Ideal

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:23 pm

I got stuck thinking about this (traffic jam)
What really is the Ideal society. Playing my own devil's advocate was hard enough without each idea making me seem like a complete ass-hole. So, evil ideas excluded, what are your ideas?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:06 pm

In an ideal society, everyone would behave logically.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:01 pm

I believe the ideal society would be family farms, people providing for their own needs, avoiding dependancy on others as much as possible.

Cities are unnatural. The human stress response is permanently on in a city.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:10 am

There would be no need to work. Food would be tasty but not fattening. Girls would be available 24/7.

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:00 am

.

Carl G writes:

Girls would be available 24/7.

How would this, Carl G, be ideal for the women involved? You have them classed along with things, like work and food. What kind of human ideal is this?

It's a good thing that reason-as-salvation receives so much focus and reminder here. You [men] really need it; need reminded of and working upon it at all time, for you may have more biological unconsciousness to fight than any woman ever will.

.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:11 am

Pye wrote:.
for you may have more biological unconsciousness to fight than any woman ever will.

.

That is a really good point. Men have more testosterone than women, and testosterone is what drives sexuality and thoughtless aggression.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:27 am

Pye wrote:.

Carl G writes:
Girls would be available 24/7.
How would this, Carl G, be ideal for the women involved? You have them classed along with things, like work and food. What kind of human ideal is this?

It's a good thing that reason-as-salvation receives so much focus and reminder here. You [men] really need it; need reminded of and working upon it at all time, for you may have more biological unconsciousness to fight than any woman ever will.

.

There's this thing called life. Some animals perpetuate life through sexual reproduction. A man needs a woman to accomplish this. It's all on the up and up, I promise.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:43 am

Pye wrote:

You [men] really need it; need reminded of and working upon it at all time, for you may have more biological unconsciousness to fight than any woman ever will.

mil wrote:

There's this thing called life. Some animals perpetuate life through sexual reproduction. A man needs a woman to accomplish this. It's all on the up and up, I promise.

evidence that one does not need to be concious to have sex

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:05 am

Wow. I'd like a sex somniac life partner.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:17 am

Pye wrote:.

Carl G writes:
Girls would be available 24/7.
How would this, Carl G, be ideal for the women involved? You have them classed along with things, like work and food. What kind of human ideal is this?
.

I meant ideal for me. :)

We're in Worldy Matters, right?

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:50 am

.

millipodium:

There's this thing called life. Some animals perpetuate life through sexual reproduction. A man needs a woman to accomplish this.

yeah, yeah, it's called "life" for the men by the men here, and it's called "unconsciousness/unconscious behaviour" for women by the self-same men. Talk to the purveyors of this irrational bullshit. I think Carl G is one of them.

Yes, really, why should I care if you butt-fuck each other in prison and then when you get out, beat the shit out of gays? Why should I care if you sit in a forensic stupor looking at female genitalia, or wave your wee-wees at young girls, or try to fit yourselves into a 5-year old vagina or a 14-year old female mouth? Why should I care if you put weak women on a dog-collar and leash so you can pull them back and forth with abuse/apology/abuse/apology? Why should I care that your great life drive produces multiple children you want no conscious interaction with or misogyny of epic and irrational proportions from your self-torturously ambivalent women-needs? Why should I care if you use women's bodies to sell each other consumer shit and services, or build a multimillion-dollar international sex-slave trade so you can always have access to women and boys, and why should I care that you cover-up and lie about all of this and cover each other's backs with laws of hypocritical design and cannot or will not enter into conscious partnership with women at any level? Why should I care, you with your "up and up" life drive?*

Sure, why should I care . . . . but I'd hardly call it a human ideal.

*(all "you"s rhetorically addressed and all amped language for punch.)

Carl G:

I meant ideal for me. :)

Fair enough, yon philosopher. slack off, if you will.

.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:00 am

Pye. Do you masturbate?

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:26 am

You've brought our conversation from ideal human society to masturbation. As I said, in a discussion like this, there are the inventors, the advocates, and the ass-holes. You can be a n ass-hole if you like, just be a tiny bit more
civilized about it... Please.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:29 am

Well, milli might be heading for an actual point there; in fact, I'm sure he is, but anyway, obviously the ideal society would be one absent of delusion. To get there, however, we have to work on ourselves as individuals.

As for the reaction to Carl's statement, get the hell over it. If a woman has said "boys 24/7" no-one would have batted an eyelid. At least he didn't say "sheep 24/7".

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:46 pm

his point is probably somewhere along the lines of, "the ideal society is where everyone gets exactly what they want", but im trying to keep it more realistic. As for my reaction to carl's statement, i really should have said something like "subtlety might help with that one." But honestly, if this had become a conversation headed the way I wanted it to, his role would have been "ass-hole"(or whatever you want to call it) until he showed his reasons for saying what he said.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:01 pm

His was not a serious reply to the question. It's as simple as that.

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:31 pm

I know. That's the only way to get the role of "ass-hole". Im sorry that you think I overreacted, but maybe you should listen to your own advice, and let it go.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:40 pm

Relax, I wasn't speaking of your reaction, but rather pye's...

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:28 am

Borommakot wrote:You've brought our conversation from ideal human society to masturbation. As I said, in a discussion like this, there are the inventors, the advocates, and the ass-holes. You can be a n ass-hole if you like, just be a tiny bit more
civilized about it... Please.

This is what I'm getting at. Do you believe in love?

Consider the Huey Lewis gem:

Do You Believe in Love
DO you believe in love?
I was walking down a one way street
Just a looking for someone to meet
One woman who was looking for a man
Now Im hoping that the feeling is right
And Im wondering if youll stay for the night
So Im coming (I dont wanna be lonely)
I wanna love you all over

Do you believe in love
Do you believe it true
Do you believe in love
Oh you can bet I believe it too

Now the feeling is beginning to grow
And the meaning is something you only know
If you believe it take my hand and Ill take your heart
Now Im wondering where does true love begin
Im going under so Im lettin you in
My woman (I dont wanna be lonely)
I wanna love you all over

Do you believe in love
Do you believe it true
Do you believe in love
Oh you can bet I believe it too

I use to have you in a photograph
(Im so glad its changed)
But now Ive got you and its gonna last
(do you believe in love)

Do you believe in love
Do you believe it true
Do you believe in love
Oh you can bet I believe it too

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:36 am

explaining the thread:

SOmeone jumped all over someone else for including a woman as part of his ideal. I then was getting to the point of whether that person valued the kind of love between a man and a woman. And I was starting at sex, the main issue between men and women. hence. " Do you masturbate?" Pay attention or the more competent will take your thread in an actual direction. Don't be scared.

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:48 am

.

millipodium writes:

SOmeone jumped all over someone else for including a woman as part of his ideal.

"including" women? I think not, and that was my point, for a thread asking after the ideal human society. "Jumped all over . . ." . . . oh fer shitsake. Whine to each other about this.

and

I then was getting to the point of whether that person valued the kind of love between a man and a woman.

You could have achieved this aim less obliquely.

millipodium, there is a vast empty desert of distance standing between a fellow wishing that "Girls would be available 24/7" and ideal love between men and women. There is a vacuum of space between men and women having sex in traditional sex/love relationships and men and women operating at agape-level love towards each other in life. The topic is "ideals," yes? BTW, I guess this means you are all for those sex-and-love relationships, in contradistinction to your forum hosts? Anyway, Carl explained and I gave him up easily.

Dan writes:

If a woman has said "boys 24/7" no-one would have batted an eyelid.

I doubt it, Dan. If so and if not, it'd be for the same reason. She's not conscious of / she's helpless to her biological "deficiencies."

. . . which also covers Carl.

Walk your talk. You are the fellows who find unconscious, biologically and constitutionally driven non-enlightened "deficiencies" (in women) so distasteful. When are you going to turn your bright forensic light onto men?

I left you a nice hit-list of items above so you could get started ;)

.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:08 am

Carl G wrote:There would be no need to work. Food would be tasty but not fattening. Girls would be available 24/7.

Pye wrote:"including" women? I think not, and that was my point,

Hmm, it seems to me he also included sloth and gluttony without reproach. Then again, all of those are considered feminine traits by the philosophy most touted on this board, and David went so far as to call traits like that "woman" - so I think I see a vocabulary problem on whether or not women were included or described in Carl's suggestion of ideal. Included would be the normal interpretation of the terms involved, but the touted philosophy uses convoluted definitions.

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:04 am

We seem to be getting back on track.
If I say anything stupid or wrong please correct me, as im sure you would, with or without my want.

This talk of women's problems and men's virtue may be included in the result of our little "think-tank", but, at least for the present, let's exclude it from means. I think a fusion of women and men is the only way to come up with a solution to a problem that affects both sexes.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:31 am

Transcendence of psychological gender is the solution.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:48 am

Dan Rowden wrote:Transcendence of psychological gender is the solution.

I agree. Like I said before:

In an ideal society, everyone would behave logically.

I have learned a lot about psychological gender since coming to this board, and the thoughts and behaviors attributed to either gender appear quite illogical (to me). Although some of the writings attribute such things as rationality only to men, I propose that such things as rationality, logic, and reason transcend gender.

Yes, a society based on logic, reason, and rationality would be ideal.

GENIUS FORUMS

Ideal

Ideal

Thanks Carl.

i get it

Really?

Re: Thanks Carl.

good.