thousands of years. The institution of "sister marriage" spread among the common people, too.

It is not clear whether the genetics of the people suffered from this sort of practice. Common sense would suggest so, but hard data is lacking.

We are told by another historian (quoted by Durant) that as late as second century A.D., around two thirds of the inhabitants of the city of Arsinoe were practicing institutionalized "sister marriage."

In ancient Egyptian poetry, the words for "brother" and "sister" have the same significance as "lover" and "loved" in our common usage today.

My point is not to justify the practice, but only to mention that human sexual practices have varied widely across time and space. Some things that are now taboo, were, in another time and place, not taboo. This doesn't mean that morals are worthless, of course. It only means that human beings have found diverse and creative ways to adapt themselves to a variety of climates, regions, and circumstances.

I would guess that, if we probed deep into this subject, we would make many discoveries that people would find abhorrent.

Q

If it's good enough for Jamie Lanister it's good enough for me.

I'd like to see some red pill analysis of Jaime Lannister.

Short story: he isn't.

He suffers from a serious case of oneitis. Sure it's oneitis for his sister, but oneitis no less. He is certainly brutal, ruthless when he needs to be, but he's also essentially a child in a man's body; his father (being something of a sociopath) is more Red Pill than he is.

Post: #85

(01-17-2015 06:59 AM)dads Wrote:  I'm sorry, but isn't there something selfish about this sentiment? You want to bring human beings into this continually more fucked up world so... you'll have something "left to fight or live for"? What happens when you die after having "fought and lived"? You're in your eternal rest while your offspring live amongst animals?

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy of that mouse civilization. So we shouldnt have kids and let the species die off because a bunch of feminists are running around burning down buildings. Start a family and hunker down. Actually, dont: I like the idea of being an ancestor to most of the worlds population in 2400.

Post: #86

Delete

Post: #87

(01-18-2015 12:05 AM)zaqan Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 06:59 AM)dads Wrote:  I'm sorry, but isn't there something selfish about this sentiment? You want to bring human beings into this continually more fucked up world so... you'll have something "left to fight or live for"? What happens when you die after having "fought and lived"? You're in your eternal rest while your offspring live amongst animals?

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy of that mouse civilization. So we shouldnt have kids and let the species die off because a bunch of feminists are running around burning down buildings. Start a family and hunker down. Actually, dont: I like the idea of being an ancestor to most of the worlds population in 2400.

Well this will be a selfish sentiment, but also true: When you die, you're dead. If wolves ate every human being the day after I died, I wouldn't care. I'm not part of a fight or a war, I didn't even ask to be here. I was lucky enough to find this space, and learn a great deal about how people work. I'm gonna enjoy my 50-100 years on this earth with the knowledge I have, and try to make the most of it. I feel no need to assign myself the responsibility of "saving the world".

Post: #88

(01-17-2015 10:50 AM)Wutang Wrote:  ^ Yeah I actually saw a few of these type of comments in the Jezebel article. Basically they were more worried about the fact that the victim (which I will refer to her as) was underage rather then the guy's own daughter. The thing they were MOST concerned about was the "power imbalance" which shows where their real fears and worries lie: namely POWERFUL guys asserting their masculinity over women. Whenever I read feminists clutch their pearls over certain sex acts the main thing that rustles their jimmies is when the guy is someone that in a position of power or is just a dominant guy: goes back to what some people have spoken about on this forum; that feminists simply hate and fear male sexuality. And when I say male sexuality I'm referring to raw, masculine sexuality, NOT sexuality coming from a guy that just happens to have a pair of testicles and a Y chromosomes. A hipster male feminist who asks "is this okay' before making any sort of move is not displaying my definition of masculine sexuality.

Sounds reminscent of the social-purity trad-feminist movement:

Quote:From the last three decades of the nineteenth century to the end of World War I, an international crusade to purify sexual conduct focused on the need to reeducate society, particularly men, in the control of sexuality. Rooted in earlier women's temperance and moral reform traditions, the American Social Purity movement was influenced by the "rescue" work of British prostitution reformers like Josephine Butler and W.T. Stead and the revelations of international groups for the suppression of "white slavery."
Composed of widely diverse groups divided on the issues of free love and women's political and economic rights, the American movement, like its British counterpart, was united in the need for a single moral standard, and the word "chastity" figured frequently in the literature. Because Social Purists believed in woman's need to resist sexual subjection by men, the movement had feminist participation. Suffragists were featured speakers at the first American Purity Congress in Baltimore in 1895, and Purists and feminists alike favored abolition, rather than regulation, of prostitution and moral equality in the relations between the sexes.
Prostitution was clearly the focus of much Social Purity agitation. Americans were particularly effective in combating systems of regulated tolerance. Women's voluntary religious and charitable organizations lobbied successfully to abolish legalized prostitution in St. Louis in the 1870s, and there were no further regulationist attempts in the United States thereafter. From the 1880s onward, Social Purists fought for a variety of abolitionist reforms, including prosecution of customers as well as prostitutes, improved prison conditions and rehabilitation for prostitutes, and centers and activities to safeguard the virtue of urban working girls. Movement advocates were also instrumental in establishing municipal vice commissions, raising the age of consent laws, and passing the 1910 Mann Act.
Since its inception Social Purity was criticized, not without reason, as morally repressive. Women like Deborah Leeds, whose husband, Josiah, was an ally of the nation's chief censor, Anthony Comstock, herself personified the movement's censorship wing with her Department of Pure Literature. However, recent research has demonstrated that the movement was also dedicated to the dissemination of sex hygiene information, suggested by its motto "Purity through knowledge, not innocence through ignorance."
As Linda Gordon has pointed out, the birth control ideas of Social Purists were feminist in that advocates urged voluntary motherhood and woman's control over her own body. Yet Social Purists were opposed to contraception and abortion. Furthermore, their eugenic arguments, which at first were aimed to increase woman's power, foundered in a "cult of motherhood" essentially opposed to woman's professional advancement.
At the core of the Social Purity movement was the conviction that sexuality had to be controlled. Many reformers believed that because incontinence was basically associated with man, it was woman's mission to reeducate him. To the extent that it accepted the idea of feminine moral superiority and, by implication, the traditional "separate sphere" for women, the movement was not fully feminist. Nonetheless, in urging women to resist sexual domination and exploitation, it aided the advancement of feminine autonomy.

http://gem.greenwood.com/wse/wsePrint.jsp?id=id614

Post: #89

(01-17-2015 07:06 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 03:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  If it's good enough for Jamie Lanister it's good enough for me.

The problem is that you have to remember the little psychopathic shit they sired.

Inbreeding not only concentrates and unmasks deleterious genes in certain lines but also leads to greatly increased clannishness that causes such people more psychopathic to everyone not their relative:

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/04/0...come-from/

There is also a greater homogeneity of genotypes that lead to more similar body types and personalities. Hence having less variety those kinds of people are less adaptable overall both physically mentally and culturally.

Post: #90

(01-17-2015 12:04 PM)KeepMovingForward Wrote:  How has this topic reached 4 pages ?!? This is something I want to just go away!

Was going to put the family guy gif of puking, but dont know how to

I will do it for you:

Post: #91

(01-17-2015 12:04 PM)KeepMovingForward Wrote:  How has this topic reached 4 pages ?!? This is something I want to just go away!

Was going to put the family guy gif of puking, but dont know how to

Do you even internet?

G

Post: #92

(01-16-2015 07:42 PM)Wutang Wrote:  I have no doubt in my mind that promoting "hetero-normativity" is a positive thing in society. While I do think LGBT people should be tolerated in society (even though my posts probably don't give that impression lol) I think there is absolutely wrong with promoting the nuclear family as the ideal. The problem with a lot of leftist people is that they think anything that doesn't include them must be against them which is just silly. I don't think a lot of the things that I'm into will ever be accepted by the mainstream and I simply don't care, I don't see it as an attack on my identity.

To quote John C. Wright, "Heresies come in pairs," two extremes on either side of the sensible path; furthermore, that heresies are often the replacement of a complex idea with a simplistic idea, going on to elevate it to supreme importance.

In this case, the idea that we either have to promote homosexuality in K through 12, or resort to Islamic-style gay bashings and murder of deviants. It doesn't leave room for the sensible, but complex, notion that we should promote healthy sexuality as a normative good (heterosexual marriage), while at the same time remaining nuanced in our enforcement of cultural norms upon 'deviants' (scare-quotes because everybody is a little bit deviant - "missionary in the dark" is a ridiculous standard, in my opinion, I'd just rather not hear all the deviancy promoted in the MSM).

Personally, I am suspect of ANYBODY who rails on about sexuality in this manner, who proposes simple solutions while over-stating the problems. The UN pedophiles who want to teach 8 year olds about anal sex, and the nannies who want to raise the age of consent to 21 are two sides of the same coin; both of them are sex-obsessed, and neither of them care about the long-term damage of their policies. Neither are amenable to reason.

Post: #93

(01-17-2015 08:35 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 07:03 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 03:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 01:39 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  This is one of those subjects that, obviously, generates strong reactions.

I remembered that the historian Will Durant, in his book "Our Oriental Heritage", mentions the strange practice of institutionalized incest in ancient Egypt. (See his book, Ch. VIII, sect. 4).

He notes that very often, the pharaoh married his own sister, and occasionally his own daughter, as a way of preserving the royal stock. Apparently the custom had deep roots in the nation, and persisted for thousands of years. The institution of "sister marriage" spread among the common people, too.

It is not clear whether the genetics of the people suffered from this sort of practice. Common sense would suggest so, but hard data is lacking.

We are told by another historian (quoted by Durant) that as late as second century A.D., around two thirds of the inhabitants of the city of Arsinoe were practicing institutionalized "sister marriage."

In ancient Egyptian poetry, the words for "brother" and "sister" have the same significance as "lover" and "loved" in our common usage today.

My point is not to justify the practice, but only to mention that human sexual practices have varied widely across time and space. Some things that are now taboo, were, in another time and place, not taboo. This doesn't mean that morals are worthless, of course. It only means that human beings have found diverse and creative ways to adapt themselves to a variety of climates, regions, and circumstances.

I would guess that, if we probed deep into this subject, we would make many discoveries that people would find abhorrent.

Q

If it's good enough for Jamie Lanister it's good enough for me.

I'd like to see some red pill analysis of Jaime Lannister.

Short story: he isn't.

He suffers from a serious case of oneitis. Sure it's oneitis for his sister, but oneitis no less. He is certainly brutal, ruthless when he needs to be, but he's also essentially a child in a man's body; his father (being something of a sociopath) is more Red Pill than he is.

He doesn't start out Red Pill but by the last book I read he's certainly almost there.

Post: #94

4 pages and still no photo?

Post: #95

Same-sex marriage has opened the flood gates of sexual immorality. Now that homosexuals can get married and adopt children, incestuous siblings will demand the same rights (it's being discussed in Switzerland FYI), spinsters will want to get married to their cats, etc. effectively destroying the tradional family unit. Sexual immorality is being normalized (as it is being taught in elementary schools today) while heterosexuality and monogamy are being marginalized (an increasing and alarming number of young chicks, "queer" or now, are now okay with "polyamorous" relationships).

Post: #96

America is the modern day Sodom. This country will fall sooner rather than later.

Post: #97

Speaking of JEzebel, we need to get some gaslighting going on.

I'm trolling on there with the name of "dingbat99" and I'm going to see exactly where their crazy limit lies. I've started by suggesting that all accused rapists should be forced to get tranny surgery, then gang-raped.

Post: #98

(01-27-2015 07:30 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  Speaking of JEzebel, we need to get some gaslighting going on.

I'm trolling on there with the name of "dingbat99" and I'm going to see exactly where their crazy limit lies. I've started by suggesting that all accused rapists should be forced to get tranny surgery, then gang-raped.

There are a lot of things you could do that would be a better use of what little time you have on this earth.

Post: #99

Am I right in predicting fire and brimstone coming soon?