John, married to the Queen of DeNial



In article <aqtd93p2vp3sbah5m8jsvv10260qfp4fc9@xxxxxxx>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:44:23 -0400, PolishKnight <marek1@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

It's utterly fascinating to hear you pontificate on and on about
emotionalism and "hating" while you engage in name-calling and negative
generalizations.

I don't "call names." I do dislike people who make the world a nastier
place.

Yeah, you "dislike" them so much that you read soc.men and then solicit
their opinions.

No matter how much material wealth we have, ande no matter how
much education and cultural opportunities, it seems like that are
always mean-spirited, envious haters who will keep things from really
getting good.

John, when you're throwing as much mud as you can get your hands on,
it's kind of difficult to credibly argue that you're just fighting
"hate".

On the contrary John, apart from GA who engages in hatred openly and
honestly (and presumably according to many as a victim), most of the men
here have been very supportive of women BUT in a non-equal role.

On the other hand, the women here who claim to "like" men are quickly to
clarify that's only when the men jump through their hoops and express
opinions they agree with. And they claim that us men are the ones
trying to "control" women.

It's like saying: "I hate people who hate."

Is that unreasonable? It's like wanting to kill bacteria.

Bacteria doesn't hate. It's simply trying to make a living like you or
me. Hell, in case you haven't heard there are some bacteria that's good
for us including our stomachs, the kind that makes cheese, and of course
the kind that fights other bacteria.

At one time, our culture viewed bears and tigers and other wildlife as
"hateful" and sported them as trophies when they were killed.

On the contrary, someone saying "I'm doing this for me because it's the
right thing" sounds INCREDIBLY emotional and irrational (one might even
say juvenile) as much as someone proclaiming: "I'm a rebel just like all
of my friends." Do you really think that a chivalrous notion of
protecting your wife somehow sets you ABOVE the emotional crowd?

That doesn't matter, but it sure distinguishes me from people who
cheer when they hear about girls dying in SUV crashes.

For someone who claimes to do something for yourself, you sure do spend
a lot of time obsessing about how other people think and how it's
perceived, yes?

The cheering over dead girls happened here, just a day or so ago.
Creepy.

I have now asked you two questions and you have declined to answer both
of them. It's safe to assume from your deflections that the answers are
no and yes respectively.

Yeah,
your wife must find the notion of you willing to die for her incredibly
distasteful. :-) "If I have to be a superhero honey, I'll do it despite
the great sacrifice. Up up and away!!!" :-)

Well, I've never told her that. That would be tacky. But the feeling
is real, and it's interesting... and luckily it's unlikely to be
tested.

"Its more than a feeling, when I hear that old song they used to play
(more than a feeling)
I begin dreaming (more than a feeling)
till I see marianne walk away
I see my marianne walkin away" -- Boston

So you feel "good" by thinking and perhaps even acting upon those
feelings. How is this any more rational than juveniles who are merely
honest that their actions based upon "good" feelings are selfish?

Because if they want to make things worse, insults and vandalism and
violence, they are hurting others. I deliberately elect to do things
that will help others and make them feel better. If you see no
difference...

Hehehe. We're talking about you potentially taking a dive and dying to
protect your wife. It's rather hard for me to buy into this
"difference" when you're talking about a hypothetical and comparing it
to juveniles always acting in a destructive manner based upon their
feelings (which I wasn't talking about in the above paragraph.)

John, obfuscation is a clear admission that the person has admitted to
themselves that they lack a rational, coherent argument.

it's fun to watch you twist and turn in this quicksand you've dived into
to protect yourself from unpleasant truths. Sir, if you want to believe
in the tooth fairy, enjoy yourself. But be prepared for some of us to
pop your bubble when you come here.

Saving your wife's life is similar, at a certain level, to a bunch of
kids getting high behind the quickie mart.

See above.


Oh, I forgot: You're so righteous. Yeah dude! :-)

I believe masculinity has traditional standards, celebrated from Homer
to John Wayne, and living up to those standards is satisfying.

Er, you are aware that you claimed you saved your wife's life just for
yourself, blah blah blah, and now you're comparing yourself to Homer? A
guy who died thousands of years ago and wouldn't know anything about
chivalry?

Even a mother's love or a father's sacrifice is viewed as
selfish because it presumably makes the doer feel good.

I wasn't making that kind of ambiguous generality whereby it's easy to
label anything as selfish. I was going into more detail than that. WHY
does it make you feel good is what I'm discussing.

I think it's wired in to care for others, with the greatest caring for
close relatives. That's just genetic selfishness, of course.

So you're realizing that this is selfishness. You're just trying to put
a naturalistic/pseudo-scientific basis to it to somehow make your
feelings appear rational.

The rationality comes into play when you have choices. Everybody has
altruism and everybody has rage; you get to select which you will
indulge. There's positive feedback, too; indulge too much rage, and
rage will become your life.


That said, all of our beliefs and actions are "genetic selfishness" in
some way even when self-destructive (see getting high above.) We do
things because they make us feel good or we want to avoid feeling bad.

Again, being human and having the ability to reason, we can choose.

We can also rationalize too making choice irrelevent. The difference
between a cat who licks his balls and doesn't know why and the guy who
does it (if he can :-) is that the cat doesn't have to engage in long
winded treasies about bacteria and the ancient greeks to justify it.

Such as this:

And to some extent, we - some of us - can shape our own feelings to
become more like what we *understand* to be best. Some people are so
far gone that their feelings warp their reason, and then they're
stuck. Society, culture, religion, science, and law are all about
taming passions to reason.

Perfect example. Try living up to the standards you've espoused rather
than preach them and you might have some credibility with us.

I don't want to take things to an argument of abstraction making the
discussion meaningless though.

But I
read about some resent experiments where chimps acted helpfully to
humans in a situation where no rewards were expected. Maybe we and the
chimps have a sense of order, a vision of a better world, that's
actually sort of impersonal. Rationally, I prefer a world where people
are helpful and peaceful and polite, so I try to act that way.

One thing about people who compare themselves to chimps is that they
usually aren't that far off from the depth of their observations. :-)

Ironically, many people are helpful, peaceful, and polite because
they're frightened of getting their butts kicked by people who aren't.

And many others are helpful, peaceful, and polite because they know
they are strong enough.Actually, I'd guess that selfishness and
rudeness are most often consequences of weakness and fear.

Agreed. So who here has been going around with the name calling? Hmmm?

Pot, meet kettle.

If you repeatedly "shock the monkey" when it fails to act a certain way
(pray, bow at an altar, or spew off politically correct or chivalrous
beliefs), it will ultimately come to think a certain way and even engage
in rationalizations for it's actions. A dog salivates at the ring of a
bell 'all for himself'...

As far as dying for my kids, my breeding days are probably over, I can
expect to live much fewer years than they will, I've had a lot of fun,
so it makes sense that I might trade the rest of my life for them, if
it came to that. So the selfish gene becomes altruistic.


"As we grow older and realize more clearly the limitations of human
happiness, we come to see that the only real and abiding pleasure in
life is to give pleasure to other people."

- P. G. Wodehouse, in "Life at Blandings"

Once again, it's funny to hear you preach about politeness and kindness
while you hurl insults at others for being emotional and hateful.

I don't hurl insults. I don't swear. I don't call people stupid. The
thing that seems to infuriate people the most is when I ask questions.

I asked you two questions and you blew them off. You have rarely asked
me any questions and if so, I certainly answered them quite promptly.

It would be neat if your little rationalist fantasy was true but then
again, it would be neat if the point you had originally tried to shore
up was true too. Quite frankly, I've forgotten it. Was it that your
desire to protect your wife was based upon your own personal principle
of honor? (The same one you're now bragging about is based upon social
behaviour.)

I'm honestly confused and just having fun at this point watching your
various chains that are yanked work the kinks out.

And this *is* usenet. It's a game, it ain't real life, and most people
hide behind synthetic personnae. How can I insult someone who has no
identity and may actually not exist? And where better to pontificate?

Are you really a Polish Knight?

Indeed, you haven't done a very good job of insulting me. :-)

I have a pseudonym like many people here because of the harsh nature of
this forum. Jill's been stalked. I had a relative get angry at me for
things I said even though I didn't refer to her by name.

Oh, the answer to your question is no. It was a cute nickname someone
gave me in a blog I contributed to and I liked it.

The people who
take this position usually do so to avoid any responsibility toward
gratitude or reciprocation, or even common manners.

It's interesting you should say that because it was your claim that you
merely did what you felt was right without expecting gratitude or
reciprocation (pardon me if I am mistaken). If we believed that your
wife was as likely to throw herself in front of a bus to save you as
vice-versa, most of this discussion would be moot.

She's probably wouldn't do that, if only because of physical timidity
in such situations. That's OK with me; we are different.

Another word for "different" is UNEQUAL.

Good grief, of course she's different. I wouldn't want to marry
myself!

Indeed! If you desire (damn, that word is laced with a lot now!), I
would like to discuss seriously how the notion of equality for women is
nonsensical since feminists continually about women's different needs.
A society that defines "equality" as what women want is one that doesn't
even acknowledge men's existance other than as resource providers or as
oppressors.

That said, what does your wife think of that? If she loves you,
wouldn't she want her provider and protector to live in a society that
recognizes and values his contribution?

regards,
PolishKnight
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Women Never Earned The Right To Vote
    ... John Larkin wrote: ... emotional position that everything that anyone does is for selfish ... emotionalism and "hating" while you engage in name-calling and negative ... "Its more than a feeling, when I hear that old song they used to play ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Women Never Earned The Right To Vote
    ... John Larkin wrote: ... emotional position that everything that anyone does is for selfish ... emotionalism and "hating" while you engage in name-calling and negative ... "Its more than a feeling, when I hear that old song they used to play ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: English composition
    ... I have a feeling that there are people ... That's a very wise and sensible post, John. ... human condition, my eerily comprehensive understanding of group behavior, my ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: English composition
    ... I have a feeling that there are people ... That's a very wise and sensible post, John. ... human condition, my eerily comprehensive understanding of group behavior, ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Deep Impact Kicks Off Fourth of July with Deep Space Fireworks
    ... What I said, about "feeling better" ... Morton Thiokol engineers responsible for the Challenger disaster, ... Unlike a cool analysis of O-ring physics or the probability that an ... The real irrationality is confusion of power with rationality as if the ...
    (sci.space.policy)