@sun_the_second's banner p

sun_the_second


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

				

User ID: 2725

sun_the_second


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2725

The purpose of a revealing outfit is to entice. The difference between a woman who's a whore and a woman who isn't is whether she accepts transactions.

Ascribing puritan religious morality to it that demands a man to keep his wife visibly chaste-loosing (as opposed to flaunting what he has, allowing others to look without seeing all of it, not to mention not touch) doesn't sound very Bronze Age.

The Trump voting base, to pick one example, is not going to be interested in an algorithmic feed that is designed by people who have flat out said that they are explicitly looking to change the way that they vote - and while I'm not going to talk about the high IQ of the median Trump voter, even they are going to realise that something is off when their AI feed constantly compares him unfavourably to Hitler and routinely refuses requests because it considers them racist. I'm sure the technology will improve a bit over time, but all it'll take will be a single leak of the prompt and a huge portion of the country(let alone the globe) will put those AI algorithms in the same category as Bud Light.

There are a few "based unbiased [actually biased in the opposite direction probably] AIs" hosted on the web.

If your sex distribution is not 1/1 male/female, but, say, 1/4 (at birth, without doing stuff like culling male embryos), then each woman only has to bear 5/4 children instead of 2/1.

Many materialists also seem to reject regular psychology, too. Whether trying to prove natural or supernatural phenomena, looking inside the minds of people is at most a very inexact science at the moment.

I do think we've ruled out walking on water and multiplying breads.

I think no one can predict what they'll do perfectly, even if an action is quite possible physically. To build willpower, to the extent to which it's possible, is to increase the chances of following through with the things you feel like doing, and perhaps to increase the chances of wanting to do what you'd be ready to follow through.

Would it really bother me that my actions are deterministic/stochastically deterministic if I don't know what I'm going to want in the next second, let alone do?

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

This astute mind of the Motte is going to suggest that your revulsion is misguided. If you so desire to talk him out of it, you should focus on the (presumably) larger amount of NSA sex she had for free. Feels more befitting of the "CUCK CUCK CUCK" screaming.

Meanwhile me, recognizing that scene like an old friend. "That's it! That's where the Space Marine meme is from!"

The discussion spurred me to read the book. If that's what all Sorokin is like, I ought to check out some of his other work.

Does the T-rex want to hunt, or does it want to be fed through the process of hunting? Would it miss anything if, much like your falcon, it could engage in very authentic play that had no possibility of it failing and starving, or at least not starving as a result of failure?

Different from living 20 years? Well, sure that person would likely be far more set in their ways, whatever "their ways" ended up being, but is that really fundamental?

Tell me what kind of societies they'd be living in for 20 thousand years, and there's your answer.

No, I don't mean "better more earlier sex education". I mean addressing the power/status disparity, atomization, pregnancy/STD risk and other factors that make teens ill-equipped to participate in society. It is not a simple task, it is not just about teens and it certainly won't amount to "better education".

If a person lived for 20 years as one sex and acquired the interests, mannerisms and habits that are associated with it, then did a perfect sex change, I reckon they'd still be clockable as trans. However, if we assume a society where such experiments are possible from a young age, and accordingly neither gendered socialization nor biological-based habits that might be dependent on biological sex (such as, as the memes go, the interest in coding and obscure political forums) have time to settle in - I'd assume only a minority of "natal essentialists" would care which bits and chromosomes you were originally conceived with.

We'll be way past such quaint historical practices as "natural athletes", let alone dividing them by current sex.

It's not "morally wrong" for an animal to try that, the same as it isn't "morally wrong" for a bear to try and maul you. Indeed, I've never seen anyone judging a bear for doing that.

When you shoot an animal that does something you don't like, it's not because they're morally in the wrong, it's becausee they're doing something you don't like.

If you want one to provide an argument that wins against your hypothetical nebulous "them", then it's a rigged game from the start. Any opposing force that behaves like you describe will either force their rules through if they're stronger, or won't if they aren't. There isn't any point in discussing arguments, just push against them with the same "ew, date someone your own age, creep" that works well now. Or woodchippers, if you're more physically inclined.

The current concept of the age of consent is a messy empirical thing that evolved from (obligatory disclaimer that the list is non-exhaustive):

  • the concept of female virginity as an asset, especially one that the girl's family has a stake in
  • the taboo on sodomy and male homosexuality
  • the risk of unwanted pregnancy and STDs, even as contraception exists
  • the social status harm that comes with the reputation of being indiscriminate in sexual contacts
  • the evaporation effect of heavy age of consent laws/stigma, meaning that the adults who do mess around with minors despite all that aren't the most conscientous bunch
  • atomization of society, meaning that repercussions against actions that are legal yet unethical are unreliable
  • the disparity in social and economic power between minors and adults, seeing as the former don't work and don't have access to many enticing things adults have such as legally buying alcohol or access to parties

A non-empirical, rigorous case can probably be made against the big P Pedophilia, as in involving the big C Children. Anything with teens? I see two ways for you if you want to reduce the impact of any nebulous MAPs who are gonna come out of the woodwork any second now. If you want to prevent the acts from happening, go chip in with the "ew, she's only 19 and you're 25, are you too infantile for mature women?" crowd. If you are more interested in preventing harm, improving society in the direction that will actually make teens better equipped to handle relations with adults (sexual and otherwise) seems to be the way.

Wouldn't that be a little bit preferable to a scenario where people spend resources jumping between body's identities on a mere whim? I mean, in a post-scarcity situation it hardly matters, but as a practical concern it seems MUCH SIMPLER to just have everyone take the "accept your gender identity" pill.

Are you advocating for this or are you arguing that it would be simpler from the society-government-blob point of view?

No, a "simple" future where everyone is homogenized to be 100% straight, 100% right-handed, and then (why not? it makes calculations and assumptions about strangers so much easier!) 100% the same body type, same temperament, same phenotype etc. is not "a little bit" preferable to me. It is, in fact, highly unpreferable. It feels weird to be, for once, the one who is assuming his opponents literally want to create a society of bugmen who will live in a pod and be happy, but that's the vibes I'm getting right now.

No thanks. Give me the furries. Hell, let them vore each other all they want as long as they do it somewhere else with mutual consent.

This is conflating attraction/sexual activity with adolescents with pedophilia.

I've used the word like I see it used. I'm assuming the moral panic back then was not limited to "it's only bad when they're pre-pubescent".

When conservatives clamor that X will "make pederasty legal" when the central example of pederasty is very much "fucking young boys", "sex with 16 year old teens is now allowed for both sexes" is a technicality I'm not giving them any points on.

No, I don't buy that definition game. Gay marriage has not opened the way to any age gaps that weren't already allowed between men and women. If you call that pederasty, then we've already been living in the age of general pedophilia and been fine with it.

However, it turns out that no, the sexual revolution has not actually opened up the floodgates of adults fucking kids, and in fact has been increasingly moving away from it. Where marrying 16 year old girls has been widely accepted before and younger wasn't out of question, we now only see the allowed age/perceived maturity gap shrinking (that's an AND slash, not an OR - "she was very mature for her age" doesn't cut it anymore).

It complicates things that, as far as I understand, a trans normie probably does HRT later/not at all and thus passes worse than a radical.

What would it look like if the richer side needed the money more? Could that ever happen? Maybe there could be situations where the richer party has “farther to fall” than the poorer party.

In theory, you could have a rich entrepreneur who doesn't have the skills to live off the land on his own, and a poor worker who does. If they don't make a deal, the laborer has his garden and chickens and the oil baron starves.

In practice, I don't recall ever hearing of such cases.

"Has further to fall" is a misnomer, what matters more is "can fall lower". Going down from billionaire to worker class is a different kind of falling than falling from worker class to penniless.

One can also play the "racists denying brown people their childhood" card when someone suggests that a 17-year-old freedom fighter is a noncentral example of a "child".

He's been in that specific prison for two months. If CIA could not only turn a prison guard on such a short notice, but also to coach them well enough to make it look like a medical accident - while Navalny was allegedly about to be exchanged, a valuable asset to watch and guard - well, I applaud them.

It appears that while some evils are the product of base human instinct, many are learned in civilization just as much as the "civilized" behaviour is. And it's not like civilization has been descended from above unto us. We didn't make up kind and compassionate behaviour when we became civilized - we learned to extend our natural kindness to a larger circle of people. And also, of course, to project our negative proclivities onto artificially constructed enemies.

Hardline Ukrainian pro-Ukrainians (as opposed to pro-Ukrainians of opportunity) mostly hate Navalny for supporting/not opposing Crimea's annexation back in 2014.

https://www.mk.ru/politics/2014/10/15/navalnyy-ne-otdam-krym-ukraine-kogda-stanu-prezidentom.html

"Let's not deceive ourselves. And my advice to Ukrainians to not deceive themselves either. Crimea is staying as a part of Russia and is never becoming a part of Ukraine again in the near future."

(when asked if he'd return it if he became president) "Is it a sandwich, to be passed back and forth?"

Predictably, Navalny has earned the nickname "sandwich" among a certain slice of people.

"Americans have an agent in a Russian prison in the middle of shitfuck nowhere, specifically in the one Navalny was transferred to ~a year ago" sounds a bit less plausible than "Americans could blow up a pipeline in the sea".