Ye shall gather store of women .
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"In general, most generalizations a flawed.
And most people aren't like most people anyway."
What does that mean? Sounds just plain wrong. Otherwise well crafted generalizations can appear to be flawed when they are expected to be something they are not. To point out how the generalization fails to account for an individual characteristic is like saying an apple is not a watermelon. Senseless.
No one is saying that everyone is the same. Why state the irrelevant obvious? To obfuscate, if you ask me.
The neurotic aversion to something as simple as a 'generalization' among liberals is something to behold. This sort of logic and discourse is why Savage has concluded that Liberalism is a mental disorder, and Denis Prager calls the psychology/philosophy emerging on the Left from the sixties "The Age of Stupidity"
Simple, obvious observations are falsely labeled in a negative light (words like bigot are used) because it is politically incorrect. Jim, you are averse to most political correctness but in this matter you have succumbed.
Men and Women are VERY different. Genetically, chemically, hormonally, ==> temperament, behavior.... It may be politically incorrect, but its true. Half a century of Leftist denial hasn't changed that.
I highly recommend folks tune into Prager's male-female hour. You might learn something.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"In general, most generalizations a flawed.And most people aren't like most people anyway."
What does that mean? Sounds just plain wrong."
It's a self-busting commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of generalizations.
"Otherwise well crafted generalizations can appear to be flawed when they are expected to be something they are not."
If you don't qualify them when stating them, then they come across as absolute, invariable statements. Yes, you have to use language better, saing things like, "More often than not," and "In cases I've seen," etc. Otherwise, they are nearly always factually wrong.
"To point out how the generalization fails to account for an individual characteristic is like saying an apple is not a watermelon. Senseless."
Wrong. It's good use of language.
You can't say, "People named Labyrinthus have green hair" and have it be a right unless you've done a 100% survey. You can, however, say, "Anyone I've ever known named Labyrinthus has had green hair," or some other qualifying remark - that returns it to a statement of your experience.
"\The neurotic aversion to something as simple as a 'generalization' among liberals is something to behold."
They do tend to be the foundation of a lot of bigotry, not to mention simply wrong information. (I tend to give conservatives the benefit the doubt and assume that their greater tendency to flat statements is a result of poorer education and bad rearing, rather than diminished mental capacity or moral corruption.)
It's just intellectually and linguistically sloppy! That's why I categorize it as an education issue. If I were grading an English paper, I'd mark it red on the basis of construction.
"Simple, obvious observations are falsely labeled in a negative light (words like bigot are used) because it is politically incorrect. Jim, you are averse to most political correctness but in this matter you have succumbed."
If I take you at your word - read exactly what you right and interpret it as you say it - and you persist in making flat statements without qualifications or allowing for exceptions - then I must conclude that you mean what you say.
To say, in English, "Women are a pain!" actually means "All women are a pain always." That's what the language means.
"Men and Women are VERY different. Genetically, chemically, hormonally, ==> temperament, behavior.... It may be politically incorrect, but its true. Half a century of Leftist denial hasn't changed that."
The majority of differences are socialization. The remainder of the differences are negligible other than for the specific issues of sexual reproduction and matters immediately attached to that. It's science, not denial.
-
@Froclown said
"By nature women only care about babies, being the center of attention and stirring up drama."
I agree, to a point.
In the same way, men might be said to be a mere collection of base desires, revolving around the basic necessities of food, sex, and shallow conquest.
There are higher and lower types of our species, and the higher type of male distinguishes himself by cultivating detachment and his latent divinity.
Yet I must say, (at the risk of sounding like the Advocate's Advocate), I have yet to meet a Woman who did not wear her attainments like a badge of glory. Likewise, those who make progress in the spiritual realm tend to be cold, manic, and austere. In my experience.
I've had a string of relationships with girls who fall into the category of "bipolar." It is still wonderous to me that these creatures did not destroy me in their fits of passion. While I have little patience for the type of woman described by Froclown, at the same time I retain a healthy respect for Womankind in the ideal.
-
"Likewise, those who make progress in the spiritual realm tend to be cold, manic, and austere."
Hey! I resemble that remark.....
I always though my coldness came from my longitude and latitude
my mania, well from the root man....
and well austere....from Saturnian influences.....
JK
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"You can't say, "People named Labyrinthus have green hair" and have it be a right unless you've done a 100% survey."
That isn't a generalization then, but more of an assessment. If you say that, "in general people named Labyrinthus have green hair" and if it is for the most part true it is accurate and can be useful generalization to those wanting to know something about hair color. The fact that it is not 100% true in all cases is what distinguishes a generalization from an absolute statement of fact.
To say that "women in general are more moody than men" is a generalization and it is accurate. To say, "I know a woman who is like an emotional rock and a man who suffers giant mood swings" is totally irrelevant and does not compromise the integrity of the generalization at all. But I have noticed there are a LOT of people out there who cannot understand this.
If my son comes to me for advice about his wife's mood swings I can console him with the general observation that this is true for a large percentage of the gender and suggest he learn how to deal with it like most men do.
Generalizations can be useful and be used for good. -
Agreed, when they are well stated, as in this last post.
-
It's kind of hard to assess the exact level of "moody" for another person.
In observable terms, we might say that one example is having an over-the-top emotional response to an irritating, but minor situation. From my professional experience, it seems pretty equal with both genders. Some people are usually moody, some people are sometimes moody, some people are seldom moody. Regardless of gender.
What I do notice, though, is that when the moody person is a female, she's 'hormonal', or 'must be menstruating'. And when the moody person is a male, he's just legitimately angry.
Kind of like the studies that show that when people don't know an infant's gender, they report boys and girls as behaving identically. But when they do know the gender, suddenly the boys are more 'alert' and 'responsive'.
In conversations like this, I notice that some people inevitably point out the differences between group A and group B. Yep, there are always differences between two groups. Men and woman have, on average, different hormonal cocktails flowing through their systems. That's science.
But what the people who forward this type of argument seem to be missing is this: just because there are differences, doesn't mean that there is no such thing as bigotry. It's not like we have terminator vision, and every time we consider a demographic or meet a new person, our mind has a scientifically-based assessment of their odds of behaving a certain way (race:x chance of moodiness 54% athleticism 18% etc).
The scientific truth is that there are differences to be found in any 2 groups of people, including gender, and semi-arbitrary racial divisions (as race is a somewhat nebulous concept, genetically speaking), etc.
The scientific truth is also that MOST of us have gender and racial biases that color our judgment of other people's traits and behaviors. (based on science, not conjecture)*
Those two are not at odds with each other. They just are a word to the wise, to leave the generalizations to the scientific studies, and approach each person as a unique snowflake.
EDIT *Here's an interesting one, where mothers imagine their boys to be more motor coordinated than they are, and their daughters, less
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11063631 -
93
Are you a Lawyer Jim? I'm sure I read that somewhere, anyway, you could argue black is white and I'd be inclined to believe you.
This thread is becoming increasingly Ruach bound.
Personally I quite like cold women, they are more likely to have enough of there own mind and interests to allow me mine. Intellectual and emotional independence are invaluable, especially on any kind of spiritual path, which is inherently selfish.
I actually left my Fiancé because she could not reconcile herself to my Magickal predilections, she unfortunately did fall into the category of needy and emotionally volatile, and generally disliked anything that took my attention away from her. so from my point of view a cool headed woman is a blessing.93 93/93
-
@Solitarius said
"Are you a Lawyer Jim? I'm sure I read that somewhere, anyway, you could argue black is white and I'd be inclined to believe you."
I practiced law for 14 years (10 of it in private practice) before deciding to do something more fun and more useful. Now I lead the IT team for one office of the largest law firm west of the Mississippi. -
@Solitarius said
"That's a bit more laid back, plus you get to spend the whole day surfing the internet."
Though I joke that they pay be to play with computers, talk on the phone, solve puzzles, and walk the halls, that doesn't quite capture all the fine points <g>.
"Law is a bit too much high pressure for me, I trip over my tongue too much, I'm better at physical stuff."
It was altering my personality in ways I didn't like, including ways that altered close personal relationships. Nonetheless, I gained enormously from it (not counting the income).
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"It was altering my personality in ways I didn't like, including ways that altered close personal relationships."
My grandfather worked as a lawyer for a while. He began refusing to take certain cases for personal reasons and the boss called him in and explained, "if you want to work as a lawyer you must do this sort of work".
So he quit. This was around 1933 and the only job he could get was working the ticket window for the railroad.
He held that job till he retired. -
Here is the issue.
when you say, Men and women are not different and that you praise women who are not like my example.
Then it is not really women you praise at all nor is it men whom you praise. Instead you praise something different from men and women, something artificial. You praise a person only so much as they are "human" as defined by Humanism, which is not the biological human, the human with gender and those unsavory ape like qualities. It is instead an ideal, unreal artificial construction a polite, politically correct, self restrained creature, a Subspecies of Homo-Civilus called Homo-liberal. Humanism does not praise reality, it creates a being that is a bundle of anxiety and neurosis, constantly concerned that anyone or anything may be deemed superior or inferior to anyone else.
This Human has such an extreme self loathing that it can't even stand to be reminded of it's own self image as weak and inferior by so much as admitting that even a statement like "bricks fall to the earth" is true, on account that it means contrary statements are false and inferior. We must accept the false and the true as Equals you know, or else we are being Nazi's or bullies or bigots of some kind.
The humanist praises not the Human, but the lowest and most base possible commonalities, mistakenly labeled Human.
If we are to truly accept and praise true humanity, we must accept a humanity that consists of Men and Women who are different. Women must be seen as I have portrayed her truthfully, and praised for being that, the Sacred Whore. And the Man the true ape like Beast, with all those "Flaws" which we see in apes and polite society tells us are "just awful" so that we must hide them away under the surface of this sexless domestication, and we must be ASHAMED of these SINs that are are true nature, and live up to the ideal of the Sinless Man who is not of earthly ape-like bestial nature, but the ideal civilized domesticated man who is from heaven.
Humanism = Christianity = Consumerism = Nihilism = Death.
Thelema is not humanism.
In Thelema women are encouraged to work her ways of wickedness and seduction, to be whores
Men likewise are encouraged to be manly and brutal to fight as brothers and to the victor go the spoils.The so called "Human" of the Humanists, are the wretched and weak that are to be stomped out of existence.
-
When a person really believes something, they don't usually go on and on about it as much as you do.
-
@Froclown said
"
Thelema is not humanism.
In Thelema women are encouraged to work her ways of wickedness and seduction, to be whores
Men likewise are encouraged to be manly and brutal to fight as brothers and to the victor go the spoils.The so called "Human" of the Humanists, are the wretched and weak that are to be stomped out of existence."
This is the kind of social Darwinism found only in Socio-paths and inadequate, it has Nothing to do with Thelema and everything to do with an inverted inferiority complex.
Although its arguable from the third book of Liber Legis that people should treat women like cattle and take an "every man for himself" attitude, That kind of Victorian socio-Jingoism went out with the 1940's.
My personal belief is that the third book had more to do with the two world wars and with A.C's personal life than with any general and eternal rule for life. -
@Solitarius said
"This is the kind of social Darwinism found only in Socio-paths and inadequate, it has Nothing to do with Thelema and everything to do with an inverted inferiority complex."
I thought Froclown's little essay was rather well done. The bold declaration of truth is anathema to Liberals so it is easy to understand how he can come across as a sociopath. To say that his comments "have nothing to do with Thelema" looks to be just plain wrong. From what little I have been able to learn so far, his view looks more like Thelemic Fundamentalism.
@Solitarius said
"That kind of Victorian socio-Jingoism went out with the 1940's."
Truth does go out of style with regular frequency.
I don't agree with everything Froclown says but he is more right than wrong. The humanistic pabulum that Liberals thrive on just will not do for sincere truth seekers.
-
from what I've seen any kind of fundamentalism is damaging, its basically a way of lobotomising yourself and replacing thoughts with Dogma, I suppose its easier to just stick to a set of hard and fast rules, (which are open to a Huge amount of interpretation) than to actually examine the facts and come to a logical opinion.
IN the real world when someone exercises social Darwinism they are promptly destroyed by the Herd, which to me doesn't seem like a good way to facilitate ones Will, unless your suicidal, besides, the herd will destroy itself soon enough.
I wouldn't call myself a Liberal in your sense of the word, I see no reason why men should behave like animals, that's just second circuit Anal/tribal behaviour, although about 50-75% of humanity still fall into this category we're not all that unconscious of ourselves that we can only function on that level. -
@Solitarius said
"I wouldn't call myself a Liberal in your sense of the word,"
Right, as I pointed out before, most liberals will not admit that they are liberal.
@Solitarius said
"I see no reason why men should behave like animals"
Another classic. No one here has suggested doing so, have they? (Other than quoting Crowley... is that what you are referring to?)
