Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Mar 21, 2020 12:01 am The point is that it is not 'stupid'. If is it, then why do most people think it 'normal' to WANT anything at all?
How is "society" to blame for you being non-sexually satisfied?

You aren't entitled to sex "simply because you exist" or imagine yourself to be a "nice guy", "good girl", or "super duper awesome" in some way or another, (particularly if it not's consensual).

So no, "society" is not automatically to blame; maybe "you" aren't even to blame and it's just bad luck; either way, what is the point of your website?

The only way I could possibly seeing it being a society issue is if you were campaigning for legalized prostitution, or something like that - so why aren't you starting a movement and doing something productive, instead of rationalizing psychotic individuals' motives for murder plots?
The problem begins with anybody declaring the world a place where anybody's dreams can come true. What's worse is that those like yourself are actually more often than not, the very same assholes who try to tell others how you EARN your own successes and that those who fail are just not trying hard enough. This very mentality is extant in those who DO believe that there must be something intrinsically WRONG with themselves with respect to others telling them that they are just NEVER right regardless of what they TRY.
More often than not, I see people who simply "don't care", or selfishly or lazily just do the "bare minimum" they absolutely have to simply to "get by".
When you have arrogant lucky 'beautiful' people asserting they EARNED their successes and/or add how GOD favors them uniquely, you get some who actually learn that this world's 'promises' aren't actually so FAIR.
So you're assuming that anyone who has "succeeded" in some avenue of life solely did it because they "look good", and not because of other talents, character traits, or values at all (despite there being many successful people who are not "sex symbols"). Fine, believe that to your grave if you want to...
To fix this requires first NOT insulting these people as being DEFECTIVE as though by some CHOICE of their behavior assumed EQUAL among all people.
My honest opinion, given that you're fixated on physical "looks" is that the main cause of "unaesthetic" physique in this consumerist society is morbid obesity; which is the result of what any reasonable, legally licensed doctor would assert is the result of following unhealthy diet and exercise routines; (if you want to argue other philosophy here such as concepts of "free will" or "determinism", or other excuses which it has been well documented that the human mind is a genius at inventing, I'm not bored enough to care; even if "free will" doesn't exist in some abstract speculation, the reality is that people nevertheless do change their diets, exercise routines, quit smoking, and so on, so it makes no difference, beyond what selfish, dependent and hapless individuals will intentionally misinterpret it to be).

I'm not a bodybuilder or a fitness model, and not a huge fan of working out, but by simply "not being obese", I am already 'hot' to some women, at least compared to the 50 or more percent of the "average" unhealthier population members who are. On the physical level, there are correlations between health and physical beauty, and this isn't reasonably deniable, whatever subjectivity elements are also present in theory or practice, or trends and variations in "standards" thereof fluctuate from time-to-time, advertisement to adverstisement based on whatever childish or lowbrow interest it is pandered to (though, for that matter, most serious theories of arts or aesthetics to begin with do not reduce it solely to the "physical" or "pornographic", which is just the lowest common denominator, or the 6th grade or 100 IQ or less demographic, which is what most "beauty"-related advertisement and media is marketed to to begin with, or else it wouldn't sell to people of superior intelligence or aesthetic interest to begin with.

Ss compared to more serious, time-tested aesthetic theories or theories of art, whether art which depicts people, such as Creation of Adam, or other art or creative areas such as literature, abstract arts, and so on).
The vast majority are MORE likely worse off if THEY had this reality. How often do you run into someone who could not stand being alone for more than a week after they break up with someone? If their 'pain' is justified for such a petty concern in contrast to someone who doesn't even get ANY relationship at all, then imagine what would occur if this large percentage of the population who DO get success 'normally' were denied the same? I think we'd see that in contrast, these odd lone individuals who blow up would be relatively SANE relative to most.
The law will not by that excuse for your violence, nihilism, or angst, period; the reality is that some people never marry but managed to live fulfilling lives; or even regret being married and advise against it.

Some philosophers such as Epicurus even argued that being "single" but having decent platonic friends is superior to being "married" or dating and having a miserable relationship. Plus "relationships" aren't something you "get" or are "handed out" to people, they're a voluntary contract formaly or informally entered into by both parties.

So by "isolated", you're not talking about "solitary" confinement; nothing stopping you from "interacting with others" that you have some common interest with, and the internet hosts "free porn" on demand for those of you who have no ambitions or dreams about life other than masturbating.

For that matter, have any of you ever attempted to date girls who aren't stereotypically "hot, sexy, attractive", or with... similar interests to yours, whether it be... err... Minecraft, anime, or anything else? Or is it only the top 10% hottest chicks on Tinder who you are lamenting rejection by?
If society wants to stop this, they'd have to first RESPECT the reality that most people DO NOT get even the minimal of necessities let alone the 'luxuries' beyond that, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY DO or CAN DO. Then we can learn to figure out how to HONESTLY redirect people toward their capacities AS THEY ARE and not based upon irrational "will power" beliefs and dreams.
This is a deep subject, but in reality, in 1st world countries, most basic material wants are already met, even for those of "lower income", the majority of them are or incorporate "higher mental wants", with many base on comparison to what others supposedly "have" (e.x. a faster car, a hotter girlfriend, a newer cell phone, etc); this is documented by economists such as Jolan Chang which distinguishes "absolute poverty" (e.x. famine, starvation) from "relative poverty" (e.x. "poor" in-come wise in comparison to Warren Buffet or Bill Gates).
While it may be admirable that the Christmas children stories everywhere that tell people they just have to CHOOSE TO BELIEVE in order to see Santa Claus or other most desired wish, this kind of 'positivity' itself is NEGATIVE when it imposes upon everyone to interpret their failures of success as ONLY DUE TO THEMSELVES UNIQUELY. We need to first rid the world of those arrogant idiots who think it is alright for them to HAVE unilimited powers of wealth or that it is alright to flaunt one's default genetic 'beauty' as though their success is NOT DUE to how the majority PROPS them up to succeed, we will always have SOME people who WILL justly flip their lids and start shooting up people for their confusion.
I don't consider that just or excusable, no; if you're talking about idiots or idiotic content in mass media; most of it is written for the 6th grade reading level or 100 IQ demographic, and will turn people's brains to mush, so turning off the nonsense media would be good or great for starters; even most of the so called "news" is the mental or intellectual equivalent of the National Enquirer and is intentionally sensationalist and insipid simply because it sells to stupid or worthless people of the lowest common denominator (e.x. reporting on every Tweet on Trump's twitter account is not "news" or "current events" in the same way that a major event, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks are)..
To me, your own behavior is precisely the very quality of these 'terrorists' because your anger is precisely their own justification of interpreting others as relatively TERRORISTS against them! You should be trying to appeal to them by looking at their perspective with understanding and then try to CORRECT what flaw in their reasoning may exist OR to recognize where their own IS CORRECT but may need redirecting in a way that they CAN GET some happiness. Censoring them is just the first stage in justifying them to act out.
Um... no; shooting innocent people over some perceived and/or delusional "wrong" is terrorism; thinking that self-identified "incels" their assorted counterparts are "not well" in some way or another is not "terrorism".
I am reminded of an example I used before. Imagine a pet dog a large family has in a household where everyone is just thinking of themselves. When the dog is a cute puppy, they feed and attend to him. But as he grows older and less 'cute', the members begin to 'ignore' them and while no one intends harm, they might starve the dog when EACH member thinks another family member would be doing so.

The dog at first begins to bark louder when he's hungry and still not fed. But given the assumption that another is feeding him, EACH family member confuses the dog as merely barking 'mad' as though selfishly wanting unnecessary attention. Then the dog begins to nibble and gets interpreted as being 'bad'. So they lock him up in some back room or yard out of sight.

Eventually, this dog WILL go apparently 'mad' and this behavior may be irreversible for it NOT getting what it perceives as 'needed' While this NEED is 'real' it is equally as 'real' for one WANTING something they deem essential to their life. I just use this extreme to get the perspective understood by the dog here.

If you believe the 'dog' IS being fed, as all the members thought so, this denies the dog's barking as meaning anything but to 'terrorize' the family. And so this appropriately gives a good analogy of how those 'Incels' may act out. To diminish them as 'bad' without and only worthy of being 'shut up', then you are as worthy of those 'dogs' to bite back harder.
Um no, if by "shut up" you mean "involuntarily committed", then the law cannot voluntarily commit someone to an institution unless they've been deemed to be a credible threat of harm to themselves or others.

If you simply mean girls or women saying "no", "not replying", or "blocking" you on Plenty of Fish, then it's their right as citizens to not enter into a relationship with someone for whatever reason they want to.

And no, even if you were in a "3rd world country" with archaic notions such as "arranged marriage", you would have been in for a shocker; the idea that "every man was equally entitled to a relationship" would not have been entertained, it would have been "high status men" such as kings or nobility marrying multiple wives, with "low status men" in some cases even being made into eunuch and forced to work in the king's haram.

So "incels" even so much as simply being allowed to "exist" and fester in their own malcontent is more than would have been afforded them in many ancient times past.
Do you understand this analogy? If not, do you at least agree that we have to at least stop propping up 'dreams' as being realistically able to become true for everything and anything for one who is able to 'try hard enough'?
Give me a realistic proposal on how "we" would be able to do that, whatever that even means?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:34 am 'Incel'. I've never heard that term. I suppose nature just takes care of those who are so repulsive to the opposite sex that they never get to pass on their unappealing genes.
It's not in any regular dictionary. It's a neologism meant to identify the, "involuntary celibate." It's only used by those who have that problem. (Guess who!)
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

@Scott Meyers

And nothing personal, but if it was a choice between being alone and being the company of evil like "incels" and others, I'd rather be alone than in the company of bad people any day.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Scott Mayers »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:25 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Mar 21, 2020 12:01 am The point is that it is not 'stupid'. If is it, then why do most people think it 'normal' to WANT anything at all?
How is "society" to blame for you being non-sexually satisfied?

You aren't entitled to sex "simply because you exist" or imagine yourself to be a "nice guy", "good girl", or "super duper awesome" in some way or another, (particularly if it not's consensual).

So no, "society" is not automatically to blame; maybe "you" aren't even to blame and it's just bad luck; either way, what is the point of your website?

The only way I could possibly seeing it being a society issue is if you were campaigning for legalized prostitution, or something like that - so why aren't you starting a movement and doing something productive, instead of rationalizing psychotic individuals' motives for murder plots?
I am not an Incel nor owner of any forums for discussing these. I support the right of the individual with problems to be able speak and be heard on significant issues that all animals are privileged to by default. We are an animal species that evolved to adapt to different environments and to specifically PROCREATE with respect to the 'selfish gene'.

You presume the psychosis itself is real to which you can't even determine if they don't have an avenue to express themselves first. You ignore that these crimes are NOT about sex but about 'procreation'. They lack anything that even meets the standard of a minimal interest because the genetic expectation comes with a minimal of something that cannot even be faked.

Can a short male fake being tall? Can a male wanting a female utlize the same 'makeup' ideas to enhance the interest in a girl? No. The prerequisite for males in this 'society' are physical and/or materially endowed as a prerequisite. The exceptions of lacking one requires the strength in the other. These males who feel emasculated by default can't even get even a 'look' or a 'touch' and often cannot even be permitted the same opening behaviors of those who have these. For instance, even approaching some girl (or guy) for the involuntary celebate is shunned and treated as a violation, almost as though they are another species altogether.

And if this is a delusion, this would need to be proven and dealt with as a normal physiological illness if true. I doubt that most such cases would be such unless they actually have the prerequisites but still fail.

The problem begins with anybody declaring the world a place where anybody's dreams can come true. What's worse is that those like yourself are actually more often than not, the very same assholes who try to tell others how you EARN your own successes and that those who fail are just not trying hard enough. This very mentality is extant in those who DO believe that there must be something intrinsically WRONG with themselves with respect to others telling them that they are just NEVER right regardless of what they TRY.
More often than not, I see people who simply "don't care", or selfishly or lazily just do the "bare minimum" they absolutely have to simply to "get by".
Why do you presume this? I used to watch friends who had it all who would always suggest advice to friends who don't to copy them. Then I observe (from an outside perspective) that the identical behaviors not only don't work, but repel, even if their behavior is relatively done with confidence and sincerity.

Your argument reminds me of the similar comparison of someone asserting one lazy for appearing to give up looking for work. You know,...the 'get-a-job' advice to those without work as though THEY are the boss hiring them! This is placing the cart before the horse. With respect to intepersonal relationships respecting anything procreational, you seem to be also telling them that they CAN find someone they love without respect to inherent factors. The fact is, if LOGICALLY they are wise enough to know from prior experiences certain minimal expectations in those they love, they CAN determine the likelihood of their actual success for trying as very low.

Yet you are telling them in essence the same thing as they always here: they are not TRYING hard enough. But if they DID 'try hard' without accepting a 'no', this promotes those who don't accept a no, even if that ends in stalking or rape. So you are promoting this behavior by even saying this.

[I need to segment up the response from your post. This covers some of the other questions but will need time to actually go through the rest later.]
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:00 pm
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:25 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Mar 21, 2020 12:01 am The point is that it is not 'stupid'. If is it, then why do most people think it 'normal' to WANT anything at all?
How is "society" to blame for you being non-sexually satisfied?

You aren't entitled to sex "simply because you exist" or imagine yourself to be a "nice guy", "good girl", or "super duper awesome" in some way or another, (particularly if it not's consensual).

So no, "society" is not automatically to blame; maybe "you" aren't even to blame and it's just bad luck; either way, what is the point of your website?

The only way I could possibly seeing it being a society issue is if you were campaigning for legalized prostitution, or something like that - so why aren't you starting a movement and doing something productive, instead of rationalizing psychotic individuals' motives for murder plots?
I am not an Incel nor owner of any forums for discussing these. I support the right of the individual with problems to be able speak and be heard on significant issues that all animals are privileged to by default. We are an animal species that evolved to adapt to different environments and to specifically PROCREATE with respect to the 'selfish gene'.

You presume the psychosis itself is real to which you can't even determine if they don't have an avenue to express themselves first. You ignore that these crimes are NOT about sex but about 'procreation'. They lack anything that even meets the standard of a minimal interest because the genetic expectation comes with a minimal of something that cannot even be faked.

Can a short male fake being tall? Can a male wanting a female utlize the same 'makeup' ideas to enhance the interest in a girl? No. The prerequisite for males in this 'society' are physical and/or materially endowed as a prerequisite. The exceptions of lacking one requires the strength in the other. These males who feel emasculated by default can't even get even a 'look' or a 'touch' and often cannot even be permitted the same opening behaviors of those who have these. For instance, even approaching some girl (or guy) for the involuntary celebate is shunned and treated as a violation, almost as though they are another species altogether.

And if this is a delusion, this would need to be proven and dealt with as a normal physiological illness if true. I doubt that most such cases would be such unless they actually have the prerequisites but still fail.

The problem begins with anybody declaring the world a place where anybody's dreams can come true. What's worse is that those like yourself are actually more often than not, the very same assholes who try to tell others how you EARN your own successes and that those who fail are just not trying hard enough. This very mentality is extant in those who DO believe that there must be something intrinsically WRONG with themselves with respect to others telling them that they are just NEVER right regardless of what they TRY.
More often than not, I see people who simply "don't care", or selfishly or lazily just do the "bare minimum" they absolutely have to simply to "get by".
Why do you presume this? I used to watch friends who had it all who would always suggest advice to friends who don't to copy them. Then I observe (from an outside perspective) that the identical behaviors not only don't work, but repel, even if their behavior is relatively done with confidence and sincerity.

Your argument reminds me of the similar comparison of someone asserting one lazy for appearing to give up looking for work. You know,...the 'get-a-job' advice to those without work as though THEY are the boss hiring them! This is placing the cart before the horse. With respect to intepersonal relationships respecting anything procreational, you seem to be also telling them that they CAN find someone they love without respect to inherent factors. The fact is, if LOGICALLY they are wise enough to know from prior experiences certain minimal expectations in those they love, they CAN determine the likelihood of their actual success for trying as very low.

Yet you are telling them in essence the same thing as they always here: they are not TRYING hard enough. But if they DID 'try hard' without accepting a 'no', this promotes those who don't accept a no, even if that ends in stalking or rape. So you are promoting this behavior by even saying this.

[I need to segment up the response from your post. This covers some of the other questions but will need time to actually go through the rest later.]
(TL;DR, I wrote a lengthy response but it didn't post, so I'm just going to summarize).

Most of this is just dreck and wallowing in self-pity. There of course is no exact "science" to such a thing, however generally it's a no-brainer that more "positive" qualities and fewer "negative" ones would be beneficial.

You're blaming "society" or "the world" as a whole under the pretenses that you're entitled to "sex" or to a "smoking hot girlfriend" just because you exist, when "sex" and "romantic" relationships are a voluntary contract between two individuals. Likewise your claim that the "only" purpose" in life is sex, dating marriage is false, there are people who do not marry for any number of reasons but manage to have fulfilled lives in other areas.

You're claiming that any and all women who won't date you or have sex with you are solely rejecting you and your "kind" because of "looks", "height" or something superfluous, as opposed to other character traits; likewise you've only mentioned stereotypically "hot" or "beautiful" women, and refused to disclose if you or any of the "incels" have ever attempted to date a woman with... similar physical qualities or life interests.

Your claim about the "selfish-gene" popsci bullshit is ridiculous; people are, for the most part motivated by "higher mental wants", especially in a 1st world country, and not purely "physical" wants.

(e.x. This is why you aren't content simply "masturbating" if you honestly believe that dating or marriage is "impossible" for you; obviously your body can be satisfied by something as trite as simply masturbating to pornography if you honestly have no other ambitions, not to mention you are not "alone", as in solitary confinement either, but I'd honestly rather be alone than in the "company" of bad or foolish people, and it wouldn't surprise me that if being in such miserable company as "incels" and similar individuals is more harm than good).

---

So yes, I think this sums it up good enough.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Scott Mayers »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:00 pm
Most of this is just dreck and wallowing in self-pity. There of course is no exact "science" to such a thing, however generally it's a no-brainer that more "positive" qualities and fewer "negative" ones would be beneficial.

You're blaming "society" or "the world" as a whole under the pretenses that you're entitled to "sex" or to a "smoking hot girlfriend" just because you exist, when "sex" and "romantic" relationships are a voluntary contract between two individuals. Likewise your claim that the "only" purpose" in life is sex, dating marriage is false, there are people who do not marry for any number of reasons but manage to have fulfilled lives in other areas.

You're claiming that any and all women who won't date you or have sex with you are solely rejecting you and your "kind" because of "looks", "height" or something superfluous, as opposed to other character traits; likewise you've only mentioned stereotypically "hot" or "beautiful" women, and refused to disclose if you or any of the "incels" have ever attempted to date a woman with... similar physical qualities or life interests.

Your claim about the "selfish-gene" popsci bullshit is ridiculous; people are, for the most part motivated by "higher mental wants", especially in a 1st world country, and not purely "physical" wants.

(e.x. This is why you aren't content simply "masturbating" if you honestly believe that dating or marriage is "impossible" for you; obviously your body can be satisfied by something as trite as simply masturbating to pornography if you honestly have no other ambitions, not to mention you are not "alone", as in solitary confinement either, but I'd honestly rather be alone than in the "company" of bad or foolish people, and it wouldn't surprise me that if being in such miserable company as "incels" and similar individuals is more harm than good).

---

So yes, I think this sums it up good enough.
This is NOT about me, you stupid fuck! You introduced this arrogant thread to which I am responding only.

I CLEARLY expressed that the problem is NOT ABOUT SEX, you idiot. And yet you keep thinking I am supporting this view or that those I'm defending here do. For those who LACK ANY experience in normal INTIMATE relationships, they actually have no other means to express their problems that surround SEXUAL-related relationships outside of sex itself because logically there is no meaning to such intimate relationships if there were no underlying meaning to the act of sex. That is, if there is NO sex, there is no distinction between having a relationship with a boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse, etc. And 'sex' includes the simplest function of touch or presense with those you have even the remote thought of SEX.

To your fucking ignorance, I suggest during this time of isolation in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic, you learn to respect what ISOLATION as a NORM for some people means.


As to the environment, much of the problems respecting these people relate to a fault in parental environments as well as one's 'peer' groups which the kids who have these problems is ISOLATED regardless of others who may or may not be around. It is also NOT the 'flaw' of some individual to be considered 'undesirable' on the very PHYSICALLY SHALLOW minimal degree and so DOES make this an issue due to the very same society that is as SICK as these kids who have the potential to blow up.

And note, the POTENTIAL of those who call themselves, INCELS, DOES NOT RELATE TO THOSE WHO ACT OUT IN TERROSITIC ways.

So please, if you have anything further to presume, you demonstrate how those who are socially isolated as these 'incels' are universal terrorist!
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:38 pm This is NOT about me, you stupid fuck! You introduced this arrogant thread to which I am responding only.
Whatever, regardless you are very emotionally invested in it. Why?
I CLEARLY expressed that the problem is NOT ABOUT SEX, you idiot. And yet you keep thinking I am supporting this view or that those I'm defending here do. For those who LACK ANY experience in normal INTIMATE relationships, they actually have no other means to express their problems that surround SEXUAL-related relationships outside of sex itself because logically there is no meaning to such intimate relationships if there were no underlying meaning to the act of sex. That is, if there is NO sex, there is no distinction between having a relationship with a boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse, etc. And 'sex' includes the simplest function of touch or presense with those you have even the remote thought of SEX.
Fine, my point is that the "only" purpose of life is not "intimate relationships"; there are some people who do not marry or enter long-term relationships by choice and prefer that, or have other fulfilling goals in life; much as there are philosophers such as Epicurus who suggested that it would be better to be single and have good platonic friendship than to be married or in an intimate relationship and be miserable together (which plenty of marriages or intimate relationships have been, such as those involving bitter divorces or child custody disputes, domestic abuse, infidelity, etc).
To your fucking ignorance, I suggest during this time of isolation in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic, you learn to respect what ISOLATION as a NORM for some people means.
"Being single" or lacking a "sex partner" is not "isolation", as in solitary confinement. Some of the individuals may have psychological "problems" which go beyond that, and I hope they get the help they need; perhaps they should even seek commitment to a mental institution if they truly feel that "isolated" - regardless society as a whole is not "to blame" for your loneliness, much as there are people in marriages or relationships who get lonely.
As to the environment, much of the problems respecting these people relate to a fault in parental environments as well as one's 'peer' groups which the kids who have these problems is ISOLATED regardless of others who may or may not be around. It is also NOT the 'flaw' of some individual to be considered 'undesirable' on the very PHYSICALLY SHALLOW minimal degree and so DOES make this an issue due to the very same society that is as SICK as these kids who have the potential to blow up.
Your claim that being physically "isolated" from others is solely on the basis of "looks" is a flawed one indeed; there are plenty of people or "groups" which have "common interests", much as there are many "social" groups" online with "common interests" such as video games, programming, debate or discussion.

(In some cases, the problem could be the reverse, the person isn't isolated because of others' discrimating solely based on "looks", they may have a social anxiety or phobia and be isolating themselves. I'm probably the most 'isolated' person that I personally know, lol)

As far as "looks" go; the main preventable cause of a "bad physique" is obesity as a result of overeating, which is obviously different than something such as a "birth defect".

Heck, there are even monks or "meditators" who voluntarily seek solitude and isolation on their own (that's an interesting topic which I might discuss at some time; as well as similar philosophies such as Stoicism).

If I had to pick, I'd rather be isolated than around miserable or foolish individuals, such as "incels", but that's just me. Would you rather be "alone" in a prison cell or confided there with a prison rapist? I'd rather be alone.
And note, the POTENTIAL of those who call themselves, INCELS, DOES NOT RELATE TO THOSE WHO ACT OUT IN TERROSITIC ways.

So please, if you have anything further to presume, you demonstrate how those who are socially isolated as these 'incels' are universal terrorist!
I never claimed that; you're the one claiming that "society" is to blame for "social isolation" or "terrorism", or that being single automatically means being "socially" isolated. ("Relationships", whether romantic or platonic, are voluntary contracts which people "enter" into at their own discretion")

And no one is claiming that anyone is "automatically" to blame for it, it could simply be "bad luck" or happenstance where no one is "to blame".

(It's you who is claiming that society is automatically "to blame" for their isolation, and that it is done solely on the basis of "looks").
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Scott Mayers »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 11:04 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:38 pm This is NOT about me, you stupid fuck! You introduced this arrogant thread to which I am responding only.
Whatever, regardless you are very emotionally invested in it. Why?
Because I empathize for these people as victims of some social factors that many are BLIND to notice. The fact that society today is trending towards this right-wing National-Socialist thinking is due to people presuming some genetic class as linked to their culture. You opened this thread arguing for the castration of "less evolutionary fit males" when this 'fitness' is itself is not related to how 'superior' one could imagine a better world to be like. That the "Incel" believes they are being isolated due to some GENETIC bias is true. But what society is telling them is that this is NOT true NOR is it their ENVIRONMENT! You impose an 'ownership' of some 'culture' of the INCEL as due uniquely to something in them as though they are mentally defective and further expect they should be MORE empowered than the average to expect LESS!
I CLEARLY expressed that the problem is NOT ABOUT SEX, you idiot. And yet you keep thinking I am supporting this view or that those I'm defending here do. For those who LACK ANY experience in normal INTIMATE relationships, they actually have no other means to express their problems that surround SEXUAL-related relationships outside of sex itself because logically there is no meaning to such intimate relationships if there were no underlying meaning to the act of sex. That is, if there is NO sex, there is no distinction between having a relationship with a boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse, etc. And 'sex' includes the simplest function of touch or presense with those you have even the remote thought of SEX.
Fine, my point is that the "only" purpose of life is not "intimate relationships"; there are some people who do not marry or enter long-term relationships by choice and prefer that, or have other fulfilling goals in life; much as there are philosophers such as Epicurus who suggested that it would be better to be single and have good platonic friendship than to be married or in an intimate relationship and be miserable together (which plenty of marriages or intimate relationships have been, such as those involving bitter divorces or child custody disputes, domestic abuse, infidelity, etc).
We live in an world where many cannot be ALONE for more than a week of them breaking up. Many presume that even their own satisfaction in some relationship is extended to all others as though those who never get such relationships can do so indirectly by proxy of seeing others experience it. While this CAN become true for people if we adapted more favor towards technology to 'virtualize' such relationships, this too actually does not map to the animals' biological incentives to procreate. That is, all living things are merely COPY-machines with the MAIN GOAL to capitalize on whatever means they can to have SEX.

To state that OTHERS should learn to live a platonic life is like expecting SLAVES to ACCEPT their lowly position in life as though they are inferior nobodies that have to accept their worthlessness. And then you expect them NOT to be pissed? I'm not surprised why the potential terrorist exists. It is MORE suprising if it didn't happen at all. The only assurance that abuses are reduced is to first INTERNALIZE the meaning of what those are asserting about themselves by getting involved after they have expressed themselves. You are expecting they should not even have a right to speak, let alone get help for whatever issues they have.

To your fucking ignorance, I suggest during this time of isolation in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic, you learn to respect what ISOLATION as a NORM for some people means.
"Being single" or lacking a "sex partner" is not "isolation", as in solitary confinement. Some of the individuals may have psychological "problems" which go beyond that, and I hope they get the help they need; perhaps they should even seek commitment to a mental institution if they truly feel that "isolated" - regardless society as a whole is not "to blame" for your loneliness, much as there are people in marriages or relationships who get lonely.
It IS isolation because they are being denied by you even the right to express their issues. You can CHOOSE to isolate if you already experienced what the value of something is by having actual experience. I love my own 'space' but give as much credit to the actual experiences I've had in REAL relationships to feel that I'm satisfied without. These people NEED experience to draw from. All they have is the clear social impression that SEX is everything valuable in almost every area of life.

Half the Internet is porn; "Family" and "children" are propped up as the most significant factors in life with priority; Almost all entertainment is based upon either LOVE or to those who SUFFER (and thus, lack 'love' to some extent'). Sexual relationships are THE number one function of all animals and without it, we'd devolve to nothing.
As to the environment, much of the problems respecting these people relate to a fault in parental environments as well as one's 'peer' groups which the kids who have these problems is ISOLATED regardless of others who may or may not be around. It is also NOT the 'flaw' of some individual to be considered 'undesirable' on the very PHYSICALLY SHALLOW minimal degree and so DOES make this an issue due to the very same society that is as SICK as these kids who have the potential to blow up.
Your claim that being physically "isolated" from others is solely on the basis of "looks" is a flawed one indeed; there are plenty of people or "groups" which have "common interests", much as there are many "social" groups" online with "common interests" such as video games, programming, debate or discussion.

(In some cases, the problem could be the reverse, the person isn't isolated because of others' discrimating solely based on "looks", they may have a social anxiety or phobia and be isolating themselves. I'm probably the most 'isolated' person that I personally know, lol)

As far as "looks" go; the main preventable cause of a "bad physique" is obesity as a result of overeating, which is obviously different than something such as a "birth defect".

Heck, there are even monks or "meditators" who voluntarily seek solitude and isolation on their own (that's an interesting topic which I might discuss at some time; as well as similar philosophies such as Stoicism).

If I had to pick, I'd rather be isolated than around miserable or foolish individuals, such as "incels", but that's just me. Would you rather be "alone" in a prison cell or confided there with a prison rapist? I'd rather be alone.
You are assuming the 'incel' is ONLY an 'incel', as though the label they've linked to associates their beliefs to those who act with bad behavior and that they live and breathe this topic. While this is certainly true for some, this is like saying one who supports the LGBTQ community MUST be non-heterosexual and any violent behaviors by SOME is equivalent to all those who support the cause for many variant reasons.
And note, the POTENTIAL of those who call themselves, INCELS, DOES NOT RELATE TO THOSE WHO ACT OUT IN TERROSITIC ways.

So please, if you have anything further to presume, you demonstrate how those who are socially isolated as these 'incels' are universal terrorist!
I never claimed that; you're the one claiming that "society" is to blame for "social isolation" or "terrorism", or that being single automatically means being "socially" isolated. ("Relationships", whether romantic or platonic, are voluntary contracts which people "enter" into at their own discretion")

And no one is claiming that anyone is "automatically" to blame for it, it could simply be "bad luck" or happenstance where no one is "to blame".

(It's you who is claiming that society is automatically "to blame" for their isolation, and that it is done solely on the basis of "looks").
I'm saying that their claimed realities from their perspective ARE realtistic and probable BY ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES because it is ENVIRONMENTALLY possible to CURE this problem by what we can DO rather than assume they are sick and just need to be put down or locked up (or castrated) as though they have a GENETIC disease (such as a mental illness). Your proposal to castrate those 'unfit' begs...


...what do you MEAN by who is 'fit' if it is NOT ENVIRONMENTAL?
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:19 am
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 11:04 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:38 pm This is NOT about me, you stupid fuck! You introduced this arrogant thread to which I am responding only.
Whatever, regardless you are very emotionally invested in it. Why?
Because I empathize for these people as victims of some social factors that many are BLIND to notice. The fact that society today is trending towards this right-wing National-Socialist thinking is due to people presuming some genetic class as linked to their culture. You opened this thread arguing for the castration of "less evolutionary fit males" when this 'fitness' is itself is not related to how 'superior' one could imagine a better world to be like. That the "Incel" believes they are being isolated due to some GENETIC bias is true. But what society is telling them is that this is NOT true NOR is it their ENVIRONMENT! You impose an 'ownership' of some 'culture' of the INCEL as due uniquely to something in them as though they are mentally defective and further expect they should be MORE empowered than the average to expect LESS!
I CLEARLY expressed that the problem is NOT ABOUT SEX, you idiot. And yet you keep thinking I am supporting this view or that those I'm defending here do. For those who LACK ANY experience in normal INTIMATE relationships, they actually have no other means to express their problems that surround SEXUAL-related relationships outside of sex itself because logically there is no meaning to such intimate relationships if there were no underlying meaning to the act of sex. That is, if there is NO sex, there is no distinction between having a relationship with a boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse, etc. And 'sex' includes the simplest function of touch or presense with those you have even the remote thought of SEX.
Fine, my point is that the "only" purpose of life is not "intimate relationships"; there are some people who do not marry or enter long-term relationships by choice and prefer that, or have other fulfilling goals in life; much as there are philosophers such as Epicurus who suggested that it would be better to be single and have good platonic friendship than to be married or in an intimate relationship and be miserable together (which plenty of marriages or intimate relationships have been, such as those involving bitter divorces or child custody disputes, domestic abuse, infidelity, etc).
We live in an world where many cannot be ALONE for more than a week of them breaking up. Many presume that even their own satisfaction in some relationship is extended to all others as though those who never get such relationships can do so indirectly by proxy of seeing others experience it. While this CAN become true for people if we adapted more favor towards technology to 'virtualize' such relationships, this too actually does not map to the animals' biological incentives to procreate. That is, all living things are merely COPY-machines with the MAIN GOAL to capitalize on whatever means they can to have SEX.

To state that OTHERS should learn to live a platonic life is like expecting SLAVES to ACCEPT their lowly position in life as though they are inferior nobodies that have to accept their worthlessness. And then you expect them NOT to be pissed? I'm not surprised why the potential terrorist exists. It is MORE suprising if it didn't happen at all. The only assurance that abuses are reduced is to first INTERNALIZE the meaning of what those are asserting about themselves by getting involved after they have expressed themselves. You are expecting they should not even have a right to speak, let alone get help for whatever issues they have.

To your fucking ignorance, I suggest during this time of isolation in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic, you learn to respect what ISOLATION as a NORM for some people means.
"Being single" or lacking a "sex partner" is not "isolation", as in solitary confinement. Some of the individuals may have psychological "problems" which go beyond that, and I hope they get the help they need; perhaps they should even seek commitment to a mental institution if they truly feel that "isolated" - regardless society as a whole is not "to blame" for your loneliness, much as there are people in marriages or relationships who get lonely.
It IS isolation because they are being denied by you even the right to express their issues. You can CHOOSE to isolate if you already experienced what the value of something is by having actual experience. I love my own 'space' but give as much credit to the actual experiences I've had in REAL relationships to feel that I'm satisfied without. These people NEED experience to draw from. All they have is the clear social impression that SEX is everything valuable in almost every area of life.

Half the Internet is porn; "Family" and "children" are propped up as the most significant factors in life with priority; Almost all entertainment is based upon either LOVE or to those who SUFFER (and thus, lack 'love' to some extent'). Sexual relationships are THE number one function of all animals and without it, we'd devolve to nothing.
As to the environment, much of the problems respecting these people relate to a fault in parental environments as well as one's 'peer' groups which the kids who have these problems is ISOLATED regardless of others who may or may not be around. It is also NOT the 'flaw' of some individual to be considered 'undesirable' on the very PHYSICALLY SHALLOW minimal degree and so DOES make this an issue due to the very same society that is as SICK as these kids who have the potential to blow up.
Your claim that being physically "isolated" from others is solely on the basis of "looks" is a flawed one indeed; there are plenty of people or "groups" which have "common interests", much as there are many "social" groups" online with "common interests" such as video games, programming, debate or discussion.

(In some cases, the problem could be the reverse, the person isn't isolated because of others' discrimating solely based on "looks", they may have a social anxiety or phobia and be isolating themselves. I'm probably the most 'isolated' person that I personally know, lol)

As far as "looks" go; the main preventable cause of a "bad physique" is obesity as a result of overeating, which is obviously different than something such as a "birth defect".

Heck, there are even monks or "meditators" who voluntarily seek solitude and isolation on their own (that's an interesting topic which I might discuss at some time; as well as similar philosophies such as Stoicism).

If I had to pick, I'd rather be isolated than around miserable or foolish individuals, such as "incels", but that's just me. Would you rather be "alone" in a prison cell or confided there with a prison rapist? I'd rather be alone.
You are assuming the 'incel' is ONLY an 'incel', as though the label they've linked to associates their beliefs to those who act with bad behavior and that they live and breathe this topic. While this is certainly true for some, this is like saying one who supports the LGBTQ community MUST be non-heterosexual and any violent behaviors by SOME is equivalent to all those who support the cause for many variant reasons.
And note, the POTENTIAL of those who call themselves, INCELS, DOES NOT RELATE TO THOSE WHO ACT OUT IN TERROSITIC ways.

So please, if you have anything further to presume, you demonstrate how those who are socially isolated as these 'incels' are universal terrorist!
I never claimed that; you're the one claiming that "society" is to blame for "social isolation" or "terrorism", or that being single automatically means being "socially" isolated. ("Relationships", whether romantic or platonic, are voluntary contracts which people "enter" into at their own discretion")

And no one is claiming that anyone is "automatically" to blame for it, it could simply be "bad luck" or happenstance where no one is "to blame".

(It's you who is claiming that society is automatically "to blame" for their isolation, and that it is done solely on the basis of "looks").
I'm saying that their claimed realities from their perspective ARE realtistic and probable BY ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES because it is ENVIRONMENTALLY possible to CURE this problem by what we can DO rather than assume they are sick and just need to be put down or locked up (or castrated) as though they have a GENETIC disease (such as a mental illness). Your proposal to castrate those 'unfit' begs...


...what do you MEAN by who is 'fit' if it is NOT ENVIRONMENTAL?
This is just more regurgitation of the same crap; the points remain:

1. "Incels" could try dating a woman with a similar "physique", hobbies, or life goals, rather than only hitting on the stereotypically "hottest chicks" on Tinder or PoF, then complaining that women are "superficial" if they care about "height, weight, income, etc".

For the most part, they don't seem to be interested in attempting to "date" or "impress" any woman who John Hinkley Jr. wouldn't have been interested in.

2. Higher mental wants are the main goal in civilized, first world countries, not purely "physical" ones. "Zoology" is just a system of classification of organisms on the basis of physical similarities and differences, and has no relevance in the read world in theory or practice outside of its arbitrary taxonomy and the minority of job industries where it's used for pragmatic purposes; such as in legal or moral philosophy or various psychological theories, past and contemporary.

A person with an 80 IQ and no GED education can "make babies", they can't become a scientist, entrepreneur, inventor; etc. If everyone thought the only purpose in life was to masturbate, hump, and make babies, we wouldn't be living in a civilized world, we'd be living something akin to sub-Saharan Africa and "incels" wouldn't have free internet porn on demand.

2. Even in the animal kingdom, "sex" or "reproduction" is often subordinated to some other purposes; for example, worker ants have the physical ability to reproduce, but sacrifice their reproduction on behalf of the queen.

3. They don't have a "right" to express themselves in violation of a nation's laws or a private business's web hosting policies; there are plenty of other and ideally less pathological ways in which they could express themselves; if they don't like it, they could file a lawsuit to change things, but that's probably too much time that might otherwise be used for more important activities like masturbation.

4. Whether or not they are "all terrorists", their worldview is toxic and abysmal; if you claim that "average people" in their situation would act "the same" (which I don't believe, given that there are optimistic people in much physically "harder" circumstances than theirs), then the same applies for average people too.

5. The law and its legal and moral philosophy will not by your justification of terrorism or violence nor some exaggerated blame against "society" as a whole under the delusion of being "entitled" to sex or relationships; maybe they should seek commitment to a mental institution.

6. Many marriages and relationships, such the near 50% which end in breakups or divorces are not "happy" or "less than ideal"; nor is there any serious take on marriages or relationships, whether "religious" such as Biblical or CS Lewis' take on love, "secular" such as legal philosophy, or something in the "self-help industry" which asserts that all marriages or relationships are "happy" or "pre-determined to be so"; this is more akin to pop-Roussean romanticism with a dash of determinism; based on a misinterpretation of romantic love to begin with (such as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, which was not an "ideal" or "mature" love, but more akin to a "teen romance"). No one who isn't incredibly naïve believes this, or ever did regardless of what time period, or "tradition", "religious, secular, or otherwise" you want to reference or what more serious marriage and relationship authors of the day and age were popular.

Most clickbait, ADHD media, Hallmark commercials, etc is written for the HS education or less, 100 IQ, 6th grade reading level demographic, and primarily about marketing and selling crap; if it was more "in-depth" than that, it wouldn't sell to its target audiences; if a person wastes their entire life voyeurising mass media and can't even so much as be bothered to read a book written at above the 6th grade reading level, such as at their local library, online library, or Kindle-E reader, then that's on them. Some people read an entire graduate or post-graduate level book every day, while others read one HS or Bachelor's level book once a year at most, and spend 34 hours a week watching television or listening to the radio instead.

I think that's pretty much a rap.
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Not to mention, there are plenty of people who don't care about "society" or even understanding the complex entity which "society" even is to begin with (whatever childly simplistic and bad approxmations of "society" they have to begin with; it being made up of many individual people, families, businesses, "public and private entities", legal institutions, etc).

Beyond perhaps their own immediate "family" or "special interest group", or other silliness and nonsense; much as there are many who spend their entire lives unable or selfishly unwilling to do relatively "simple" things, such as learn the bare basics of etiquette, communication, or social interaction, update their archaic, nonsensical, and silly, naïve little beliefs and "axioms" when debunked or proven false or nonsensical, or learn even the bare basics of managing their anger, emotions, impluses, and so on, and as a result wasting portions of entire lives or worse yet, others lives based on being unwilling or unable to do fairly simplistic things or even learn the bare basics of anything remotely relevant to the "society" they're a part of in theory or practice that would be remotely relevant to anyone in the 21st century, or even better people or bodies of knowledge of archaic centuries (e.x. 19th century) for that matter, such as even the most bare basics of what the "law is" in theory or practice, how the law and the thinking men and women who are lawyers, judges, etc actually practice and interpret the law, the various philosophical, moral, logical, and other axioms which institutions such as the law is in theory or in practice to begin with.

(Sure, maybe expecting the average 100 or so IQ, 6th grade reading comprehension level idiot to be a veteran legal or social philosophy scholar is a bit much, but expecting them to step outside of their room, their basement, or their 6th grade reading level media and even so much as read a culturally significant legal or moral theory book at their local library, or Kindle e-reader written at least the graduate or postgraduate level more than once a damned year, or to know anything which has actually been law in theory or in practice in any English speaking country since at least the pre-Magna Carta days, archaic or anti-intellectual "legalism" (as entirely distinct from the law and legal theory and practice itself, and its philosophical principles, proceedures, and axioms) if even then shouldn't be a bit too much, honestly, or other "degenerate" or "anarchic" behaviors such as "feuds" or "private vendettas" which the law and its philosophy is considered and evolution above and beyond to begin with. (Technically a lot of those "savage" behaviors, even online are technically not "legal", nor "rights", nor "protected speech or expression" necessarily, but in practice, I doubt many would normally be bored enough to rigidly police said behavior to begin with, unless they were a complete "control freak" - particularily when much more serious issues, such as child porn rings on the "Darknet" are a higher priority.

And if they want to blame "bad parenting" or "environment"; too bad, the legal and moral philosophy is the opposite and holds every citizen or individual responsible of knowing or being "able" to infer it on some level, whether they are particularly well-read or not.

(Society and civilization, at least to any remotely well-read or well-adjusted normal. thinking man or woman who has so much as even read a single book above the paltry 6th grade reading level more than once a year at most, or even able to understand things that would be "commonsense", "instinctive", or "intuitive" to any remotely-well-adjusted high school or junior HS student, is somewhat predicated on or dependent on to begin with.)
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Scott Mayers »

Before I address any of your arguments, I need you to be aware that the concern of abuses BY these people calling themselves, "Incels", is absurdly a trivial concern compared to the problems that occur on the opposite end of the spectrum. Those who abuse are more often those who normally HAVE what they seek but are not SATISFIED. That is, abuses don't normally come from those who LACK relationship experience but from those who cannot be satisfied when and where they CAN far past the 'foot-in-the-door' stage. So your petty concern due merely to rare incidents of violence of rougue characters are not symbolic of these people.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:27 pm This is just more regurgitation of the same crap; the points remain:

1. "Incels" could try dating a woman with a similar "physique", hobbies, or life goals, rather than only hitting on the stereotypically "hottest chicks" on Tinder or PoF, then complaining that women are "superficial" if they care about "height, weight, income, etc".

For the most part, they don't seem to be interested in attempting to "date" or "impress" any woman who John Hinkley Jr. wouldn't have been interested in.
This is the kind of argument that seems to suggest that if you deem someone "looks gay", they should embrace that lifestyle regardless of whether they have any default interest in homosexuality. Certainly it would be more 'fitting' for such persons to CHOOSE a lifestyle that might assure them more success rather than dwell on what they can't, right?

One does not CHOOSE whether they have an intrinsic affinity towards something they like or not.

As to the particular misplaced issues that someone might have due to NOT seeking in a way that you approve of, to say they aren't interested in attempting to date or impress another as though they are merely lazy is troubling. The major CULTURAL expectation for the sexes in this day still is to expect certain 'roles' of behavior that differ among the sexes. For males, they are expected to BE dominant more often than not.

And note that there is an interesting relationship to the feminist concern of 'equal pay' where the actual cause of imbalance is due to the general nature of women to be more submissive (partly for the ideal of expecting the man to be the man in relationships. My point here is that for at least some of these "incels", they would likely not BE 'domineering' relative to the norms in the same way women are culturally as an average. Thus, the nature of one's means of "trying", as you seem to imply these people lacking motivation to do, if these males are EXPECTED to BE more assertive and forward, you PROVE that the cause of the general social culture by the ENVIRONMENT is the issue, not the individual who doesn't 'fit' to the stereotypes expected.
2. Higher mental wants are the main goal in civilized, first world countries, not purely "physical" ones. "Zoology" is just a system of classification of organisms on the basis of physical similarities and differences, and has no relevance in the read world in theory or practice outside of its arbitrary taxonomy and the minority of job industries where it's used for pragmatic purposes; such as in legal or moral philosophy or various psychological theories, past and contemporary.

A person with an 80 IQ and no GED education can "make babies", they can't become a scientist, entrepreneur, inventor; etc. If everyone thought the only purpose in life was to masturbate, hump, and make babies, we wouldn't be living in a civilized world, we'd be living something akin to sub-Saharan Africa and "incels" wouldn't have free internet porn on demand.

2. Even in the animal kingdom, "sex" or "reproduction" is often subordinated to some other purposes; for example, worker ants have the physical ability to reproduce, but sacrifice their reproduction on behalf of the queen.
You assume that what is 'civil' is normal to nature. Civilization is an evolutionary side effect of animals like us and our genetics don't care for HOW we succeed, just THAT we get to the point of being able to reproduce. The natural behavior of PERSISTENCE is an example of the hypocrisy we give favor to those who are already favored afterthefact. Yet, this identical behavior is treated as STALKING if one is deemed unliked. This confusing message is what the ENVIRONMENT is responsible for, not what one particular person CHOOSES.

Ants have evolved to have a distinct kind of life that they don't "choose" from other options. If any particular ant opts to be selfish, which likely occurs often, they won't survive at all. Also, this very analogy is something I heard once in a group discussing whether the ancient cultures permitted SHARING of women among the tribe in an open sexually permissive way. That is, you have to be cautious of mentioning other animals to compare AND notice that the ant colony example is oppositely capable of presenting a case for those who believe sex SHOULD be permitted to everyone equally.

Our society grants each person an 'equal'. If you argue differentiation, like how the cells of the heart operate together but are NOT of the brain while all these operate together in one system, then you need to express how you think some people's genetics are the foundation of environmental behaviors. If you believe people are BORN to be a certain way that assures their inevitable 'fitness', you are then arguing that one who CHOOSES some art(ificial) behavior is an illusion. How, for instance, can some pretty girl, say, opt personally to be gay when the 'fitness' to being favored by men happen to place her looks as what is most heterosexually interesting?

That is, do you believe, for instance, that given homosexuality is not genetically 'normal', that such apparent CHOICES should be suppressed? Do you think that if, in an opposite way, that if some male happens to look very female and attractive to most men, that they SHOULD be required to CHOOSE to BE 'gay' regardless of their preferences?
3. They don't have a "right" to express themselves in violation of a nation's laws or a private business's web hosting policies; there are plenty of other and ideally less pathological ways in which they could express themselves; if they don't like it, they could file a lawsuit to change things, but that's probably too much time that might otherwise be used for more important activities like masturbation.
Neither does a 'Nation' nor a 'Private owner' have any "rights" by nature to behave as they do. Laws by any system of government/management system are arbitrary to declare what is or is not 'right'. This is negotiated by some force, whether it be by some 'might' (like power to enforce by weapons, say) or by 'popularity' (power in numbers that exceed other forces where possible). BUT, if you are NOT part of such negotiation, then while you may be FORCED to comply, it is not 'right' relative to such an individual to their own freedom to choose.

One presumption you may hold is of a religious kind: that given the assumption that some 'greater' picture exists to some purpose, that people are granted SPECIAL privileges by some GOD to behave and that those without SHOULD learn to follow like sheep or be damned. For the ones who aren't religious, why SHOULD they accept laying down as some INFERIOR being just to 'fit' in for some grander purpose they don't share? I suggest the opposite: that if one BELIEVES sacrifice should be expected, that THEY be the ones to PROVE such sacrifice themselves rather than impose the other to be the SCAPEGOAT. Goats don't volunteer to be sacrificed, for instance. So do you expect these "incels" to be goats? I think you do believe they are and why you suggest scapegoating them.

You believe these people aren't EQUAL beings who deserve the same opportunities as everyone else and why castration is something appealing to you. But, I ask, if you think they ARE like some non-human equal among others, then why should you EXPECT them NOT to be the rougue apes that throw shit back at the 'normal' people you think you represent?
4. Whether or not they are "all terrorists", their worldview is toxic and abysmal; if you claim that "average people" in their situation would act "the same" (which I don't believe, given that there are optimistic people in much physically "harder" circumstances than theirs), then the same applies for average people too.
So is the 'norms' that expect males to be physically strong and dominant and women to be submissive and petite is toxic and abysmal. The reason why there is so much DOMESTIC ABUSE, certainly doesn't come from those who can't even get into such relationships, right? You CAN encourage change by defeating these stereotypes as some is certainly occurring nowadays.

The average abuser is NOT one who lacks relationships but are ones who are choosen by the CULTURE of expectations that are based upon non-civilized animalistic behaviors from our wilder pasts. The toxic behavior CAN be reduced if instead of attacking the character of those who complain, that you can DEMONSTRATE your own sincerity in believing the EASE of the sacrifice you IMPOSE upon others by sacrificing yourself first. This never or rarely occurs.

If you insist their expression of sufferring as 'toxic' and requiring to be IGNORED, then you ARE the toxin that affects them for what needs to be removed! You are justifying the reason for them to complain in a 'catch-22' contradiction. If they CANNOT complain, do you presume they no longer exist? And if the CAN complain, does the nature of their complaints prove they are smart enough NOT to NEED to complain?
5. The law and its legal and moral philosophy will not by your justification of terrorism or violence nor some exaggerated blame against "society" as a whole under the delusion of being "entitled" to sex or relationships; maybe they should seek commitment to a mental institution.
I don't believe THAT people SHOULD be terroristic for having cause even where the cause is 'justified'. That includes FORCING some select subset of people expressing themselves as being 'ugly' to be locked up, whether delusional or not. While there is an official classification of some to have a mental illness associated with their lack of confidence or by seeing themselves as 'ugly', this too is also more about a 'delusion' of society where this is imposed upon those who actually ARE relatively undesireable in reality. The classification of 'illness' or 'mental illness' is just as much about an arbitrary lack of 'fitness' of the way some people think that is unusual but not absolutely disadvantaged. It might be the case that someone is born with a third eye on the back of their head. This 'ugly' socially-defined feature might have an advantage but being that we evolved more to favor those without, such particular arbitrary features are only 'illness' by HOW society might treat them only!

6. Many marriages and relationships, such the near 50% which end in breakups or divorces are not "happy" or "less than ideal"; nor is there any serious take on marriages or relationships, whether "religious" such as Biblical or CS Lewis' take on love, "secular" such as legal philosophy, or something in the "self-help industry" which asserts that all marriages or relationships are "happy" or "pre-determined to be so"; this is more akin to pop-Roussean romanticism with a dash of determinism; based on a misinterpretation of romantic love to begin with (such as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, which was not an "ideal" or "mature" love, but more akin to a "teen romance"). No one who isn't incredibly naïve believes this, or ever did regardless of what time period, or "tradition", "religious, secular, or otherwise" you want to reference or what more serious marriage and relationship authors of the day and age were popular.

Most clickbait, ADHD media, Hallmark commercials, etc is written for the HS education or less, 100 IQ, 6th grade reading level demographic, and primarily about marketing and selling crap; if it was more "in-depth" than that, it wouldn't sell to its target audiences; if a person wastes their entire life voyeurising mass media and can't even so much as be bothered to read a book written at above the 6th grade reading level, such as at their local library, online library, or Kindle-E reader, then that's on them. Some people read an entire graduate or post-graduate level book every day, while others read one HS or Bachelor's level book once a year at most, and spend 34 hours a week watching television or listening to the radio instead.

I think that's pretty much a rap.
You suggested "castration" of males you believe are intrinsically driven by some kind of sexual perversion. Castration likely would not stop the same people if the other factors surrounding relationship intimacy is absent. This was initially done to preserve the voice of young males from dropping during puberty. But if the degree of the problem resides in INTIMACY of those they LIKE by default, then this is not about sex and relates to their actual environment neglecting them in some way, whether it is done on purpose or not.

If you have ever learned of the backgrounds of those who have such violent outbreaks regarding these kind of issues, it is more often about some isolation they experience that begins with NEGLECT at home! This CAN be determined if they can speak about their issues and have others LOOK at what the evidence might suggest. Then these people CAN be helped.

Some of this is due to IMPULSE where the person is suicidal and is only acting out to finalize their desire. By assuring they DO something they cannot back out of, this provides them with an incentive to LOCK their decision to kill themselves with better certainty. Some of the apparent 'hate' expressed by the act is often about the opposite and why you need to HEAR them BEFORE they act out.

The LACK of being heard is more abusive universally than a black eye. In fact, I would argue that the reason most issues worldwide on any issue relates to how the LACK of notice of significant issues (ie, "neglect") is by far the MOST abusive cause of most problems. This is because such abuse cannot be directly noticed. We need to allow people to at least speak freely about it, even where we disagree, and then attempt to help them with sincerity.

[And I'm not fighting for those arrogant right-wingers who believe intrinsically in a right-to-lie when they argue for 'free speech'. THAT is an example of the actual FRAUDULENT behaviors that need to be addressed. The groups that argue for why they are or feel a certain way, are often doing it with sincerity and NOT literally manipulating anyone. The "Incel" groups, wherever they ever existed or may still exist, is more likely made up of those who sincerely have a problem. But there is not doubt too that there are assholes who ride on those sites to try to INCITE the weakness in others for their own abuses. I can't comment further on such sites without them even being present to judge one way or the other.]
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:11 am Before I address any of your arguments, I need you to be aware that the concern of abuses BY these people calling themselves, "Incels", is absurdly a trivial concern compared to the problems that occur on the opposite end of the spectrum. Those who abuse are more often those who normally HAVE what they seek but are not SATISFIED. That is, abuses don't normally come from those who LACK relationship experience but from those who cannot be satisfied when and where they CAN far past the 'foot-in-the-door' stage. So your petty concern due merely to rare incidents of violence of rougue characters are not symbolic of these people.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:27 pm This is just more regurgitation of the same crap; the points remain:

1. "Incels" could try dating a woman with a similar "physique", hobbies, or life goals, rather than only hitting on the stereotypically "hottest chicks" on Tinder or PoF, then complaining that women are "superficial" if they care about "height, weight, income, etc".

For the most part, they don't seem to be interested in attempting to "date" or "impress" any woman who John Hinkley Jr. wouldn't have been interested in.
This is the kind of argument that seems to suggest that if you deem someone "looks gay", they should embrace that lifestyle regardless of whether they have any default interest in homosexuality. Certainly it would be more 'fitting' for such persons to CHOOSE a lifestyle that might assure them more success rather than dwell on what they can't, right?

One does not CHOOSE whether they have an intrinsic affinity towards something they like or not.

As to the particular misplaced issues that someone might have due to NOT seeking in a way that you approve of, to say they aren't interested in attempting to date or impress another as though they are merely lazy is troubling. The major CULTURAL expectation for the sexes in this day still is to expect certain 'roles' of behavior that differ among the sexes. For males, they are expected to BE dominant more often than not.

And note that there is an interesting relationship to the feminist concern of 'equal pay' where the actual cause of imbalance is due to the general nature of women to be more submissive (partly for the ideal of expecting the man to be the man in relationships. My point here is that for at least some of these "incels", they would likely not BE 'domineering' relative to the norms in the same way women are culturally as an average. Thus, the nature of one's means of "trying", as you seem to imply these people lacking motivation to do, if these males are EXPECTED to BE more assertive and forward, you PROVE that the cause of the general social culture by the ENVIRONMENT is the issue, not the individual who doesn't 'fit' to the stereotypes expected.
2. Higher mental wants are the main goal in civilized, first world countries, not purely "physical" ones. "Zoology" is just a system of classification of organisms on the basis of physical similarities and differences, and has no relevance in the read world in theory or practice outside of its arbitrary taxonomy and the minority of job industries where it's used for pragmatic purposes; such as in legal or moral philosophy or various psychological theories, past and contemporary.

A person with an 80 IQ and no GED education can "make babies", they can't become a scientist, entrepreneur, inventor; etc. If everyone thought the only purpose in life was to masturbate, hump, and make babies, we wouldn't be living in a civilized world, we'd be living something akin to sub-Saharan Africa and "incels" wouldn't have free internet porn on demand.

2. Even in the animal kingdom, "sex" or "reproduction" is often subordinated to some other purposes; for example, worker ants have the physical ability to reproduce, but sacrifice their reproduction on behalf of the queen.
You assume that what is 'civil' is normal to nature. Civilization is an evolutionary side effect of animals like us and our genetics don't care for HOW we succeed, just THAT we get to the point of being able to reproduce. The natural behavior of PERSISTENCE is an example of the hypocrisy we give favor to those who are already favored afterthefact. Yet, this identical behavior is treated as STALKING if one is deemed unliked. This confusing message is what the ENVIRONMENT is responsible for, not what one particular person CHOOSES.

Ants have evolved to have a distinct kind of life that they don't "choose" from other options. If any particular ant opts to be selfish, which likely occurs often, they won't survive at all. Also, this very analogy is something I heard once in a group discussing whether the ancient cultures permitted SHARING of women among the tribe in an open sexually permissive way. That is, you have to be cautious of mentioning other animals to compare AND notice that the ant colony example is oppositely capable of presenting a case for those who believe sex SHOULD be permitted to everyone equally.

Our society grants each person an 'equal'. If you argue differentiation, like how the cells of the heart operate together but are NOT of the brain while all these operate together in one system, then you need to express how you think some people's genetics are the foundation of environmental behaviors. If you believe people are BORN to be a certain way that assures their inevitable 'fitness', you are then arguing that one who CHOOSES some art(ificial) behavior is an illusion. How, for instance, can some pretty girl, say, opt personally to be gay when the 'fitness' to being favored by men happen to place her looks as what is most heterosexually interesting?

That is, do you believe, for instance, that given homosexuality is not genetically 'normal', that such apparent CHOICES should be suppressed? Do you think that if, in an opposite way, that if some male happens to look very female and attractive to most men, that they SHOULD be required to CHOOSE to BE 'gay' regardless of their preferences?
3. They don't have a "right" to express themselves in violation of a nation's laws or a private business's web hosting policies; there are plenty of other and ideally less pathological ways in which they could express themselves; if they don't like it, they could file a lawsuit to change things, but that's probably too much time that might otherwise be used for more important activities like masturbation.
Neither does a 'Nation' nor a 'Private owner' have any "rights" by nature to behave as they do. Laws by any system of government/management system are arbitrary to declare what is or is not 'right'. This is negotiated by some force, whether it be by some 'might' (like power to enforce by weapons, say) or by 'popularity' (power in numbers that exceed other forces where possible). BUT, if you are NOT part of such negotiation, then while you may be FORCED to comply, it is not 'right' relative to such an individual to their own freedom to choose.

One presumption you may hold is of a religious kind: that given the assumption that some 'greater' picture exists to some purpose, that people are granted SPECIAL privileges by some GOD to behave and that those without SHOULD learn to follow like sheep or be damned. For the ones who aren't religious, why SHOULD they accept laying down as some INFERIOR being just to 'fit' in for some grander purpose they don't share? I suggest the opposite: that if one BELIEVES sacrifice should be expected, that THEY be the ones to PROVE such sacrifice themselves rather than impose the other to be the SCAPEGOAT. Goats don't volunteer to be sacrificed, for instance. So do you expect these "incels" to be goats? I think you do believe they are and why you suggest scapegoating them.

You believe these people aren't EQUAL beings who deserve the same opportunities as everyone else and why castration is something appealing to you. But, I ask, if you think they ARE like some non-human equal among others, then why should you EXPECT them NOT to be the rougue apes that throw shit back at the 'normal' people you think you represent?
4. Whether or not they are "all terrorists", their worldview is toxic and abysmal; if you claim that "average people" in their situation would act "the same" (which I don't believe, given that there are optimistic people in much physically "harder" circumstances than theirs), then the same applies for average people too.
So is the 'norms' that expect males to be physically strong and dominant and women to be submissive and petite is toxic and abysmal. The reason why there is so much DOMESTIC ABUSE, certainly doesn't come from those who can't even get into such relationships, right? You CAN encourage change by defeating these stereotypes as some is certainly occurring nowadays.

The average abuser is NOT one who lacks relationships but are ones who are choosen by the CULTURE of expectations that are based upon non-civilized animalistic behaviors from our wilder pasts. The toxic behavior CAN be reduced if instead of attacking the character of those who complain, that you can DEMONSTRATE your own sincerity in believing the EASE of the sacrifice you IMPOSE upon others by sacrificing yourself first. This never or rarely occurs.

If you insist their expression of sufferring as 'toxic' and requiring to be IGNORED, then you ARE the toxin that affects them for what needs to be removed! You are justifying the reason for them to complain in a 'catch-22' contradiction. If they CANNOT complain, do you presume they no longer exist? And if the CAN complain, does the nature of their complaints prove they are smart enough NOT to NEED to complain?
5. The law and its legal and moral philosophy will not by your justification of terrorism or violence nor some exaggerated blame against "society" as a whole under the delusion of being "entitled" to sex or relationships; maybe they should seek commitment to a mental institution.
I don't believe THAT people SHOULD be terroristic for having cause even where the cause is 'justified'. That includes FORCING some select subset of people expressing themselves as being 'ugly' to be locked up, whether delusional or not. While there is an official classification of some to have a mental illness associated with their lack of confidence or by seeing themselves as 'ugly', this too is also more about a 'delusion' of society where this is imposed upon those who actually ARE relatively undesireable in reality. The classification of 'illness' or 'mental illness' is just as much about an arbitrary lack of 'fitness' of the way some people think that is unusual but not absolutely disadvantaged. It might be the case that someone is born with a third eye on the back of their head. This 'ugly' socially-defined feature might have an advantage but being that we evolved more to favor those without, such particular arbitrary features are only 'illness' by HOW society might treat them only!

6. Many marriages and relationships, such the near 50% which end in breakups or divorces are not "happy" or "less than ideal"; nor is there any serious take on marriages or relationships, whether "religious" such as Biblical or CS Lewis' take on love, "secular" such as legal philosophy, or something in the "self-help industry" which asserts that all marriages or relationships are "happy" or "pre-determined to be so"; this is more akin to pop-Roussean romanticism with a dash of determinism; based on a misinterpretation of romantic love to begin with (such as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, which was not an "ideal" or "mature" love, but more akin to a "teen romance"). No one who isn't incredibly naïve believes this, or ever did regardless of what time period, or "tradition", "religious, secular, or otherwise" you want to reference or what more serious marriage and relationship authors of the day and age were popular.

Most clickbait, ADHD media, Hallmark commercials, etc is written for the HS education or less, 100 IQ, 6th grade reading level demographic, and primarily about marketing and selling crap; if it was more "in-depth" than that, it wouldn't sell to its target audiences; if a person wastes their entire life voyeurising mass media and can't even so much as be bothered to read a book written at above the 6th grade reading level, such as at their local library, online library, or Kindle-E reader, then that's on them. Some people read an entire graduate or post-graduate level book every day, while others read one HS or Bachelor's level book once a year at most, and spend 34 hours a week watching television or listening to the radio instead.

I think that's pretty much a rap.
You suggested "castration" of males you believe are intrinsically driven by some kind of sexual perversion. Castration likely would not stop the same people if the other factors surrounding relationship intimacy is absent. This was initially done to preserve the voice of young males from dropping during puberty. But if the degree of the problem resides in INTIMACY of those they LIKE by default, then this is not about sex and relates to their actual environment neglecting them in some way, whether it is done on purpose or not.

If you have ever learned of the backgrounds of those who have such violent outbreaks regarding these kind of issues, it is more often about some isolation they experience that begins with NEGLECT at home! This CAN be determined if they can speak about their issues and have others LOOK at what the evidence might suggest. Then these people CAN be helped.

Some of this is due to IMPULSE where the person is suicidal and is only acting out to finalize their desire. By assuring they DO something they cannot back out of, this provides them with an incentive to LOCK their decision to kill themselves with better certainty. Some of the apparent 'hate' expressed by the act is often about the opposite and why you need to HEAR them BEFORE they act out.

The LACK of being heard is more abusive universally than a black eye. In fact, I would argue that the reason most issues worldwide on any issue relates to how the LACK of notice of significant issues (ie, "neglect") is by far the MOST abusive cause of most problems. This is because such abuse cannot be directly noticed. We need to allow people to at least speak freely about it, even where we disagree, and then attempt to help them with sincerity.

[And I'm not fighting for those arrogant right-wingers who believe intrinsically in a right-to-lie when they argue for 'free speech'. THAT is an example of the actual FRAUDULENT behaviors that need to be addressed. The groups that argue for why they are or feel a certain way, are often doing it with sincerity and NOT literally manipulating anyone. The "Incel" groups, wherever they ever existed or may still exist, is more likely made up of those who sincerely have a problem. But there is not doubt too that there are assholes who ride on those sites to try to INCITE the weakness in others for their own abuses. I can't comment further on such sites without them even being present to judge one way or the other.]
(My reply was deleted again, sigh... so I'll summarize).

Nothing your saying is remotely true or consistent and is filled to the brim with cliches and stereotypes that don't present a coherent argument.

1. Being in gay relationship is a "choice", regardless of what anyone imagines their own subjective personal preferences to be.

2. An overweight gay man or lesbian isn't entitled to date a 6'4'' gay male or female supermodel who isn't interested in them either. A male or female supermodel isn't entitled to "suppress their own preferences" and date an overweight person they aren't interested in simply because they're "lonely".

3. An overweight guy (or girl) who won't give any attention to guys (or girls) who are "fat" and only hits on the top 10% of "hottest people" on Tinder shouldn't be surprised if they care about looks, height, weight, as well.

4. Websites were shut down for the content they had; no one cares whether or not the posters identify as "incel" (just as there are many single people who want nothing to do with "incels"); either find a way you can legally express yourself or grow up, and yes there are plenty of toxic shitholes online (e.x. 4chan, reddit, etc).

Everything else you've said is just more of the same that I can see...
Post Reply