Re: The assault on normal people

On Aug 1, 2:13 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 31, 12:14 pm, Rob <robwil...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hmmm. I think the principal problem is that the behaviours you think
of as normal are not the behaviours that the majority of the voting
public think of as normal.

Again you have no specifics,

You gave them yourself, there wasn't much need for me to. The
Operation Ore and Home Alone cases raised no significant objection
from the public, who seem to have an insatiable appetite for such
'initiatives'.

probably because you don't
want to admit I'm right on anything.

Yeah, that would be it. I'm just another evil schemer out to get you.

The majority of the voting public are now women and woman's instinct,
deeply entrenched over hundreds of thousands of years, is to get man
to provide, one way or another, for what she regards as her children
and to have free choice over which men sire them.

I know this. And given that we know it, we can control it.

How?

Civilisation is based on the subjection of women. The fact
that it worked for thousands of years pretty much proves
it's not impossible.

Do you mean subjugation of women (if so, I have a long, uphill task
ahead), or something else?

She doesn't
rationalise her behaviour to herself (or to you) like this, she'd
probably be horrified if you suggested it even. But that is one of the
wonders of human consciousness, it is largely an instinct-
rationalising mechanism beautifully designed to hide this purpose from
its owner.

Female consciousness!

It's not specific to women. Men's consciousness works in a similar
way, although instinct may be more influential to women's greater
reproductive role.

Any society at our point in the technological scale (that is with a
means of generating and storing artificial power but not yet fully
capable of artificial reproduction) is bound to go through a
realignment of norms from the pre-mechanised 'man's world' to the post-
mechanised 'woman's world'. At this point man's productive resources
have depreciated in value, he is no longer vital to working the farm
or providing the pension, woman's reproductive resources haven't.

This is silly. Men are just as 'productive' today as ever,
relative to women.

The point was that technology has changed the relationship between the
necessity to a community of men's productive resource and women's
reproductive resource. The 20thC World Wars provide a good example.
The men were still sent off to war but the women were more capable
(not 'as' capable as men, 'more' capable than they were in previous
wars) to keep production going at home, so that even more men could be
fed into the war machine.

I agree that industrialisation has something
to do with feminism but I haven't yet figured out how exactly.

I encourage you to keep searching and keep us posted about your
findings.

Politicians, government, the CPS and the courts implement these
changes in norms but they are simply agents, they are not the
underlying problem. They have no choice. If they did things any
differently they'd simply get replaced.

The reason we have laws - well one of the reasons - is to
ensure police, CPS, courts, etc. do not have unlimited power
to implement these things. In any case, these changes
have to come from somewhere, they don't just happen; and
who asked for most of them, anyway?

The voting public, by electing people who espoused them. The big
change that has happened over the last 100 years is that the voting
public has increasingly been dominated by women... who want their
children paid for... The basic connection isn't that complex (but more
on that below).

So I'm not sniping, I'm trying to encourage you to see things
differently.

I'm seeing the truth, dammit. Can you handle the truth?

Hahaha. Can any of us?

If and when you do I think you'll appreciate that the
energy spent attacking e.g. the CPS would be better
spent managing the inevitable social changes wrought
by technological progress in ways that suit both sexes
and all ages.

I haven't seen you offering any solutions.

You presented a case in this thread, I asked questions about it.
That's where we've got to currently.

Who is to say there are any solutions? But even if there are, before
we start on them we need to agree on what the problem is. I understand
you to be saying that you currently think that the problem is that
other people's hypocrisy and malign bureaucracy are combining to
assault normal people and that we can start to solve these problems by
abolishing the CPS and banning sting operations.

To me, other people's hypocrisy and malign bureaucracy are not
problems themselves but, if they are a feature at all, are more likely
to be symptoms of other issues.

The root of the problem, in my eyes, is the technological stage we
have reached. And more deeply, our species' ability to cope with
technological changes generally.

Human brains appear to have developed to cope with what
anthropologists call the Ancestral Environment. Hunter gathering on
plains, mainly. The evidence we have about that time is that
technology changed very little over hundreds of thousands of years.
c40,000 years ago that changed as we spread out through the world
(although not so much back in Africa, interestingly). c10,000 years
ago the daddy of all changes started, the agricultural revolution.
Since then it's been change all the way, accelerating massively these
last 250 years.

Recent technological innovation, from electricity through the washing
machine to the atomic bomb and onwards, has changed the relationship
between the sexes. Freed from dependence on the family unit, equipped
with a strong instinct for individual identity, fashion (nature offers
no warranty about consistency) and birth control pills and benefitting
from men's protective instinct towards them, western women naturally
pushed for political influence. They got the vote and progressively
used it until, nowadays, they make up a clear majority of the voting
public. Politicians, men or women, have to listen to what women want
or they don't get elected. Businesses have to do the same or their
products won't sell as well as their competitors'. If you've worked in
a political or economic research environment you'll know how
influential women are as a consequence of their number and their
adherence (for good survival reasons) to fashion. By fashion I mean
that women like to do (broadly) what other women do, while men are
less likely to behave in that way. That's a recognised consequence of
their respective reproductive resources.

Solutions, if there are any other than gritting our teeth and waiting
for the next technology swing or environmental changes to force a re-
balancing (by e.g. automating human reproduction, virtualising
relationships or running out of fuel, food or oxygen), are therefore
likely to centre around mechanisms to help people cope with technology
change. Short term changes, during one or two lifetimes, are probably
more of a problem than ones our parents have got used to before we are
born.

Let's look at what seems to be the main (or at least the first and
most concrete) problem
you set out in your OP: "...criminalising behavior that is essentially
normal... as it relates to 'sex offences'. For example, the prevailing
ideology surrounding 'statutory rape' and related offences is based on
the lie that no normal adult man would have sexual
interest in anyone under 18."

Most women do not perceive such behaviour as normal (or acceptable)
and, because they are now the most influential political and social
group, by definition it no longer is. It is not other people's
hypocrisy and malign bureaucracy at fault, it is more a consequence of
universal suffrage, itself facilitated by the changes described
above.

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and full 50/50
child custody
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why I may never sell.
    ... I don't know of another similar technology. ... time before it will be tested in a production environment. ... three biggest oil corporations. ... which is being applied to upgrading heavy oil into valuable ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: H2 burner
    ... the only technology you have that isn't already ... This would allow them to begin to compete with me, ... (I own critical parts of the supply chain) ... for major hydro-carbon production using the technology. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Who will buy SCO
    ... There is NO VIABILITY left in SCO. ... In the interim the computer usage has expanded from one SCO server with 10 terminals to one SCO server, 6 windows servers, 60 desktops, 8 Dumb Terminals for timeclock and load scanning usage, CAD computers, and Computers controlling Production Machines. ... This is the technology you are deriding. ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)
  • Re: 71% Say Finding New Energy Sources More Important than Conservation
    ... It wasn't until Ford and his mass production factories that we got today's cars, but by then the wealthy consumers had already made their choice on car engine type. ... So Fordwith model T and A did a technology force that even though popular in the '20s and '30s Stanley was not able to overcome. ... There have been numerous instances of the better technology driven out of business by the firms that could mass produce (and market) an inferior model. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: 71% Say Finding New Energy Sources More Important than Conservation
    ... It wasn't until Ford and his mass production factories that we got today's cars, but by then the wealthy consumers had already made their choice on car engine type. ... So Fordwith model T and A did a technology force that even though popular in the '20s and '30s Stanley was not able to overcome. ... There have been numerous instances of the better technology driven out of business by the firms that could mass produce (and market) an inferior model. ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading